Fans upset over Spider-Man torture fiasco; Marvel defends

67 Comments

1. @#49

   Ahhh, there it is… someone finally did.

2. … Physical torture in ASM…? How long have I been gone? From comics? From the Crawlspace? Well I guess it’s best to announce my triumphant return first but… it’s getting late. Let’s see what tomorrow holds.

   ~Lament~

3. Anything to get their 15 mins of fame. It’s hard to believe that single panel is so controversial in comparison to Moonknight and Batman.

4. @ #45

   Shhh! You’re thinking! The brain trust hates when you do that.

5. So… blaming us yet?

6. “Nothing was “thrown out” the window continuity-wise except for the actual marriage, and possibly MJ being pregnant…”

   And Harry Osborn being alive. And Norman KNOWING that Harry was alive all along, which contradicts Norman’s own THOUGHT BALLOONS. And Peter not having any of the powers that he gained during “The Other,” for reasons that have never been explained. And Peter’s entire reason for retiring and then coming back to New York during the Clone Saga, if Mary Jane never got pregnant. And all of the Black Cat’s emotional growth as a character, which was wiped out by her no longer knowing Peter’s secret identity. And everyone acting like Horizon Labs is the first time that Peter has ever worked as a scientist, since TriCorp is apparently no longer part of his history. And … well, you get the point.

7. #43-I think you need to add a number 3 to your list, which i think sums up the Brand New Day/Big Time saga in Spider-Man’s long career plus sums up its editorial outlook on the book:

   3) “Just Shut The @#*% Up And Give Me Your Money!”

8. Quick opinion survey: Which of the following phrases do you think you will most associate with Spider-Man from now on?

   1. “With great power comes great responsibilty”

   2. “Ve haf vays of making you talk”

9. #38 – Nothing was “thrown out” the window continuity-wise except for the actual marriage, and possibly MJ being pregnant… those stories still occured with Peter/MJ as a common-law couple, so they still count. The conitnuity is still there… it’s up to YOU to decide if you want to think it’s gone, but you’d be wrong by saying it is.

10. @34: I noticed that Spider-Man could have used that some way to convince Sandman to talk. It could have also resulted in Sandman realizing that he’s going about things the right way, serving as character development for him and giving him a chance for redemption by the end of the story.

    @36: Sorry about that. What I meant is that Brevoort’s response was hypocritical, as debated on the forums, and I did not mean to insult Brevoort as a person, just that he had made a poor response. I have no excuse for insulting Wacker like that.

11. @#13 Everything between OMD and his marriage happened, just without Paeter and MJ being married.
    @#39 I agree. Keemia should have been used.

12. Just to follow up on my previous post, what was to stop Spidey from pointing out to Sandman “Listen, Marko–Doc Ock is putting everyone’s life in danger, including your daughter Keemia! By helping us find the bases where his satellites are kept, you wouldn’t just be helping us; you’d also be saving her. But I guess you really don’t care about her as much as you say you do, huh?”

13. And for everyone saying that we shouldn’t complain about this because Spider-Man has occasionally used harsh methods in the past:

    1. Marvel chose to throw out 20 YEARS of the character’s published history just to make him single again, so they are CHOOSING what parts of his history to retain (or not).

    2. For years, Hal Jordan referred to his civilian Inuit sidekick as “Pie Face.” If DC used the reboot to relaunch Green Lantern with Hal using racial slur nicknames for minority characters, would you defend him doing so on the basis of “Hey, he did that stuff before, so you don’t have the right to complain” or “It’s just superhero comics, lighten up”?

14. @ #13: Say what?!?!?

15. 1st warning goes to Phantom Roxas for calling Breevort a dumbass and Wacker a jerk. No personal attacks please.

16. Man… what did people complain about before the internet?

17. First of all, when someone tries to defend their story by saying “It’s just a make-believe story, don’t take it so seriously,” not only do I think it’s a poor defense but also a cop-out, particularly considering how the title character of this particular comic’s whole mantra is “with great power comes great responsibility.” Not to mention if they are saying not to take a story so seriously, that also tells me that they’re essentially admitting that the story itself is not even worth reading.

    Also, while Spidey has indeed used means of intimidating bad guys in the past such as holding them over high ledges in his webs, or the ridiculous example used by Steve Wacker of Spidey sucking up Sandman in a vacuum cleaner and blowing his particles all over (if he’s taking about Amazing Spider-Man #4, that was regular sand Spidey used in order to “recreate” his fight with the Sandman for his Daily Bugle photos after he had already captured him), there’s a big difference between that and letting someone pour acid on them. After all, just the mere fact that Spidey himself says how much he’s changed “but not that much” in itself shows that the two are not comparable (not to mention, as Colin Smith’s article points out, makes Spidey come across as a “self-denying moral imbecile.”

    And yes, Spidey does state he was essentially bluffing and that he wouldn’t have actually let Silver Sable kill the Sandman, but the problem is that by playing along with and allowing Silver Sable to pour acid on the Sandman knowing full well it could have potentially killed him, he just as guilty as Silver Sable. Even the argument that he was only doing what he felt was necessary falls apart when you consider that in previous scene he was unwilling to compromise his principles when it came to making sure the North Koreans at the satellite plant survived instead being caught in the explosion, and how, in the very next issue, he doesn’t use force to get Mysterio to switch sides but rather simple logic. You’re telling me that Spidey couldn’t have pointed out to Sandman that “if Doc Ock succeeds, not only will everyone die but so will your daughter” who, if remember, is the person Sandman is doing this all for?

    The issue of using torture and advanced interrogation techniques is certainly a controversial and touchy subject, but if one is going to tackle it in a story, that’s all the more reasons to explore the possible ramifications of using such tactics in ways are consistent with already well-established characterization instead of merely just hand-waving it away with Spidey saying “I have changed, but not that much.”

18. After Brevoort’s dumbass response to AXM controversy, I was hoping to see more of Wacker’s opinion on Spider-Man stories, since I believe he’s the main editor of the books. Sadly, he sounds like a petty jerk who directly insults Marvel’s audience. Even if K-Box repeatedly criticizes Marvel, Wacker’s direct attacks against him were uncalled for.

19. #16 Right to the crux of the biscuit.

    I do think this was out of character, but as sthenurus said, he’s been out of character since OMD. Yes, Spidey psychologically tortures people by hanging them outside windows threatening to drop them (which any crook should know better than to believe), but this is different from the whole acid thing. I just don’t see Spidey doing it.

20. @ #30. Precisely. He could have avoided this whole tempest in a teacup by simply saying something like, “I know many of you are surprised at this turn of events but wait for next month, and all will be explained,” or some such. Instead, this will be winced at in retrospect along with Clone Saga and Peter hitting MJ ‘wayyy back when. Wacker, Slott et al keep laboring under the mistaken assumptoin that bad publicity is better than none at all, perhaps, but they can no longer simply blame the members of this board. They’re making mistakes and don’t want to own up to them. It’s sad, because it would be so easy for them to do better, just by reining in their tempers and taking a deep breath, then examining things in the cold, objective light of day.

    Baiting and trolling readers-under pseudnyms or not- is disingenuous and ill serves Marvel, which still remains, despite it all, a comics line I want to love again.

21. While i don’t have a problem with the whole torturing thing, i do understand where people might have a problem with it. However, Wacker’s using a flamethrower response to fight a forest fire and it only made the problem worse, causing hostility where there should not be. Wacker should let someone speak for him because he’s his own worst enemy and the more he opens his mouth the worst things get. I think he does it to get some sort of publicity for the book but it just ends up blows up in his face every time.

22. @”26 Exactly.

23. It’s not out of character at all given that the VERY NEXT PANEL was Spidey thinking that it was good Sandman caved when he did because a second later he would’ve stopped the torture. He admitted he was BLUFFING, which is entirely in character for him to do as he has always threatened people to get info but would never actually go through with those threats.

24. @#26

    You have a point, rude as it was…

25. I am sorry to say this but some fan boys can be such a bunch of cry babys, I mean seriously they are getting upset by the fact that Spider-Man let Sliver Sable toturing Sandman and its out of character??? What about other times??? Like when Spider-Man went beserk after the Kingpin ordered the hit on Aunt May and beat the utter tar out of the Kingpin and nearly killed him? Or the time when Spider-Man nearly beat the crap out of the Sin Eater and excuse me nearly killed him? Nobody complained then and but for this oh yeah this is something that is terribly out of character for Spider-Man.

26. Although I do agree that, under the right circumstances, SOME characters (Sable and Widow, for example) might resort to torture to gain info…Spider-Man just ain’t one of them.
    That would put him on the same level as Punisher or Wolverine.

    Here…I’m no comic book writer, but let me submit how I think this scene SHOULD have played out:

    Spidey: “Tell us where Ock’s hideout is, Sandman…millions of people could die if we don’t find him!”
    Sandman: “No deal, Wall-Crawler!”
    *Sable and Widow glance at each other)*
    Sable (escorting Spidey to the door): “Take a break, Spider-Man…I think what this situation needs…” (*turns, grinning at Widow and Sandy*) “…is a WOMAN’S touch!”
    (*Door closes, and Sandman screams…leaving Spidey nervous about what’s going on in there.*)

    There…No gratuitous violence, Spidey didn’t PERSONALLY pour acid on anyone, so we can’t complain about it…and now he’s free to debate, as we are, what measures are appropriate for a hero to go to.

    Better yet, what would his reaction be?
    Would he stand idly by as Sable and Widow “interrogate” Sandman…because he knows that knowledge would save lives?
    Or would he equate that to him standing idly by as the Burglar escaped?

    It’s actually an intriguing concept…just handled VERY poorly.

27. these days spider-man is ruined by Marvel in every way and ASM has not been readable since JMS left. so this came to me as no surprise

28. @#22 Yeah! ASM is great, so the torture Spidey’s allowing isn’t bad.lol

29. Actually reading ASM is worse torture than what Spidey was allowing.

30. @#20 I know! I know! I’m sorry, but I get worked up (note of that for the future). But after going about 1100 issues being a goody-two-shoes, one doesn’t matter. He always scares people for info, just he had to do something different with Sandman because he’s, well, sand. Wacker should have just said what #6 said. What has the world come to, complaining about a fictional character? America took all Asians out of Pearl Harbor territory, and kept them in camp for years! Why don’t they get worked up about that? Sorry, Chris. I agree with your first comment, though.

31. Its fine that you think that way but comment 5 is getting a little too personal by saying that people might be “damaged” if they have a different point of view than you. Let’s stay civil.

32. I think that the guy who wrote the article is thinking too much about it. Anyways, Spidey has BEAT PEOPLE HALF TO DEATH in ASM. Any ways, Silver Sable probably intimidated him.

33. @#8 The newb who wrote the article. No one cared about it before he started ranting about it. Plus, how else are you supposed to get Sandman to speak about thesituation ? He’s SAND for heaven’s sake. Afterwards, Spidey even said he wouldn’t have gone on with it.

34. Meh… all they’ve done is turn him into a hypocrite if he ever complains about anyone else doing stuff like this. The Spider-Man I remember wouldn’t go this far, but that’s all I can comment on. The Spider-Man I remember also didn’t sell his marriage to the devil, then pine on about finding his true love afterwards.

    Not as offended as everyone else. I’m more, “What the f***?”

35. Spidey as been out of character since he made a deal with the devil (at least as far as I’m concerned). Beside, after seeing characters like cyclops or cap or tony condon what they did (assassinating people through X-force; attacking Utopia; opening goulags in the negative zone), it wasn’t about if spidey would lose his moral compass, it would be when.

36. OK, would it be safe for me to say that history will officially not look back on this era of Spidey with any fondness? It seems every couple of months something comes up like this in regards to ASM or its creators that it just goes beyond the “Hey, it’s just comics!”mantra, and when people share their displeasure, Wacker and/or Slott tell everybody how wrong they are to feel that way. I just don’t get it. Wouldn’t it be better to just not say anything, or, at the very least, very little? How about one twitterish response saying “We thought that at the end of the world, Spidey might overlook the torture aspect. We understand why some people would be upset.” and leave it at that? Yeesh.

37. Have they started blaming us for all the backlash, yet?

38. Spidey is an avenger, it’s what they do. I don’t like it but it sorta comes with the territory specially if he’s with as assassin.

39. Depends on the situation. #10 had a good point about torture given useless or inaccurate info. Victims will say anything if you hurt them enough. In this case though, I believe the situation would call for it. Sandman DOES have the info spidey is looking for. He’s not trained to resist. And Doc Oc is most assuredly not on the level with his whole ‘save the world’ ploy. It is kind of odd that spidey’s the one doing it though when sable and widow are around, and lord knows it’d be nice if widow actually did someone for an issue. It’s true Spidey has often scared people before he’s only ever hurt them after they’ve done something or if it’s imminent. I guess that does apply here but I’m not really feeling the whole intensity in this arc. Like when that jerk shot aunt may and kicked off one more day. Peter was not impressed, and made sure the shooter knew it. there’s all kinds of little things in this arc that just seem to keep me from getting invested in it.

40. Totally out of character, and Wacker simply can’t help but go into confront-mode when he deals with the public so he’s only exacerbating what could have blown over had it been handled better. Still, grossly out of character for Spider-Man, defended with a piss-poor comparison (false analogy). It’s saddening to see Spidey reduced to such a state.

41. I hate how everyone who’s defending this scene is implicitly treating torture as a method that works. Everyone who has ever worked in interrogation in the real world will tell you that torture not only does NOT yield useful or accurate information, but is also much more likely to result in false and misleading confessions, which means that, in addition to being an OBJECTIVELY morally wrong practice, it’s also LITERALLY WORSE THAN USELESS in accomplishing its supposed goal.

    I can only hope that everyone in the future will regard the torture apologists of today the same way that the sane and decent people of today regard those who defended, say, racial segregation just a few decades ago, because it is every bit as indefensible.

42. This is reminding me of the thing in Shed where people conjectured if Lizard sexually assaulted that one lab assistant, and Wacker came out accusing people of looking for stuff that isn’t there. Whether you agree or not that it was out of character, I’m with Chris in that you absolutely cannot deny that parallels are explicitly being drawn here. As JR would say, Marvel (or at least Steve Wacker) is being a bit disingenuous here.

43. 5 – what newb are you talking about?

44. If you go to Wacker’s twitter its pages and pages of him arguing with people about this. So it seems like to Wacker at least its worth spending a significant amount of time doing damage control on. Here are some posts on his twitter that I find unreal in response to this topic:

    “These are fantasy stories to entertain. Adults just tend to overthink them to find enemies.”

    “At a certain point you’re (global ‘you’) just an adult who’s severely over thinking a Spider-Man comic.”

    “Saying people like to say “torture” to politicize an exciting super hero comic.”

    He publishes a Spider-Man comic with an explicit reference to waterboarding and its the readers who are “politicizing” it?

    What acts would be morally justified by the looming end of the world is an interesting debate (for a college freshman philosophy class), but if you’re Steve Wacker then even thinking about this story at that level just makes you an overthinking adult.

45. Completely out of character for Spidey. Stan Lee would NEVER have allowed this as Editor in Chief. Very disappointed.

46. Please tell me why the people are agreeing with the newb? Are they damaged?

47. Yes, it’s pretty hardcore, but if it’s the literal end of the world, I can see how Spidey might be willing to at least allow the bit of torture that happened. Especially if he’s hanging out with Silver Sable and Black Widow, who would probably have done much worse for the “greater good” without him there to moderate them. Especially in light of Spidey admitting in the very next panel that this was at his very limit, I don’t think it’s out of character. But just my opinion, etc.

    Also, “fiasco” seems a bit of an extreme term for one sequence that’s had a couple of blog posts written about it.

48. Poor Dan Slott. It’s the End of the freaking Earth!! It is what we would do. Spidey has done it THOUSANDS of times. What type of newb would say that?

49. I don’t see a post from Dan Slott in there. Did it get deleted or something? I do see the posts from Wacker, in including this quote:

    “I remember when Spidey captured Sandman In a vacuum or dispersed his sand over the city. Clearly Marvel hates the Geneva Conventions. I’ll never understand why these exaggerated fantasy super hero comics have so much fantasy and exaggeration!”

    That’s a flawed comparison and it blows my mind that Wacker would even think to make it. Wacker must think really little of his fans’ intelligence. Spider-Man compares this to water boarding in the comic so he INTENDS for readers to draw associations with real world torture. Also, the imagery of pouring acid on someone parallels the imagery of Saddam Hussein giving his prisoners acid baths. Slott and Wacker should have foreseen that readers would have made that association as well.

    It strains credulity to think that Slott and Wacker actually thought readers would take this as just another fantasy moment like sucking Sandman in a vacuum and not think about non-fantastical torture while reading it.

50. People are actually getting mad about this?