AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #659
“Fantastic Voyage, Part 1 of 2”
Story: Dan Slott
Dialogue: Fred Van Lente
Penciler: Stefano Caselli
Inker: Stefano Caselli
Colorist: Marte Gracia
“Bug Time”
Writer: Dan Slott
Penciler: Barry Kitson
Inker: Barry Kitson
Colorist: Edgar Delgado
“Can’t Get the Service, Part Two”
Writer: Rob Williams
Penciler: Lee Garbett
Inker: Alejandro Sicat
Colorist: Fabio D’Auria
Cover Art: Stefano Caselli and Lorenzo de Felici
Be warned – there are SPOILERS ahead!
Dan Slott’s solo run on The Amazing Spider-Man continues … with another issue not actually written only by Slott.
The Plot
The Future Foundation travel to the center of the dimensional anomalies of the previous installment. Carlie Cooper does something impulsive to spite Peter. Hijinx ensue.
The Good
As per usual, the art of Stefano Caselli is a real treat. He has a genuine ability to draw faces and body language that convey the emotion of the characters succinctly. Combine that with his ability to draw kinetic action and simple, easy-to-follow panel layouts, and he’s rapidly becoming one of my favorite artists in comics. My only complaint – and it’s a minor one – is that he draws Sue with white eyes whenever she uses her powers. (Is this a thing now? Since when?)
The Bad
Unfortunately, the writing is nowhere NEAR the level of the artwork.
For starters, since when did this book turn from The Amazing Spider-Man to The Future Foundation and Their Annoying Brats, Featuring Spider-Man? He’s now a supporting character in his own goddamn title, and he’s only there to provide “humor” (I use the term lightly). Seriously, you can take Spidey out of the issue completely and hardly miss a beat. I would point out that this book has become a knockoff of Marvel Team-Up if Michael Bailey hadn’t already beat me to it. (Damn you, you handsome bastard.)
The story itself is gibberish. They travel to an island at the epicenter of some dimensional anomalies, engage in about 15 pages of pirate-related nonsense – about a month before Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides opens, which makes the conspiracy theorist in me wonder … Ben even makes a specific reference to Jack Sparrow, for shit’s sake – and then it’s revealed that the Sinister Six are behind it all. The cliffhanger involves the Six trying to look menacing while Mysterio is wearing a 1930s diving suit and Doctor Diaperpus is probably peeing himself. (What a brilliant master plan! Why hasn’t a supervillain ever thought to lure the heroes into a cave and beat them up? Brilliant, I say!) Needless to say, it’s as disposable as the toilet paper that I will inevitably use this issue as a substitute for. Van Lente’s script is clichéd and poorly written. Spider-Man actually uses “ZOMG!” as dialogue at one point, every pirate joke imaginable is brought up and then driven into the ground, and everybody is wavering about in characterization so far from the established norm that they’re practically interchangeable. This is probably the most annoying non-Deadpool comic book that I have ever read in my life, and I’ve read Get Kraven. The general incompetence of the writing of this issue was so shocking to my system that I actually had to read a few pages of Maximum Clonage: Omega to cleanse the palette.
The less said about the backups, the better. The first one is a two-page teaser to tell us that the Jackal is back and experimenting on the populace with superbugs, most of which we already knew or directly inferred from Marvel’s own teaser images. The second one is the continuation of the crappy Ghost Rider team-up (again with the goddamn Marvel Team Up nonsense … this one even has “Marvel Team-Up” AT THE TOP OF THE SPLASH PAGE) from last issue. Don’t waste your time.
The Ugly
To quote Harry Osborn from Spider-Man 3: you knew this was coming, Pete.
This is so preposterously stupid that I can’t even formulate the words to describe it properly. Thankfully, K-Box already did it for me, so I’ll just go ahead and tell you what he said.
WHY is this scene so very bad?
The following facts are widespread public knowledge among the civilian populace of the 616 Marvel Universe:
- Norman Osborn is the Green Goblin.
- Norman Osborn tried to take over America.
- The Green Goblin is Spider-Man’s arch-enemy.
- The Green Goblin killed Gwen Stacy.
- Green Goblin tattoos have become synonymous with support for not only Norman Osborn, but also a white nationalist agenda (as explicitly stated by Dan Slott, the same writer who wrote this scene, in a previous issue of the same title in which this scene appears).
The following facts have been established in canon about Carlie Cooper, without any ambiguity:
- Carlie Cooper was Gwen Stacy’s best friend when they were growing up.
- Carlie Cooper was one of Harry Osborn’s best friends when “Brand New Day” started.
- Carlie Cooper considers Spider-Man to be one of her few remaining friends.
From these on-panel facts, the following conclusions can be safely inferred:
- Carlie Cooper knows that Gwen Stacy was Peter Parker’s girlfriend.
- Carlie Cooper knows that Norman Osborn was an abusive father toward Harry Osborn.
So, what this necessarily means is that, out of a desire to “get back at” her boyfriend, Carlie Cooper decided to get a tattoo symbolizing the man whom she knows:
- Killed her boyfriend’s former girlfriend.
- Killed her own childhood best friend.
- Was an abusive father to another one of her best friends.
- Has repeatedly tried to kill the superhero whom she considers one of her few remaining friends.
- Tried to take over America.
- Has become a symbol, in turn, of a white nationalist agenda.
Not that any of this matters, of course, because inevitably we’ll find out that she wasn’t drunk at all, and that somehow this revelation is an improvement.
The Bottom Line
This issue is like taking a double-barreled shotgun blast of stupid right to the face. 0 out of 5 webheads.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
“Though Stillanerd as has said worse about Dan over the years”
I’d love to see that cause I absolutely don’t believe it. I’ve seen him posting for at least four years now and he’s always level headed and civil. Even when someone’s tearing into him.
“Unfortunately I can only control myself …and George Berryman. (George, pull the car around please.)”
If that makes me Rochester as opposed to Jack Benny, I’m actually fine with that. Rochester was the smarter one.
Nice response, BD.
Couple things…
-No one has argued about Gerard or anyone else’s “right” to say what they want. That’s a ludicrous POV that gets put into mouth, though I never actually say it or think it. People seem very sensitive about their right to speak about comics being taken away, but I’ve never actually seen it happen.
-I agree Gerard–or any reviewer–should write up their own reasoning before leaning on someone else’s thinking and linking to a page that already had such outrageous and vile accusations on the exact same page.
-I do chime in on positive things on the site, but I take positive reviews with the same grain of salt I take negative ones….which is to say not much. I also think it’s pretty lame for anyone to go to a positive review and say “thanks”. That may be “old school” review ethics talking though. I’m old fashioned.
-You are somewhat misinformed about the UPC stuff. The issue wasn’t if the placement was correct or even “good”. I would never argue someone’s opinion like that. The debate (such as it was) was about the ridiculously ill-informed over the top sentiment about how dumb we all are at Marvel for ruining Marcos’ cover…when in fact the cover was exactly as Marcos as requested.
It’s my opinion, but you might do better with a reviewer who brough a smidge more maturity or experience to the table and who didn’t make such crazy declarations about the people involved without questioning whether or not what he says might be accurate. And even in being mistaken, he took a oddly atagonistic, holier-than-thou attitude as if his being incorrect was a problem of my doing.
However, it’s your site and I know being controversial gets you conversation…which I delivered on!
-Though Stillanerd as has said worse about Dan over the years (though much more passive-aggressively and rarely to Dans “face”), I agree with your last point and would love it if Slott —and many people here —would stay off the internet.
Unfortunately I can only control myself …and George Berryman. (George, pull the car around please.)
SW
Mr. Wacker, I think there’s a difference between being angered by the book’s content and being angered by the actions, online or otherwise of those behind the content. For instance, I am not thrilled with how DC is treating Kyle Rayner and Wally West, but I am still reading Flash and Green Lantern.
I share your iConniptions. stupid auto-correct!
“BD…
I know you’re making a joke, but if I had published Dan’s comments in the Spidey book, you’d have a stronger and salient point. The Crawlspace -by definition- published and I assume stands behind what Gerard posts on your front page.
Curious though, how do feel about the KBox comments I posted that were linked to in the review?
Do you agree I’m “morally defective” and “divorced from reality”?
SW”
Steve,
To address your first post about the Crawlspace standing behind the review. I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet however I stand behind Gerard’s right to voice his two cents. If you listen to the podcast you’ll hear my opinion on the book. Every month the reviews are all over the board ranging from A-F. We have several voices on the front page and we hardly ever agree on anything.
I don’t agree with K-Box’s personal attacks on you and Slott on that Live Journal website.
I think people get way too worked up and should critique the work not the person. However I did think the section that Gerard cut and pasted with the line-by-line of why Carlie was written so out of character was pretty witty. K-Box’s problem was that it was so over shadowed by his personal attacks on the creators.
I do have several regrets over this whole mess.
1) I wish Gerard would have thought up his own witty list of out of character Carlie traits and posted it on this review. Thus not giving any extra traffic to that site.
2) I wish you and Slott would chime in on positive things of the site. For instance Gerard’s last review gave the book a five out of five, a perfect rating. However you two fought over the placement of the bar code box. If you want to be a part of this community and interact don’t come in with boxing gloves. It’s a two way street and just enrages the fans even more.
3) I wish Slott had stuck to his new years resolution of staying off of message boards. The way he talked to Stillanerd was awful.
#144: “I’m arrows”? I must be drunk.
it was supposed to read “it’s something”. This iPad keyboard gives me conniptions.
SW
BD…
I know you’re making a joke, but if I had published Dan’s comments in the Spidey book, you’d have a stronger and salient point. The Crawlspace -by definition- published and I assume stands behind what Gerard posts on your front page.
Curious though, how do feel about the KBox comments I posted that were linked to in the review?
Do you agree I’m “morally defective” and “divorced from reality”?
SW
Javi, I contend it’s not a good idea for anyone to live their life in hiding and i’m not a huge proponent of blaming the victim either. We may just disagree on that fundamental idea.
Certainly the level of discourse here by some shouldn’t send me running away in fear of the far too easily offended. That’s a coward’s way out. I know their are people here with over the top levels f hate for me and my comics, but I’m arrows marvels been dealing with that for 50 years. I mean even Mary Jane herself was an “editorially mandated” character that angered some of the readership at the time.
The anger means were doing something right.
SW
Steve,
Gerard and Persisn are both freelance writers and don’t represent Marv… I mean the Crawlspace. I’m sure you understand , sort of.
BD
Folks, don’t throw your posting rights away because of this guy. He’s just not worth it.
… invited? Well that settles that. This is all YOUR fault, Daniel.
The level of snide comments from Marvel staff do a great job of keeping me from buying any of their products, even from the dollar back issue bins. Very sad. Do some fans take their dislike to far? Yes. Despite that, I don’t think those that are working on the books should stir up this dislike further as it doesn’t make any business sense, for starters.
If you really “sorry” to see someone go who says something like that (after I was invited into the conversation by one of your members), I say give another chance. Not as if it’s a surprising response.
Or maybe he could just write his damnation of me on a blog and you can just link to it!
Take it easy….I’m joking.
…sort of.
Sw
Sorry to see ya go Persian, but you knew what you were doing. Peace out. You’re banned.
Uh huh
“I might get banned for this.”
Yup. Buh bye!
i might get banned from this site 4ever Mr. Whacker, but i am so mad at u i am gonna say it:
“I hate your guts. go to hell”
I just read this comic and I gotta say that it is atrocious esp. that particular scene with the Goblin tattoo! Where were u Mr. Whacker when this was being planned by your writers? I hold you responsible. First the sex scenes involving Aunt May, Peter and his roommate then the Peter’s drinking scene and Chameleon’s rape of the said roommate or recent farting gags and now this? Do you get your pleasure from insulting the fans who love this character? Can you sleep soundly at night?
well i finally read this review… like an hour ago. If I wasn’t tired enough to fall asleep when I started the review, I certainly am now after getting to the bottom of all these comments. There hasn’t been one bit of information relevant to the comic since like comment number 5. The back and forth with Steve and some of the commentators here is funny from time to time but this one just completely jumped the shark. I’m kind of thankful my reviews don’t get blown up like this because it makes finding the actual, useful feedback and commentary hard to find. No offense to Steve or George, but it seems neither of you are willing to see the others point of view and in the meantime you’re just distracting from the point of a review. An open, and hopefully intellectual, discussion of the issue and review. I don’t agree with the what is said at that linked site by any means, but I didn’t waste any time by going there. Just because something is linked doesn’t mean I have to mindless follow it and read what’s there. I can understand Steve’s worry that some people may though, but I didn’t take the quote as a full endorsement of that website.
As far as the comic goes, I was pretty meh on it. The Pirates of the Caribbean references were a little distracting and I didn’t like the kids running around either. It helped reaffirm my decision to not pick up the FF title. Not because that title isn’t good, in fact from what I’ve heard and read on this site, it sounds very good. Its just the whole dimensional gateways and science team stories don’t appeal to me and I don’t think my simple, non-sciencey brain could handle all the Reed Richards talk. The tattoo is in poor taste but I’m not worked up over it just yet.
I will say though, I found Steve’s link to that video “Don’t be a dick about things you don’t like” pretty funny.
What Don said. Times 1000.
@91 Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin got some good reviews too:
http://www.lariat.org/AtTheMovies/old/batrobin.html
http://www.lytrules.com/blog/index.php?p=1159
http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/batman-film-review.html
Do a few good reviews make Batman and Robin a good movie? No. Given that, I hope you don’t mean to say that a smattering of good reviews make ASM #659 a good comic.
It’s just a comic book.
Thanks for giving me “a pass” Gerard, but I don’t need it. I disagreed with your review of the issue, and it seems we disagree on what makes a good review. While I’ve read past reviews from you where you’ve given praise, you write those reviews differently – with general respect and excitement for the issue. However, when an issue comes out that you don’t like you become an angry, sarcastic critic that rants as if Marvel has stolen your childhood.
Comments like:
“This issue is like taking a double-barreled shotgun blast of stupid right to the face.”
“Needless to say, it’s as disposable as the toilet paper that I will inevitably use this issue as a substitute for.”
I get that you’re trying to be funny, but it’s shock-jock talk that I feel diminishes the review. You’re free to write these reviews whatever way you want, but if you feel my comments towards them “suck”, then so be it.
SW: Crawl Space has done something Bad.
GB: What Bad has Crawl Space done?
SW: Crawl Space has been saying Bad things.
GB: What Bad things have Crawl Space said?
SW: Crawl Space has used something from a site that has said lots of Bad things towards me and Marvel.
(That is as far as I’ve understood it, and there is probably lots of holes. Please correct and fill in the rest, so as to get some structure to what arguement is about).
~Epidot
…Yes.
Hey, here is an idea. Everyone should speak to oneanother like they were talking to an idiot. That means, talk slowly, in plain words.
“There’s no obfuscation here. You said that by having a review that quotes something and linking to it that we’re approving of/agreeing with everything said there. That’s absolutely not the case. A quote was used, a source was cited.”
George, I clearly did not say that…I’ve corrected you several times now, so I can only figure that you don’t care about the correction. After all, you know what I REALLY think.
Again, though, I am speaking exclusively about the comments and commentor I mentioned (Not “everything on the internet” as you keep trying to sneak in there. That would be as crazy as expecting me to tell freelancers how to run their lives).
Your reviewer Gerard linked to and endorsed Box’s review and shined a spotlight on the further hateful stuff Box also said on the exact same page. Box treads lighter here on your site becasue he has to, but you clearly have no problem with steering readers to his certainly over the top — and sometimes violent– suggestions about the people on the book. To pretend there is some equivalency with Dan telling a fan off (and later apologzing) is deceitful at best.
Sorry you feel disrespected. But you are willfully ignoring years of me reaching out and talking to fans about hundreds of topics to focus on some teasing after vehement declarations about my life and career were made (I even made a call to your podcast at one point, no? So spare the repetitive passively aggressive “waah…you hate Crawlspace” sensitivity). I still talk to fans regularly. It’s the best perk of the job and I’m pretty good at it. I doubt you speak for as many of the fans as much you seem to wish. You’re in contact with very few of them.
I know you’re reaching for some sort “but–but you did it first!!”, but never fear, I stand by “pearl clutchers”.
It’s funny for one thing…and a perfect term for people who get their knickers in a hateful twist over a comic creator or editor saying something controversial like “Peter Parker is an Everyman”..
I doubt you are really as sensitive as you are pretending to be. You wanted to work in comics at one point, so i assume you have some sense of humor somewhere beneath the cowboy costume.
Anyway i assume the typing has already started. Do people even read this far?
SW
I thought the part where Slott tells him to apologize for wrong predicitions was hysterical. I suppose he also demands the same of the local weather forecaster!
There’s no obfuscation here. You said that by having a review that quotes something and linking to it that we’re approving of/agreeing with everything said there. That’s absolutely not the case. A quote was used, a source was cited.
“Pearl Clutchers” (and yes I know it’s a reference to old ladies) is not the same as what was posted there, you’re right. What I *am* pointing out is that there’s been disrespect (‘tweaking’ as you called it) going both ways. Marvel perpetuates that disrespect the same as those making the comments you’re taking offense to. It started under Jemas. Sadly it didn’t leave with Jemas.
If K-Box was selling you a product that you liked, then suddenly had problems with, and then he told you “Hey, go eff yourself” when you voiced that complaint, hey – then it’d be news.
George…you are obfuscating again. The error in your analogy is that I dont hold the Crawlspacers responsible for everything said at the other site. You just keep claiming I do.
I’m specifically talking about the vile comments by one member quoted in the review and has taken part in this thread.
You keep making the false equivalency that calling some people here pearl clutchers is the same as suggesting someone be “punched in the mouth” or that they’re “evil or that they’re “lying sacks of shit”. That’s cartoonish logic.
It’s a real shame you aren’t on as big a tirade about Boxs comments as you are about Dan’s…but you guys get to control what links allow and what you make a headline out of….however inconsistent your standards are.
SW
I’m not that incensed about ‘pearl clutchers.’ Just pointing out that you can’t have a double standard on disrespect, trying to marginalize others who don’t agree with you and namecalling while getting upset when it gets aimed back at you.
“I know it doesnt help the point your hoping to make, but I have no problem with the normal run of the mill teasing and tweaking. I’m talking about stuff beyond the pale linked to in the review and therefor endorsed by the website. Did Marvel link to Dans comments? Of course not.”
No but Marvel’s linked to CBR before, where the comments were made. By your rationale here, Steve, Marvel is therefore agreeing and approving of everything and anything ever said in the comments at CBR. I’m not saying that’s the case; I know that if Marvel links to a site running a bit of news that it’s not rubber stamping its approval of anything made in the comments those sites. The same applies here. He used a quote on a specific point and linked to site the source. That’s all.
We’ve sometimes run links to Aint It Cool News articles here before. Ever seen those Talk Backs? Does that mean you’d blame us for everything said in an AICN Talk Back that’s connected to a news bit we link to from here?
“And no I’d didn’t agree with Dan telling the guy to F off. I said so at the time on this site. You just need to keep ignoring it for some reason.”
I’m not ignoring it and I’m glad for your candor and honesty. Here’s some of those “respect points” you disdain. 🙂
You are hung up on “pearl clutchers”. It’s an old phrase that may not mean what you think since it’s nothing at all compared to what I quoted above.
I know it doesnt help the point your hoping to make, but I have no problem with the normal run of the mill teasing and tweaking. I’m talking about stuff beyond the pale linked to in the review and therefor endorsed by the website. Did Marvel link to Dans comments? Of course not.
If you really were that angry about “pearl clutchers,” you’d be incensed at what Gerard linked too..but we both know you’re only pretending (though you can’t admit it and risk losing face here)
And no I’d didn’t agree with Dan telling the guy to F off. I said so at the time on this site. You just need to keep ignoring it for some reason.
SW
“Keep in mind they have to come close to what I posted above broom the Box Man. I’m unaware of anything like that. And let’s be honest, you are too. I don’t usually suggest people I don’t know who make comics are monsters.”
You’re saying that even you haven’t been name calling in your time as Spider-Editor? The guy who gave us “pear clutchers?” It’s disrespect all the same, Steve.
“I guess Dan telling the guy to F off is what you are trying to compare this to, but I said clearly and often I thought that was wrong…though I understood why Dan said it given the context. I’m unaware of me linking to it or standing behind it though, so again, this is a false equivalency.”
But did you agree with it? That’s a fair question; you asked the same of me and I answered.
“The other big difference is that Dan apologized. I can’t fathom Gerard or the other guy doing it.”
What does Gerard need to apologize here for? Was the quote he used not accurate? And “the other guy” is someone else at a completely different site, Steve. We don’t pay them; it’s not the same relationship as a Marvel editor and his head writer.
“But then Dan’s got less riding on some “internet tough guy” persona.”
Those CBR links above say different. He’s Mr. Tough Guy, right down to the repeated bursts of all caps. Heh.
Ha, George, it’s as if you’re the worlds most obvious lawyer…the number of outs you give yourself in the way you phrase your response is amazing. I didn’t ask if you agreed with everything said on the internet. Just these comments I quoted.
I think it’s great if you sincerely disagree with the comments KBox made…however that does then put you in another category as he has suggested that the people who don’t agree with about Marvel are just as bad as we are…and possibly just like a Nazi sympathize or some such (like i said, it’s all pretty distasteful.). I hope your relationship with him can weather that storm.
I answered the dan comments earlier. It’s the textbook definition of a false equivalency, but in understand you’re grasping for anything at this point.
And as Ive said a million times, I’d be thrilled if Dan…and every creator…stayed off the Internet. Your attempt to trap me on that silliness shows how much you’re boxing with shadows.
SW
What vile comments from my employees?
Keep in mind they have to come close to what I posted above broom the Box Man. I’m unaware of anything like that. And let’s be honest, you are too. I don’t usually suggest people I don’t know who make comics are monsters.
I guess Dan telling the guy to F off is what you are trying to compare this to, but I said clearly and often I thought that was wrong…though I understood why Dan said it given the context. I’m unaware of me linking to it or standing behind it though, so again, this is a false equivalency.
The other big difference is that Dan apologized. I can’t fathom Gerard or the other guy doing it. But then Dan’s got less riding on some “internet tough guy” persona.
sw
SW
““respect points”? Seriously? I think ill be okay without them what with being an adult. Tacit approval for those comments is exactly what you’re giving. You should be proud. Again this is not about random comments from other people, it’s about the full context of the review linked. Same guy quoted expanding his apparent hatred.”
You can ignore the earlier times I said that I didn’t approve of them, when I have – several times.
“I like this site overall”
LOL!! I’m calling “bullshit” here.
“but some of you really cast a shadow over this that is pretty inescapable. Just curious…and you may not want to answer…but you keep saying you don’t “approve” of the comments quote…but do you agree?”
Actually – I did say that in #79 above when I said “So no, I don’t agree with every bit of rhetoric that gets bandied around out there on the Interwebs. I don’t like whats been done to my favorite character but I don’t go around saying someone should kick you in the junk for it and wouldn’t agree if someone else said that. Especially not when there’s so, so many legitimate points of criticism to be made, rightfully so, about what’s happening with the books right now.”
Thought I’d been pretty clear when I’d said that. No Stephen, I don’t agree with it either. For the 800th time here it was over the top.
Now back to you. You approve of Dan Slott telling readers to go eff themselves? What about the repeated “you suck!” aimed at someone who was being civil with him?
We eagerly await, finally, your honesty on that matter.
@116-“Just curious…and you may not want to answer…but you keep saying you don’t “approve” of the comments quote…but do you agree?”
Isn’t it strange that YOU are asking US this question, even though you have yet to answer the very same question? We’ve asked numerous times whether you support the vile comments some of your employees have made, some of which are linked to in this very thread, but we’ve yet to receive a straight answer. So how about it, Steve? We’ll answer your question as soon as you answer ours! (So…I guess that’ll be never then, huh?)
Correction…I meant that tacit approval is what this site is giving by linkage to them.
“respect points”? Seriously? I think ill be okay without them what with being an adult.
Tacit approval for those comments is exactly what you’re giving. You should be proud. Again this is not about random comments from other people, it’s about the full context of the review linked. Same guy quoted expanding his apparent hatred.
I like this site overall but some of you really cast a shadow over this that is pretty inescapable.
Just curious…and you may not want to answer…but you keep saying you don’t “approve” of the comments quote…but do you agree?
SW
Maybe we should move this conversation to the Venom review. I’d like one of my reviews to get 100+ comments for once.
My God, you people are still jabbering on about this? 😆
Fine Steve, if you want a statement, here it is:
____________________________________________________
I don’t have a problem with your posts in general. Not at all. Just that the ones that’ve been CHRONICALLY WRONG since I started in 2010 be held to… well… a proven standard of SUCKING. Really, really, really SUCKING. MASSIVE SUCKAGE. They should wear a hat saying “All My Comments SUCK. A lot! Really!”
You, JGC, get a pass. You’re new ’round these parts.
Steve doesn’t. Because he has a long earned, proven track record of SUCKING.
Wait. I want to say SUCK again.
SUCK.
There. Out of my system.
(But seriously, your comments suck.)
____________________________________________________
GD
“I dont hold you responsible for what others write….thats your routine you pull with me. I agree itd be asinine.”
Well there’s a difference. That livejournal site’s not made up of people working for Crawl Space in any capacity or officially representing the site. You can skirt around it and give it “tacit approval” or you can admonish it and maybe show some of your detractors that you recognize the problem’s a two way street. I think you’d actually win some respect points for it.
“I’m suggesting you approve of those comments –by the EXACT SAME person being quoted, not some random poster– being linked to in the official review. They are and you do.”
It’s someone citing a source for something quoted in a review. I’ve already said I don’t approve of the comments – several times now in fact. I have nothing against him quoting the bit about ‘perfect’ Carlie here since that specific quote is accurate in its assessment.
“I know you always love to reach for your phony “tough guy” schtick when cornered, but if the roles were reversed, you be the loudest guy crying about the injustice of it all. Be a healer and spare me the “I’m not gonna say this again” routine.”
First off – how am I cornered on anything? You’re “cornering” me with something other people not connected to this site say? Am I getting that right? And how am I using a “tough guy” schtick here? I’ve been up front and civil in this. If pointing our your double standard on outrage here makes me a “tough guy,” then sure I guess I’m guilty then.
While I personally don’t agree with some of the more personal comments K-Box has made towards MARVEL, when it comes to quoting a source one should always provide some kind of credit to it, regardless of their opinion on the author, if they want to be taken seriously as a professional. They may not have openly stated if they agree with K-Box’s other views but someone shouldn’t have to, that’s not the point of using a quote. In fact, considering how unprofessional the majority of the internet is (comments and information are often taken verbatim without any credit whatsoever), the fact he even considered it shows this site is professional enough, regardless of the view point given. If you disagree with that or what us to directly state “although we are crediting the source of the quote we used in this article, we do not endorse their views” in tiny print under it, then just outright state it.
Speaking of which, if you didn’t know what the outcome of happens in 660, how would you feel about the whole “Green Goblin tattoo” issue? Would you feel safe selling a book, aimed at children mind, that only endorses a character who gets drunk and getting a tattoo just to spite her boyfriend but a tattoo that carries the significant meaning of a known murderer and cult leader? While things may turn out fine in the end, as I’m sure they will, couldn’t this have been established without portraying Carlie as a pathetic and deranged psycho? You may just see our complainants as over the top but, considering how ‘perfect’ Carlie is, she isn’t being set up as a good role model for younger female readers. Sure Mary Jane wasn’t what you could call a role model either but people have a lot of respect for in both fandom and pop culture. It’s great that Dan wanted to add a fault to the character but it comes off as… kind of insulting to say the least.
I dont hold you responsible for what others write….thats your routine you pull with me. I agree itd be asinine.
I’m suggesting you approve of those comments –by the EXACT SAME person being quoted, not some random poster– being linked to in the official review. They are and you do.
I know you always love to reach for your phony “tough guy” schtick when cornered, but if the roles were reversed, you be the loudest guy crying about the injustice of it all. Be a healer and spare me the “I’m not gonna say this again” routine.
SW
“My supposition is that for the most part the mods here tacitly approve the over the top hateful comments my KBox linked to in the review. They just can’t come out and say it. After all comic pros aren’t REALLY people…they’re “morally challenged” folks who hate the country (to sum up the responses linked to above)”
Right. I guess that’s why we never moderate the discussion here when people start insulting each other? Oh wait – we do that. I’ve already said the comments over there were over the top. I’ll say it again so you can see it, and I’ll use big boy letters like Slott does, Stephen: THOSE COMMENTS AT ANOTHER SITE WERE OVER THE TOP.
That’s also the last time I’ll repeat that. I’ve made it obvious by now.
Stop posting comments from another site and blaming us for them. That’s asinine. We didn’t make those comments. We wouldn’t let that type of insulting fly like that here; we’re not CBR.
But hey since you brought ‘tacit approval,’ I’ll point this out. stillanerd’s one of the most even keel posters around. He doesn’t go off the hinge on people, he doesn’t insult anyone, and hell I can’t even remember a time when he’s ever even gotten legitimately mad at anyone for anything. Like any reader he tries to put dots together and predict stuff that might happen. I’ve seen you after him here and he’s entirely respectful. He may not agree with you on a lot of things but he’s always willing to respectfully discuss the character and the stories. So since you won’t talk about that and you just want to sit back and accuse us here at the Crawl Space of agreeing with comments made at a completely different site (which we don’t) then I’ll accuse you ‘tacitly approval’ every time Slott screams at a fan about how they suck, or SUCK, or says “Hey go eff yourself.”
Or do you not approve of that? Cause again Stephen this is all a two way street. Here’s your chance to reach out and be a healer, Spider-Editor.
Why do you people even bother? Neither of you are going to convince oneanother that any side of the matter has done anything wrong. Stephen Wacker argues that this site have had comments that are dissrespectfull, which on an open forum is impossible to stop completely. The mods here argues that Wacker is on a witch hunt, trying to dirty up this site’s reputation as much as possible (which again is easy to believe). Mr. Wacker, I am biast in this debate, but for this conversation to go anywhere, you need to start facing the quesitons, without using other questions. This is what makes political debates so unbearable anoying (and drives the voting down). The mods here also needs to face facts, that people that post here not always post the most respectful things about the people that work at Marvel. Isn’t it easier to say that, yes, that reviewer dosn’t like the story/writing/art/content in those issues…and he could probably have said so with gentle and professional words, so not to bring sales down…but what is to say that the reviewer has not lost patience with the comics. He/she still loves the character, it is just the current writing that is bothering him/her.
Oh, that was a rant. Sorry about that. Anyway, mr. Wacker, please stop accusing the CS mods for changing the subject, as you are constantly doing the same thing by not responding to any of the questions that are thrown your way. You don’t need to respond to this (because I am not going to reply back anyway), so diverting anything said here with fancy retorics wont work (I hate retorics…in the wrong mouths, one could make me dance on tables, thinking it a good idea at the time as well). Just know, Wacker and mods alike, that question on question don’t convince anyone. Answers does.
AmFan:
On the subject of letter columns…you’re looking through rose colored spectacles a bit since they would often get contentious between fan and editor. That debate is what made them so poular.
Plus the difference betwen then and now is that back in the day you got pid for letter columns. that’s not true anymore (at least at Marvel.).
I do 3-4 of them a month for free…i guess proving how much I hate fans. (Yes, I am awesome– in case that’s what you were thinking.)
SW
Daylight is the best disinfectant.
So to put the linked to review in context, I’m Curious…do you folks agree with Box’s assesment of the comic and it’s creators below: (all from the above link)…(and tell me again how much you loath personal attacks NO MATTER where they occur):
“Slut-shaming misogyny from a member of the same “brain trust” that gave us Michele Gonzales? Surely you jest!”
“I’m amazed at how many people are missing this point. Then again, I suppose that’s what allowed Mel Gibson to get away with his initial burst of Jew-hating comments, since people apparently believed that anti-Semitism is just a spontaneous side-effect of sufficient inebriation. And while I might friends-lock some posts, I refuse to let this dickbag drive me into hiding on my own blog.”
“People like him are one of the few reasons I would ever consider instituting a compulsory military draft, simply because I would pay money to see him cop this kind of entitled attitude with a drill instructor.”
“Seriously. How did this simple fact not occur to anyone in Marvel editorial? Were they all born without functioning human souls?”
“…YOU FUCKED UP, you stupid fucking hack.”
“Yeah, it’s seriously disturbing how much these writers’ stories reveal about how morally defective and divorced from reality they are in real life.”
“Past a certain point, I actually do believe that telling stories that are bad enough is MORALLY wrong.”
“To paraphrase Jon Stewart regarding Dick Morris: “In Dan Slott’s defense, he IS a lying sack of shit.”
“And yet, as my second post on this subject shows, Marvel editorial is so morally defective in real life that they claim to believe that Carlie is doing absolutely nothing wrong here.”
And that was with 30 seconds of looking.
SW
What some of you just witnessed was a sleight of hand where George and crew changed the conversation to something else.
My supposition is that for the most part the mods here tacitly approve the over the top hateful comments my KBox linked to in the review. They just can’t come out and say it. After all comic pros aren’t REALLY people…they’re “morally challenged” folks who hate the country (to sum up the responses linked to above)
Some of you guys are pretty far gone and I think it’s too bad.
Again were making comics not throwing them at you.
SW
I clicked on those links, and, wow, K-Box gets way too worked up about comic books
The thing I’ve noticed in reading Stillanerd’s posts in the past, is that although his predictions may not always come true (and whose do?), they are always very well thought out, and are presented in a respectful manner.
(As opposed to the responses he receives from certain Marvel employees…Seriously, was there any need to not only attack him PERSONALLY like that, but to repeatedly slam the point across by saying the same thing 8 TIMES in one post?)
And as for the remarks on some of the comments on K-Box’s site, here’s the thing: They weren’t made HERE. Thus, this site, and it’s mods, members, and contributors CAN NOT be held accountable. The only post Gerard used in his review was a very well thought out and accurate list by K-Box of all the reasons that Carllie was at fault for even CONSIDERING getting the Goblin tattoo. I saw absolutely nothing disrespectful or out-of-line in it at all. No one was attacked, and no insults were thrown. So where’s the harm?
There’s a reason I loved Marvel Comics so much when I was a kid. I used to enjoy not only reading the comics they produced, but I also loved to read the letters columns, to hear what Stan “The Man” Lee and his crew had to say. They always had such style, and seemed so friendly to their readers (Yes, even the ones who didn’t agree with them), and genuinely seemed to care. Oh, how I loved nothing more than to give that company my hard earned money every week. Because I knew that, no matter how goofy the story may be (Aunt May marrying Doc Ock; Spider-Mobile; Hypno-Hustler), I’d always enjoy them: whether it be excitement over the good stories, or laughing at the bad ones. And besides, my money was going to people who I felt actually cared…not only about the money, or about the company, but about the reader as well.
Oh, how times have changed…
-“With Great Power, There Must Also Come Great Responsibility”-
Wow. I shouldn’t be surprised by anything Dan Slott says anymore, but telling someone he has “a proven track record of sucking”?
But still, I think saying he should get “punched in the face” or whatever is still too far.
I just don’t get Marvel’s attitude towards fans anymore. Maybe I’m wrong but there just seems to be a lot of antagonism going on and I just can’t understand it especially in such a niche market as comics is now. I mean there are always going to be extreme people on both sides but there’s no need for all the antagonizing from the professional side… it only makes the extremely mad fans madder. Thanks for the review Gerard. I appreciate the work you put into it.
Good Grief.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13038828&postcount=118
And that’s how he reacts to someone who doesn’t throw out insults at people (i.e. stillanerd)
Par for the course with him and that’s just sad. And yeah that makes it easier to see why K-Box said that. Not condoning it but yeah I get it. That’s just amazing.