Bmask a new user on a our board just created a well produced video examining Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott’s interactions on the internet and his reaction to criticism. Crawlspace is mentioned a few time in the video so check it out and comment below. Be civil please.
Okay… Gave it a good watch.
And ending on the photoshopped image of Stan Lee shredding ASM #700 (which was originally an image of Stan Lee shredding The Death of Superman issue) was the most apropos image for this whole piece.
Because it’s very much a “photoshopped” version of reality. 🙂The whitewashing of the “Crawlspace” website (throughout the video) is kind of laughable. Members from that site DID deface my Wikipedia page on numerous occasions. Sorry, but that is a FACT. It wasn’t that far into this piece that I heard far too many inaccuracies and distortions to really take ANY of it seriously.
One of the sillier things was the “chart” from JMS/Wacker incident. That chart wasn’t JUST about counting 3 issues as 1. The person who made the chart purposefully distorted the (inaccurate) data that he DID have. In every month that he listed, he averaged TWO of the 3 issues that came out. The two that he chose? The LOWEST selling two. In EACH case he THREW OUT the HIGHEST selling issue to purposefully distort the chart and make the book appear to be selling LESS than the one-a-month sales from the JMS era. When JMS found out about that, he immediately distanced himself from the false chart. But none of that is brought up. Whatever.
There’s a LOT of that kind of overlooked or distorted nonsense in this video. But I get it, it’s a piece from someone with a stated bias. But it would still be nicer to see a more even-handed account from someone who was willing to stick to provable facts.
He then said this about Crawlspace.
I haven’t been there in some time. But from my experience there I found it to be a very negative site. And anyone who spoke out and said it was a negative site was issued warnings from the admins. Whenever they DID say something positive about the book (which was then “Brand New Day”), someone (usually the site’s owner) would usually jump in and say, “See?! And people say we’re a negative site! Ha!” But the need to do that– and the rarity with which that happened kinda highlighted how negative it was. (Does that make sense?)
Anyway… like I’ve said, it’s been a while since I’ve been over there. Maybe they’ve mended their ways? And, to be fair, there were a number of times when some of their members went so over the line that their comments were stricken and those members were issued warnings by the admins. Which, while diligent of the admins, wiped out all evidence of the worst-of-the-worst over there– so going through their archives wouldn’t really give an accurate account of the atmosphere that Steve and I dealt with when we were posting over there.
There were multiple occasions of different people with different IP addresses defacing my Wikipedia page with biased accounts painting members of the Crawlspace in a positive light and myself in a negative one.
I find it very hard to believe that it was just the one angry banned member who was either going rogue– or playing an elaborate scheme to frame the Crawlspace. Oy. This is such a lot of internet-nonsense. Let it go, Bertone, and just accept the fact that like any other site on the web there’s always a case of some members just being bad eggs. Signing onto to a specific website doesn’t automatically make someone a devil, but NEITHER does it make someone a saint.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a applicable deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright transparent idea
@ #25 You’re right about the crazies and death threats – plus they’re illegal.
Bah. Sorry for the double post. typing quickly cuz I’m in a bit of a rush so pardon my spelling in advance. I also did not explicitly give anyone’s or make any specific reference to any person because I don’t keep track of such things. I’m well aware of difference between critique and attacking. The crazies I was referring to were the sort that went to Dan’s Facebook page and started leaving death threats. My comment was not an aimed one and no names were given so I’m not really sure why you thought this was directed at you, but again I apologize.
@21 = I apologize, I believe I have been misinterpreted. I was referring to the fact that I’ve never seen the adins allow that sort of thing to go one. Not that they joined in.
@ #22 But don’t forget, there’s always “Collectors” on Sunday!
I haven’t been a fan of what they’ve turned Spider Man into (which is decidedly not Spider Man at all) since they killed him in One More Day. I actually burned that issue and cancelled my subscription.
Now they keep piling crap on the character and then literally killed him off. It’s not worth my effort. I only come here to Crawlspace on occasion to see what else they’ve done to a character I used to love. Sad, but it seems to reflect society as a whole. Nothing is sacred anymore. A little depressing, but luckily I don’t have to spend my money on it.
I think Slott is out of line in his description of the Crawlspace. I am a “writer” for CS (albeit with only a few articles) and I have ALWAYS been positive about the current run of comics.
The CS does not have to go out of it’s way to point out it’s positive BECAUSE it’s too negative, but because of the rather childish attempts by Wacker and to a lesser extent Slott to undermine the justified and fair criticism’s that come from the CS as nothing but people “wanting to be negative”. Like Spider-Man “fans” want to hate Spider-man. It’s absurd.
The fact is, this is the internet. Forums are always full of people whining, and generally acting poorly. The Crawlspace is not responsible for what forum members do (only to police them, which it does). And I honestly find it insulting to describe forum members and post commenters on the Crawlpace as “members of the Crawlspace”. Anyone can post on the Crawlspace, Brad didn’t give them membership cards. They are “members” of the internet. If you are going to claim the Crawlspace is characterized as something, then base that on the actual contributors. And I strongly feel that those that write and podcast here are not in the slightest overly negative at all.
I hate OMD, loath it in fact. I hate OMIT with a passion. But I have not judged Slott’s work based on this dislike. I very enjoy Slott’s work, when he isn’t doing his best to make me dislike . I have enjoyed BND despite my hate for the marriage retcon. And I only post in the comments of a review to state when I enjoyed an issue a lot. When I have not cared for them I do comment, because I am not agree or negative about the issues that I don’t enjoy. I just don’t enjoy them, simple as that.
I am strongly negative about OMD and OMIT, and I have have every right to be. And so do other members.
As far as I am concerned Slott and Wacker bring it on themselves, they act very poorly and petty in their online posts. Very unprofessional. Especially Wacker. Slott is normally much better, he just needs to lean not to argue with the critics and just ignore them. Rise above! Something Wacker seems incapable of. But his description of the CS here is way off base. Their interactions with the community are a great disservice to themselves and to Marvel.
To be honest, if I was Wackers boss and I saw how he interacted with the community (name calling, belligerence, rudeness) , I would fire him.
Slott I would just tell to act more mature and rise above squabbling with internet trolls. Slott does take a lot of undeserved flak, and I can sympathise with him and his reactions, but he needs to be the better person. Let his writing stand on it’s own merits, because overall he’s a good Spider-Man writer.
@ #19 Better read the forum rules, chuckles – personal attacks are not permitted
and will incur warnings, with three getting the poster banned.
Reasoned dialogue and honest criticism are not attacks.
Some of the posters actually like Slott’s work.
Come to think of it – I object to being called “one of the crazies”, because I no longer
care to read Spider-Man OR any marvel comic – and I was a reader since the beginning
of the Marvel Age, Gee – thanks!
The reason this story will last as long as possible is because slott now gets to write himself as spidey. As sad of a little man as he is he would never write himself out of his book. His mentioning of how he looks at himself as doc Ock is practically him rubbing and laughing in the faces of the fans who oppose him. It’s the best F U he can manage and that’s just trite.
Okay. I’ve seen some of the crazies that log onto this site and lose their head attacking Slott and other writers. The Admins have never been far behind while I’ve been here. There’s a very good reason the site seems negative. There’s more misses than hits with spiderman these days. The comics, the cartoon, the mov… actually wait I liked the reboot despite the flaws. So yeah it makes sense when there’s a terrible issue and we voice our feelings and opinion as such that there is a negative tone. Perhaps he should visit one of the scarlet spider reviews. That book is kicking so much ass.
It was a decoy to kill Peter Parker so everyone would miss the biggest point… The end of Amazing Spiderman
@#10
God ****, I missed you!!!
Heh!
Well that’s surprising. Dan Slott responding poorly to a video criticizing him of responding poorly to people criticizing him.
That’s at least a couple of Inception layers deep….
@12 I kinda thought the Superior Spider-Man as Slott self-insertion fantasy theory had died a death, simply because Superior Spidey #1 portrayed him as such a dick at times, it seemed ridiculous for Slott to knowingly be writing himself that way. I hadn’t seen it seriously mentioned since SSM #1 came out until I watched the video.
Which is very well produced, by the way. I disagree with a fair bit of it (Why is it fine for every other writer to come up with stories they like and write them, but Dan Slott doing it is “arrogant”?), but can’t argue with the editing craft and hard work put in. Kudos.
Very well produced video. I wonder if the podcast will discuss this at some point
@10 That’s what I thought. But the Crawlspace has been nothing but objective always voicing what was disclaimed as opinions and thorough analysis of the stories.
I will say this however, SLott does seem to have a bit of a Doc. Ock ego when it comes to his writing, and fandom. The video makes a very strong case for Slott inserting his own fantasy of actually becoming Spider-Man into his writing ( which I can’t blame him too hard for doing). If Slott wan’t to make himself Spider-Man for a while, and then use it to show the fans that only Peter Parker can be spidey..then I’m all for it.
Im siding with Slott on this, the video(while entertaining) brought up so many slides to Slott that truly needed to be either reinforced by more evidence or explained upon that I can’t except it as legit hangups of Slott and his writing. Also the vid could’nt decide wheter it’s target was Slott or Wacker. It mistakenly (in my opinion) grouped them together and blamed both for 1 of their misdeeds. I don’t think Slott should be held accountable for Wacker’s backlash at fans ( which the vid made it seem like Slott and Wacker are of the same mind)
Interesting video but, get off Slott’s back dude. Give’em some slack he takes a lot of crap.
Has Slott blocked half of Twitter over this yet? 8)
@7 – Slott dislikes the CS because we did not fall lock-step in with the Brandnewverse. Most of CS hated OMD, and rightfully so (as well as the thrice-damned OMIT) and for the most part has been less than thrilled with most of the Brandnewverse. When something does come along that folks tend to like they speak up about it. But CS is also very honest and upfront in taking issue with the new direction of the character and the manner in which Wacker and Slott address the fanbase. Because CS dares to talk about such things and not simply become a mindless ad posting drone like other sites we typically draw a lot of anger from certain writers and editors as well as the ‘personality cults’ (for lack of a better term) formed around them.
Or in short… CS didn’t drink the Kool-Aid and that’s inexcusable! Heh.
Great video, sums up my feelings perfectly.
I love it when Christopher daniel barnes as Spider-man says “This is starting to sound like a bad comic book plot”. LMAO Perfect timing on the part of the video editor!
Why all the hate for the Crawlspace from Slott?
Compared to the poor product of the Brain Trust, Slott was like the second coming of Gerry Conway.
Notice how Slott continues to perpetuate the falsehood that CS hates him. At this point, I think it’s all for PR politics, trying to prejudice readers against CS, because he isn’t a low-intelligence person. He knows that CS has posted good-to-very positive reviews of his work. He also knows that discussion board participants do not represent the views of the owners of a forum. I’m confident that if NickMB created a web-documentary about what Slott has done right, BD would post it on the front page, too.
‘
Dan Slott doesn’t approve of it. Who’s surprised? But all they need to do is make a rebuttal and make it as factual as this.
^^^ I dunno… I’m an old reader, and I’ve liked his take on Spidey…
Well produced video. I admit that there are always two sides of a story. And the video was a bit biased, but he admitted it at the beginning of the video. Writers and editors should let their stories speak for themselves. So why is it that they keep going into message boards convincing people that the sales are good and then insulting them if fans don’t agree. That was a good point the video made. Overall it seems Slott wants to sincerely write Spider-Man but if he’s the biggest fan, why is he having such a hard time with old time readers?
I agree with Slott’s take on the video. While it is well produced,edited, and narrated the filmmaker would have been wiser to keep his opinion out of the piece. I’m not apologist for either side but it does paint his opinion as biased and detracts from his overall point about the Spider-man editorial’s sometimes strange and abrasive use of the internet.
That video was very well produced. It helps that Erik and I were specifically namechecked haha.