We celebrate our 150th show with an interview with Spider-Man Editor Steve Wacker. Josh Bertone and Donovan Grant talked to him at San Diego and he had some interesting comments about his tenure. He reveals his hits and misses with the book. He also says a few controversial things about this website. I have a rebuttal at the end of the episode.
[powerpress]
Here is a link to our xml feed and you can subscribe to it here.
You can also subscribe to the show on itunes with this link.
Once you listen to the show please review it on this thread on our message board.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
@K-Box — Dittyo (well, except for the “I would vote for Obama” part).
“[…] when the President interjects he gets IP banned.”
No matter how nasty the things that have been said about either Bush or Obama as presidents, you know what they HAVEN’T done? Is go online to personally INSULT their critics on a one-on-one basis. Yes, they’ve used their OWN media channels to take pot-shots at critics, but I can guarantee you that, not ONCE during eight years of Bush or three years of Obama, did EITHER of those guys take the time to go on the comment threads of FOX News or the Daily Kos to get into slap-fights with online posters. The reasons for this are that a) they have MUCH bigger responsibilities than engaging in such flamewars, as does Wacker, who is the editor of SEVERAL books in Marvel’s line, many of which show evidence of having been edited in a careless fashion at best, and yet, he still somehow finds the time to go BACK to a site from which he’s been banned, TWICE, for refusing to follow the same code of conduct as EVERYONE ELSE, and b) if Bush or Obama HAD been dumb enough to behave like Wacker online, they WOULD have been called out on it, even by their SUPPORTERS.
“Among those allowed to comment on it is a member of congress who in the past has threaten violence on the President and another who cut up the Presidents book and mailed it back to him, bragging about how he would have thrown a brick through the white house window in his younger days.”
Well, you said that you’re not up to speed on the U.S. political system, and you just PROVED it here, because sitting members of Congress DO say worse things about incumbent presidents ALL THE TIME (well, maybe not SERIOUSLY threatening violence against him, but then again, your accusation that one of US has done so is OBJECTIVELY untrue, so that comparison is invalid). Basically, the more power you wield over others, the more that those “below” you in that hierarchy are not only PERMITTED to criticize you in the harshest of terms, but in fact are OBLIGATED to do so. Wacker is a managerial employee of one of the five largest multinational media corporations on EARTH, overseeing the production of an entire LINE of comics about iconic Marvel characters, and you’re complaining that WE, the mere CONSUMERS, hold TOO MUCH power over him in this relationship? That’s not just WRONG, that’s EVIL.
Here’s the deal; I VOTED for Obama, and I’ll do so again, but for as much as I hate FOX News, if they aired an interview with him online, and he actually SHOWED UP in the comments thread to act like Wacker did, even *I* would support the FOX News mods if they kick-banned him from the site, even though I’d likely AGREE with many of his objections, because when your job entails THAT scope of responsibilities, responding to unfavorable media in that fashion is simply STUPID.
@177
“Well done, now you can freely dodge any of my points as, “Well, I tried.””
On the contrary. I’ve always welcomed the opportunity to correct you on your points. No dodging necessary. If I wanted to dodge you I wouldn’t have responded in the first place.
“OK, I’m not up to speed on the US Political system but according to that post it must resemble this; The President makes a point, congress makes a counter point, then a website allows congress to write as many comments as they like but when the President interjects he gets IP banned. Among those allowed to comment on it is a member of congress who in the past has threaten violence on the President and another who cut up the Presidents book and mailed it back to him, bragging about how he would have thrown a brick through the white house window in his younger days.”
No the President makes a speech (a ‘point’) and then the opposition party gets to rebutt. It’s not always a member of our Congress. Sometimes it’s a state governor.
In this scenario ‘the President’s’ IP was banned months ago for breaking the boards rules – repeatedly and flagrantly. I know you’re familiar with the site’s rules Jack since you’ve gotten at least one warning there yourself for your past behavior back in April of last year. To date I think it’s the only warning Stella’s ever issued and it was prompted by you throwing out “F-ck this site.”
How quaint.
“Among those allowed to comment on it is a member of congress who in the past has threaten violence on the President and another who cut up the Presidents book and mailed it back to him, bragging about how he would have thrown a brick through the white house window in his younger days.”
No one “threatened violence” against him. That’s been proven wrong now, repeatedly.
Also, I did not “cut up” the book. I carefully removed and folded pages. I even posted pictures proving that on our message board. The head of Zeta himself admitted that it was “tastefully done.”
“Among those allowed to comment on it is a member of congress who in the past has threaten violence on the President and another who cut up the Presidents book and mailed it back to him, bragging about how he would have thrown a brick through the white house window in his younger days.”
As I pointed out to Wacker earlier, that was hyperbole. The same hyperbole he used when he said he “hated” me in the interview, which I didn’t actually believe. After all, he’d be the first one to say “Hey, everyone takes it too seriously!”
The only thing I’ve truly thrown in anger in my life was my own car keys. Which came back to haunt me because then I realized I would have to go and get them before driving anywhere or getting back into my apartment. Though there were some expletives involved, so you can accuse me of “angry white male” syndrome or something if you need to keep finding things to attack me for. 🙂
“You’re kidding right? You guys love defending the site, you actively search for reasons to defend the site. One guy said a bad thing about this site on CBR, one guy. And you guys posted it on your homepage acting as though the whole of CBR was attacking you. It was an invention to prove that you guys are the underdogs, the only site with the guts to stand up against the big bad creators.”
I wouldn’t call us ‘underdogs.’ We just speak our minds, good and bad, and don’t give writers, editors or artists free reign to hurl insults at our members, and vice versa. If writers, editors and artists need a platform that will allow them to say to their readers “Hey, go eff yourself”… well that’s readily available to them via Twitter and other comic sites that gladly allow it.
“@173 – I know trying to address this with you is pointless but I’ll give it a shot anyway.”
Well done, now you can freely dodge any of my points as, “Well, I tried.”
”
There was an interview. Things were said in that interview and a rebuttal was made. This is typically how it goes down. It’s Point/Counterpoint, not Point/Counterpoint/Back to Point.
When the President addresses Congress or speaks from the Oval Office, that’s followed by a rebuttal from the opposition party. When it’s over they don’t go right back to the President again.”
OK, I’m not up to speed on the US Political system but according to that post it must resemble this; The President makes a point, congress makes a counter point, then a website allows congress to write as many comments as they like but when the President interjects he gets IP banned. Among those allowed to comment on it is a member of congress who in the past has threaten violence on the President and another who cut up the Presidents book and mailed it back to him, bragging about how he would have thrown a brick through the white house window in his younger days.
Somehow I think that if the Presidents comments were taking out of context, like when you suggested the reason that Wacker doesn’t consider Carlie Peter’s best friend you told us that no one cared about this and Wacker knew it, that the President would find away to respond.
“Think before you snark, Jack. Easier? Right, right. Because we wanted to spend the better part of several days defending the site.”
You’re kidding right? You guys love defending the site, you actively search for reasons to defend the site. One guy said a bad thing about this site on CBR, one guy. And you guys posted it on your homepage acting as though the whole of CBR was attacking you. It was an invention to prove that you guys are the underdogs, the only site with the guts to stand up against the big bad creators.
@173 – I know trying to address this with you is pointless but I’ll give it a shot anyway.
“What is the point of having an interview with someone, discussing that person and not allowing him to defend himself?”
There was an interview. Things were said in that interview and a rebuttal was made. This is typically how it goes down. It’s Point/Counterpoint, not Point/Counterpoint/Back to Point.
When the President addresses Congress or speaks from the Oval Office, that’s followed by a rebuttal from the opposition party. When it’s over they don’t go right back to the President again.
“I guess it makes life easier.”
Think before you snark, Jack. Easier? Right, right. Because we wanted to spend the better part of several days defending the site. Besides, the person in question did get in to “defend” himself (well really more of just attacking & insulting us more right off the bat than “defending” himself) before an Admin could come in and enforce the ban that person earned months ago.
@171 – “I have NEVER looked forward to a podcast as much as I am this month’s! 😉
(Not that I don’t ALWAYS look forward to them, mind you…but THIS ONE? Oh-ho-ho! This one’s gonna be EPIC!)”
The next podcast(s) are already recorded. And they *are* epic. However they were recorded before this unfortunate episode and by the time next month’s podcasts get around to being recorded this probably won’t get discussed. Unless Brad demands it–! Heh.
Sorry you feel that way Jack but others have explained that’s not the case.
What is the point of having an interview with someone, discussing that person and not allowing him to defend himself?
I guess it makes life easier.
Next few have been recorded already last week. Our piece about Wacker and the interview was in this ep, so we’ve generally moved on to Spidey.
Don’t get your hopes up. I was thinking the same thing the last time this happened. They’ve got better things to do besides laying into him during a podcast.
@164 -(George Berryman)- :
“Brad Douglas thanks you for reminding him of that because he actually has believed he’s straight-up owned Spider-Man for the last decade. I will now tap him on his nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Bad Brad! Bad Bad Brad!”
That was easily the funniest thing I’ve read all day! XD
I want a reading of that on the next podcast!
Speaking of which, that’s a THIRD thing Mr Wacker accomplished…
I have NEVER looked forward to a podcast as much as I am this month’s! 😉
(Not that I don’t ALWAYS look forward to them, mind you…but THIS ONE? Oh-ho-ho! This one’s gonna be EPIC! 🙂 )
Mr Wacker has done TWO things through this thread:
A) Renew my faith in the AWESOMENESS that is George Berryman!
B) Generate interest in K-Box’s site. I’ve never visited it before (Sorry, K-Box 🙁 ), but after reading COMMENT #158, I’m DAMN sure interested in it now!
(I could actually hear the theme from “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly” as I read that!)
Thanks for the visit, Mr Wacker! 😉
“…Laurell K. Hamilton found that out the hard way when they tried to get negative reviews of their work erased from Amazon.com.”
Made me smile a little bit.
@#163
Am I actually being asked to *GASP!!!* refrain from unacceptable behavior and follow the rules and guidelines on this site? Why yes, I believe I am! And all I have to do to keep from getting a warning or ban is… *GASP AGAIN!!!!* refrain from unacceptable behavior and follow the rules and guidelines on this site! See how simple this is?
And they said that you guys simply catered to us naysayers, helping to promote negativity against all things Spider-Man.
“And as far as I can tell, the site, and its host are based here in the US. Freedom of Speech does apply. ”
Or even more importantly in this instance ‘Fair Use.’
Well said Brother Bear!
159: Wow. You are an AWESOME guy. This type of logic is what Media Matters wants to do to websites and or talk radio. You sit here and say that we, as a site, can’t criticize someone because of their behavior. We have rules, and when you sign up for the site, you say ‘I’ll abide by those rules’ Wacker was banned for repeatedly crossing the line. On the Message Board, Wacker’s account was deactivated, and he got three warnings to knock off the antagonizing posts.
If you want Disney/Marvel to shut us down, they’ll need a pretty strong case to do so. I don’t see Wacker wanting that. (He does like parts of the site, such as the daily strip.) I don’t see anyone, but YOU calling for that.
As for the images on ads. Most of those are not related to Marvel. In fact, most of those are places such as google, Amazon and MailOrder.
And as far as I can tell, the site, and its host are based here in the US. Freedom of Speech does apply.
Have a Nice Day,
-Zach Joiner
Administrator
@159…
“This is ridiculous. With both editor AND writer of ASM banned, Marvel should just shut this site down and be done with it.”
Well already your argument is moot since Dan Slott isn’t banned here. He’s got one warning for bad behavior but he was never banned. Both Slott’s warning and Wacker’s ban came from their blatant disregard for this site’s rules, which all community members are held to when they chose to post here. This site is not CBR; we’re not going to give writers & editors a pass for bad behavior directed at other members, and vice versa.
“And before people start throwing “freedom of speech” arguments at me, and claim that they have no right etc, I’ll just point out that Brad has a LOT of ads on this site. Essentially, he is profiting off of Spider-Man’s image and likeness, regardless of whether the money made goes to the site or not.”
Should Newsarama, CBR and a bazillion other sites that promote comics and run images of Marvel characters also be shut down for the same reason? Or just Crawl Space because you don’t like it? I mean if the “law” is to be applied fairly and all then they should go to, right?
Also – the Marvel editor in question has donated to the site before. He did so once before he was banned and he did so again after his banning, though that one was returned.
“That’s copyright infringement, and it’s illegal.”
It probably won’t change your mind any but you’re aware that they send press releases directly to us to post, right? With images? Surely you knew that.
No? You didn’t know that?
Well they do. Why? Because this site generates interest in and discussion of the books. This site promotes Spider-Man, Spider-Man comics, Spider-Man films, Spider-Man television projects, Spider-Man video games and licensed Spider-Man memorabilia every hour of the day.
“Brad, you should be grateful Marvel even let you run this site, you need to remember Spidey is THEIR character, not yours.”
Brad Douglas thanks you for reminding him of that because he actually has believed he’s straight-up owned Spider-Man for the last decade. I will now tap him on his nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Bad Brad! Bad Bad Brad!
@Engima,
I may not agree with what he said, but calling other posters names will get you a warning. Please refrain from it.
@Whistler,
Sorry you’re not digging the sites or our decisions regarding our more prestigious banned members. Although Slott isn’t banned. If you’d like to go to a forum where Wacker and Slott aren’t banned but actively participate, I point you to CBR’s forums. I hope you enjoy it there. If you like FIGHT CLUB, Newspaper strips, tirades against Betty or captions, you are more then welcome to stick around here….just refrain from calling Brad a thief. That type of stuff will cause problems down the line. By the way, as others have pointed out many sites use google ads for hosting and other stuff. BATMAN ON FILM uses ads and has copyrighted images and has been operating with WARNER BROS support for years. My friend Dustin who runs THE BATMAN UNIVERSE looked into the legalities about fan sites a while ago….as long as you never ASK for money regarding the copyrighted stuff you’re fine (altho I could be explaining this wrong).
So in closing…Enigma…don’t pay attention to the color of everyones nose 🙂
Whistler…enjoy the site or try another….tell us what you don’t like but within the rules and don’t call Brad a thief.
@#159
… could your nose be any BROWNER?
Basically, what it boils down to is this — if you tell stories, whether you’re an individual or a company, you have the right to try and sell those stories to an audience, but you have no right to try and control how that audience will react to those stories. Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton found that out the hard way when they tried to get negative reviews of their work erased from Amazon.com.
The same freedom that allows you to tell your stories is what allows other people to either praise or condemn those same stories. You CANNOT have one without the other. They are INDIVISIBLE.
“That’s copyright infringement, and it’s illegal.”
By that logic, any movie review site with ads could be shut down by the movie studios whose films are poorly reviewed by said site.
Suffice it to say that your argument is factually, legally and morally wrong, because you are saying that people have no right to disseminate criticism of corporate media through media channels themselves.
George Lucas cannot order the takedown of sites which proclaim that the Star Wars prequel trilogy sucks, nor can move studios demand that Roger Ebert’s site be shut down because he’s said harsh words about their output.
This is ridiculous. With both editor AND writer of ASM banned, Marvel should just shut this site down and be done with it. And before people start throwing “freedom of speech” arguments at me, and claim that they have no right etc, I’ll just point out that Brad has a LOT of ads on this site. Essentially, he is profiting off of Spider-Man’s image and likeness, regardless of whether the money made goes to the site or not. That’s copyright infringement, and it’s illegal. Brad, you should be grateful Marvel even let you run this site, you need to remember Spidey is THEIR character, not yours.
Stephen,
If you’re feeling slighted by not having a forum to voice your views — you know, aside from Comic Book Resources, Newsarama, USA Today, The New York Post and Marvel’s own website and books, just to name a few — I would once again extend my invitation to you to swing by my board.
Say the word, and I’ll devote a discussion post to giving you room to discuss the Amazing Spider-Man title, as well as Marvel’s interactions with fandom, with my “minority shield,” as you deemed them. I can guarantee they’ll be critical of you, but I’ll also make sure they don’t insult you.
I can see why you’ve so consistently declined this invitation of mine in the past, though. It takes away the one-sidedness if you don’t have forum mods protecting you in a discussion.
Except that’s not a fair assumption, regardless of whether you’re making it about being banned from here or I’m making it about you not taking me up on my invite. See how that works?
I look forward to your response in any event.
@#156
“I hope you’re not addressing me when you say “they” because I have not been verbally stringing anybody up and have refrained from posting on this thread because there’s no point to it.”
Then apparently I wasn’t talking about you, now was I?
@154… you won’t know until you try, let the admins ban him whenever he tries to sneak back in and just be done with it. I hope you’re not addressing me when you say “they” because I have not been verbally stringing anybody up and have refrained from posting on this thread because there’s no point to it. I have nothing but respect for Bertone and applaud him for getting this interview.
Moving on with life.
@ #150 AMFan15 wins the internets today!!! That literally made me laugh out loud! Well played Sir!
@#151 & #152
No it doesn’t… it just gets louder.
And Bertone, I have to ask a question… do you feel just a little hurt that they’re not trying to verbally string you up like they are Berryman?
Before this starts getting too emotional….regarding Steve…here is what you posters CAN discuss…
* You can discuss his interview and things related to it.
* You can discuss his tenure on the Spidey books on your opinion on his performances as Editor.
* You can discuss Steve’s front page posting and your opinions on WITHIN REASON. Make it about what’s doing here…not about who he is as a person or maturity.
Regarding the what can and can’t be said about Crawlspace…
People can give their opinions on the site if they’re bad. It’s all about how you say it. Saying you find the site negative won’t get you banned….it’ll start a debate though. Saying Brad is the scum of the Earth for posting an article will get you a warning…saying you don’t think he should have posted the article is safe….dig? Make sense?
Dissenters aren’t turned away. One of the very first things I did on the message board was tell Brad I loved the podcast but I had minor issues with some aspects of it. I wasn’t banned, I was made an Admin .
Same thing with “Amazing”….talk about Dan Slott was a writer, not Dan Slott’s looks (we banned someone for that).
Make sense?
When you hear the donkey bray, pay it no mind and it will go away.
@148… “Nobody started to dislike you until you started acting like an ***,”… is this ok because you use the phrase “acting like” and not directly calling him the name?
Maybe people should just try ignoring him instead of giving him what he wants…