Podcast # 396- ASM(Vol 4) #1-3 Reviews

16 Comments

1. Awesome show this month, thank you! I think that the best indicator that Slott should be dumped is that he’s writing a character who isn’t Peter Parker… if he doesn’t want to tell stories about him and needs to change him into this billionaire ceo type, then he should be on a book ABOUT a billionaire ceo. Also, Diversity in comics is awesome when it’s not thrown in against the story. Miles Morales & DC’s Steel are ‘diverse’ characters who saw their hero fail and were inspired to take up a mantle. Rhodey taking over as Iron Man is the earliest example I can think of, but that was a great story in itself with awesome build up to boot.

2. @1 You want a basket for those cherries? ‘Cause I think you missed someone >o>

3. Also, Slott wanted Spiderverse to occur during the Superior Spidey run but was told it had to wait until after Peter came back.

   Needless to say, Slott has had it easy when it comes to real actual editorial interference. No one ever says no to him it would seem. Or if they do, they still compromise.

4. To answer your question as to whether or not Nick Lowe has ever said “no” to Dan Slott:

   According to Slott, the only time Lowe has ever said no to him was during spider verse. Slott wanted a spider mobile version who could stutter and talk like “speed buggy” who called himself Peter Parked Car. Lowe said no and Slott went ahead and included the character anyway.

5. For $5-6, I expect better.

6. @9 – Thanks! 😎

7. @5 To be fair, a liberal agenda is as good as a conservative one. Yes, also being good is one of Peter’s attributes. But I (and the host and the panelist) got a very clear impression that Slot was driving a point (which just so happens to be a liberal agenda point) that has nothing to do with the comic book adventures of Spider-man. Yes, writers do this sometimes (J.M. Dematteis anyone?) but in this case it was SO hamfisted that it felt REALLY out of place. And honestly, I don’t think the book was considered BAD because of its hamfistedness, but rather the abrupt and out-of-character all-new-all-different status quo, and the atrocious writing.

   @6 Yes!
   @7 Damn right!
   @8 Plots holes are easy to write
   @9 Me too!

8. I always have a fun time listening to you guys. Keep it up.

9. I’m with agreement with everyone. Amazing Spider-Man has become just Dan Slott’s Mary Sue. He wants the character to be who he wants it to be. There is no problem making the characters or story your own and then putting your toys away to give it to the next guy/gal who wants to write the book. However, its come to the point where Peter is coming off so counter dictating himself with: “Yeah, I’m only having this salary but I have all this company stuff I can do.” “Yeah, the Baxter Building is a fixer upper and I told no one who I’m friend with forever that I’m buying it. But don’t worry, I have a tribute made of the FF with Alicia’s help. It’s ok.” Oh come on! Not to mention, I agree, the Zodiac was set up to be so powerful and then they are like: “Just leave SHIELD to recover, they got the message.” Um… what? The artwork is great but the slow burn of story lines is way too slow burn. Like what Lost and X-Files got caught up in their last few years. “Don’t worry folks, we have a plan but you have to wait so many years and almost forget about the plot points before I even address them.” I also was in the group about Slott being the main writer and now I want to go punch younger me on that not to mention also say: “Don’t go on this dating website unless you want to spend ten years fixing your debt.”

10. @5 – “So attending a friend’s wedding (who cares if he was gay), Caring about people, and having the same pay as others at your company. Those are bad things, and nothing to do with Peter Parker? Seriously this sounds like Fox News. Cause maybe Peter’s a liberal, that’s not a bad thing, and That wont change the character. He’s still Peter Parker.”

    At no time did we say Peter being liberal was bad. At no time did we say him attending a gay wedding was bad. I did say (and I think Spideydude as well) that Peter thinking “This moment in Max’s life is one of the greatest of mine” was laughably bad and out of place. Not because of the gay wedding part – because of the “greatest moment of mine” part, which is wholly Slott. As I said above, we even said having diversity was a good thing. It’s what you’re choosing to hear (maybe purposefully) but that’s not what we said. We did say we had a problem with the writer’s political agenda being shoehorned into the story so strongly that it even overrode the character’s own voice.

    “I agree that him marking that price up that much is weird. But I wont call it Liberal propaganda.”

    When Cheesedique pointed that out it was to show you how that did not mesh with the Uncle Ben Foundation stuff and the “Oh I only pay myself a mid-level manager salary” stuff. It’s why Ashley referred to it as “wish fulfillment Spider-Man.” It’s bad writing.

11. @1 – I don’t recall us saying Peter being a liberal is a bad thing. In fact I remember me saying, quite specifically, that I’ve always understood that Peter’s a liberal. He’s a young man in one of the largest leftist stronghold cities in the country. Knowing he’s a liberal has never stopped me from enjoying the character when he is well written and correctly written. I’ve been conservative since college and yet still continued to be a Peter Parker fan.

    We also said diversity was a good thing to have – except when it’s shoehorned so clumsily into the story.

    The Uncle Ben Foundation is fine… except that Peter Parker should never be in a financial position to ever set one up. Bruce Wayne? Oliver Queen? Tony Stark? Sure, that’s par for the course with those characters. Financial success and wealth, and what they do with it, are part of who those characters are. It’s not something that is right for Peter Parker.

    Here are the relevant bits you missed while wanting to rage at us for not being on board with Dan Slott’s replacing Peter’s voice with his own, packersjames90:

    @2 – “I think everyone on the show liked the Uncle Ben Foundation idea. What nobody liked was the shoehorning of “and I tap my salary, I buy my suits in Macy, Parker Industries cares, attending a gay wedding is one of the best moments of my life” that had NOTHING to do with the comic and Spider-man whatsoever.”

    This. The writer injects his own political voice into the character in a clumsy, roughshod fashion. There is no difference between Dan Slott’s Twitter feed and Peter Parker’s inner monologue now. Peter Parker is quickly becoming Dan Slott’s Mary Sue.

    @4 – “Not to mention, it’s a fatuous, shallow, and inconsistent portrayal of the character. In the first issue, it’s “free internet for all, I take a pay cut and buy my suits at JC Penny” (while taking a private corporate plane trip solo). In the very next issue, it’s “yeah, I sell my spider-tracers at a 60% markup to consumers”. Yes, this is the nature of business. But just two issues in and anyone can see how incogruent this is with how Peter really is.”

    And this! We even spent a lot of time talking about that!

12. @3 – So attending a friend’s wedding (who cares if he was gay), Caring about people, and having the same pay as others at your company. Those are bad things, and nothing to do with Peter Parker? Seriously this sounds like Fox News. Cause maybe Peter’s a liberal, that’s not a bad thing, and That wont change the character. He’s still Peter Parker.

    @4 – I agree that him marking that price up that much is weird. But I wont call it Liberal propaganda.

13. @1 — Not to mention, it’s a fatuous, shallow, and inconsistent portrayal of the character.

    In the first issue, it’s “free internet for all, I take a pay cut and buy my suits at JC Penny” (while taking a private corporate plane trip solo).

    In the very next issue, it’s “yeah, I sell my spider-tracers at a 60% markup to consumers”. Yes, this is the nature of business. But just two issues in and anyone can see how incogruent this is with how Peter really is.

14. I think everyone on the show liked the Uncle Ben Foundation idea. What nobody liked was the shoehorning of “and I tap my salary, I buy my suits in Macy, Parker Industries cares, attending a gay wedding is one of the best moments of my life” that had NOTHING to do with the comic and Spider-man whatsoever. It really reeked of spreading a liberal agenda in a medium that’s not for that.

    Speaking of the new status quo I have a theory. in 2007 the writers got together and started whining about “it’s difficult to write both Peter and MJ, so let’s split them and start ripping off stories from the 70’s and 80’s when Peter was single.” And so started Brand New Day. But now that got old so they start whining again “we ran out of past Spider-man stories to rip off, let’s start ripping off stories from other characters. Ooh, Iron Man is hot now, yeah, let’s rip off Iron Man stories. ” And so started Vol 4. I like Stilanerd’s theory that Slot is also basing it off Ultimate cartoon, but Peter did not have to be a CEO for that.

15. Pacersjames90,
    You do realize it’s ok to disagree with peoples opinions right? We all have different likes and dislikes. I remember saying I liked the idea of the “Uncle Ben Foundation” on the show.

16. A someone who is of this generation, and does see himself as liberal (voted for Obama in both elections), I don’t agree with anything you guys said about Peter being liberal is a ‘bad thing”. Seriously giving Peter shit for making foundation in Ben’s name equals liberal propaganda really? Tony Stark the most conservative man in the MU does the same damn thing as Peter. When did the CrawlSpace become conservative nut jobs like Fox News? Really Peter Parker making a foundation to HELP PEOPLE WITH MONEY ISSUES! is liberal, then I’m happy to be a 25 year old, Hipster, Lazy, millennial, liberal.