[Serious question] Why does Dan Slott get more criticism than Straczynski

[Rincewind]

They didn't succeed. Given the existing complaints about "Ma-rey Sue", Whino Ren, the production woes of Han Solo, Abrams directing Redux of the Jedi, and with the absurdity of the next Jar Jar/Ewoks in the form of the Last Jedi's Porgs, I'd say a lot of fans are more concerned than ever.

Force Awakens and Rogue One are the most financially successful Star Wars movie, outgrossing both the prequels and the original trilogy. Only Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back have a better critical concensus.

Despite the internet grumblings (and there are always grumblers) these movies are incredibly successful. The Han Solo spin off has a troubled production, but that doesn't mean it won't be successful. Some of the most successful movies of all time (Godfather, Jaws, Titanic) had troubled productions.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

I think it mostly comes down to two things. One is a dislike for how characters are portrayed. Biggest example is Black Cat who was given IMO one of the stupidest heel turns ever. The second is the lack of accepting any criticism. Even if the criticism is professional it seems like they're either deflected or accused of never actually reading the story.

[Lee]

I wouldn't classify what JMS did as a "genre switch." It's not like Dragonball, which went from a comedy adventure series to a super martial arts battle series.

It wasn't even like JMS was the first writer that had Spider-Man face off against mystical foes. JMS did stuff differently, but not to the point that it was unrecognizable as Spider-Man.

I can't think of any other Spider-Man run that was as magic-focused as JMS's. It wasn't a one-off story or a villain here and there, it was a major ongoing premise. There was a lot of discussion at the time about whether those kinds of stories really fit the Spider-Man mold.

Which is why I think it's weird to see JMS's run described as safe and natural expansion of the basic Spider-Man concept. It had a lot of bold and controversial creative decisions. Isn't that what fans of that run liked about it?

Likewise, it's weird to see Slott being accused of only writing off-model crazy Spider-Man stories far removed from the core concepts. Through Spider-Man/Human Torch, Brand New Day and Big Time there were constant message board complaints that his stories were throwbacks, that they weren't doing anything new. Then Superior Spider-Man happened and people went nuts.

[Kevinroc]

I can't think of any other Spider-Man run that was as magic-focused as JMS's. It wasn't a one-off story or a villain here and there, it was a major ongoing premise. There was a lot of discussion at the time about whether those kinds of stories really fit the Spider-Man mold.

Which is why I think it's weird to see JMS's run described as safe and natural expansion of the basic Spider-Man concept. It had a lot of bold and controversial creative decisions. Isn't that what fans of that run liked about it?

Likewise, it's weird to see Slott being accused of only writing off-model crazy Spider-Man stories far removed from the core concepts. Through Spider-Man/Human Torch, Brand New Day and Big Time there were constant message board complaints that his stories were throwbacks, that they weren't doing anything new. Then Superior Spider-Man happened and people went nuts.

I never said I thought JMS' run was "safe" or any such thing. Just that I don't consider it any kind of "genre switch." At its core, JMS' run was still a super hero adventure series. It delved into the mystical more often than most, but Spider-Man being out of his element is a common theme throughout the character's history.

At its core, JMS' Spider-Man was also a romance story between Peter and MJ. That was as traditional as JMS got. And it was happening in a time when Spider-Man was marketed more heavily as a romance. The Raimi movies were coming out at that time.

Slott's ASM run is not a romance. Mary Jane's prominence has been reduced from the days of JMS and the Raimi films. Some of that was out of Slott's hands, and some of that was by Slott's own choice.

[Lee]

I never said I thought JMS' run was "safe" or any such thing.

That wasn't directed to you, I was expanding upon the post of mine that you quoted.

Just that I don't consider it any kind of "genre switch." At its core, JMS' run was still a super hero adventure series. It delved into the mystical more often than most, but Spider-Man being out of his element is a common theme throughout the character's history.

There are many kinds of super-hero adventure series.

Saying that Dr Strange's powers came from nanobots and having him fight robots for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

Saying that Luke Cage's powers came from extra-terrestrial DNA and having him fight aliens in outer space for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

Having the Fantastic Four fight the Kingpin and organised crime for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

[Mister Mets]

You mean the same polls that have wanted One More Day to be undone?

I haven't disputed those polls, and there have been numerous discussions on the topic.

http://community.comicbookresources....ighlight=polls

Internet polls such as this are unscientific. They should not be taken as fact and should only be used for fun discussions.



People do realize this was deliberate, right? The Prequels had left such a sour taste that they wanted to clue audiences in to not be worried about the future of Star Wars.

(Also, I've seen more than enough people unhappy about TFA's female protagonist.)

The polls aren't completely trustworthy, but it's no less scientific than the sense that one writer gets more criticism than another.

Force Awakens and Rogue One are the most financially successful Star Wars movie, outgrossing both the prequels and the original trilogy. Only Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back have a better critical concensus.

Despite the internet grumblings (and there are always grumblers) these movies are incredibly successful. The Han Solo spin off has a troubled production, but that doesn't mean it won't be successful. Some of the most successful movies of all time (Godfather, Jaws, Titanic) had troubled productions.

I guess the argument is that the response has become a bit more muted, although it's still too early to say what the long term response is, since we haven't seen The Last Jedi or Star Wars 9. If those end up being really good, it will elevate the reputation of The Force Awakens.

[LordMikel]

I always call Dan Slott a Shock Jock writer.

To quote from Howard Stern's Private Parts.
"Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.

Pig Vomit: How can that be?

Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."

Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?

Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.

Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?

Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next." "

This is very much how Slott writes, getting people to be vocal about things that he has done.

[Kevinroc]

There are many kinds of super-hero adventure series.

Saying that Dr Strange's powers came from nanobots and having him fight robots for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

Saying that Luke Cage's powers came from extra-terrestrial DNA and having him fight aliens in outer space for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

Having the Fantastic Four fight the Kingpin and organised crime for 40 issues would be a genre switch.

With Spider-Man, that ship sailed a very long time ago. Spider-Man's a lot like Batman in that various Marvel creators have felt like they could fit Spider-Man into all kinds of stories because they finds he can slip into them very comfortably. Why else would there be a number of Spider-Man stories where the wall-crawler interacts with Thanos?

JMS' run was a little more pronounced than most, but it was by no means a "genre switch" for Spider-Man.

The polls aren't completely trustworthy, but it's no less scientific than the sense that one writer gets more criticism than another.

Again, doesn't really change that I don't think internet polls are unscientific and shouldn't be used as evidence of anything beyond a discussion on the internet.

[Sighphi]

People do realize this was deliberate, right? The Prequels had left such a sour taste that they wanted to clue audiences in to not be worried about the future of Star Wars.

(Also, I've seen more than enough people unhappy about TFA's female protagonist.)

You dont "clue audiences" by remaking the first movie.

You should "clue audiences" by showing that you can make a brand new story thats on the level of the originals.

[WebLurker]

Again, doesn't really change that I don't think internet polls are unscientific and shouldn't be used as evidence of anything beyond a discussion on the internet.

If one could poll 100% of the fanbase and readers, it probably will be reliable. However, since that can't be done, polls are inherently inaccurate, even if they offer some insight into thoughts and opinions.

[blackspidey2099]

As for Horizon labs, to begin with Peter got that job largely due to Marla and Jameson doing him a favour. Even if you'd disagree the fact is it's not a job Peter should have, the same is true of Parker Industries.

People forget this (or never realized it in the first place) but when you are writing characters like Spider-Man you can't just take them in any given direction that's 'new'. Novelty is not quality.

You have to strike a balance between what will be an organic direction based upon the characters' histories, what generates the best stories and what also adheres to the fundamental defining philosophies of their characters.

But more poignantly Peter Parker is SUPPOSED to be the every man superhero, the down to Earth guy who relatively speaking could be you and speaks o universal human life experiences. Owning the world's biggest tech conglomorate and becoming a billionaire celebrity is aggressively the opposite of that and should never ever have been something comitted to paper in a Spdier-Man story. Not to mention...it's boring as fuck because you've gutted all the normal life relationship drama and street crime action that has defined Spider-Man literally since Ditko's run. Like...if you are NOT doing Spider-Man like that you are objectively doing Spider-Man wrong, sat least if it's anything beyond a one off filler story. Not the entire status quo.

HORIZON labs isn't AS bad but still has problems. It simply makes Peter's life too idealized and easy because not only is he earning REALLY good money (and inventing stuff for global use) but he works on flexi hours which hardly anybody does. Joe Average works a 9-5 and whilst that isn't realistic for Spider-Man per se giving him a job doing exactly what he loves but in a bullshit comic book science way where people casually pull time machines out of their asses and then having him nver worry about money because he has the job and he can do that and be Spider-Man at his leisure is way, way, way too much. Being Spider-Man has to be something he balances next to his OTHER responsibilities and makes his life sometimes harder, otherwise you are missing the point. That's why the Bugle job was clever. Peter didn't have regular hours but he also had to help screw himself over for the money he desperately needed.

To make matters worse HORIZON labs had overly sci-fi crap like time machines that do not belong in the down to Earth realm of Spider-Man and gave Peter access to technoogy that in theory enabled him to just invent his way out of most situations or else look stupid for NOT trying to do that. It literally made his life easier.

Bull. Shit.

Peter is NOT supposed to be an everyman since he NEVER was. Wasn't it Stan Lee who had him build a device that could miraculously nullify all magnetic fields when he was 15? It was also Stan Lee who had him repeatedly out-smart Doctor Octopus with his superior command of science. And build stuff like spider-tracers. And new web-fluid types. If anything, it is other writers who have ignored the well-established fact that Peter was a super-genius to make him an "everyman" who did Spider-Man objectively wrong - since they ignored a key aspect of his character. Not to mention the fact that most people are NOT aggressively bullied in high school, are NOT science geeks, are NOT extremely handsome, are NOT extremely noble/self-sacrifificial, etc. And the list goes on. Anyone who does think Peter is anything like a normal person either has an extremely overinflated sense of ego, or needs to read a Spider-Man comic.

Also, I'm not sure what connection Peter working at a place like Horizon or PI has to do with the amount of relationship drama in the book... because there is none. And if you think a story needs to have "street crime drama" to be interesting, then I think you need to expand your reading horizons. The fact is that street crime drama is not fit for a character like Spider-Man who can waltz into any gang den and take them all out while laughing and joking, since they pose 0 threat to him. Personally, I think stories with real stakes are a lot better.

Horizon Labs was a great job for Peter because it makes the Peter Parker side relevant and useful. If Peter is just working for the Bugle or whatever, then why should anyone care about Peter? In fact, you could make the argument that Peter is being irresponsible by even bothering to have a secret identity. However, if Peter is a successful scientist (which is more realistic given Peter's character) then Peter's life has stakes too. Every time he is out as Spider-Man, is he making the wrong choice when he could be finding a cure for cancer in his lab? Every time he flakes out on work, there are REAL responsibilities there that he has to choose between. What if someone steals his tech and uses it for evil (ex. Ock in Ends of the Earth)? What responsibility does Peter have for that? Giving Peter more spotlight means you are elevating the stakes in the book in a logical manner, and really getting back down to the core theme of Spider-Man - responsibility. Same with Parker Industries, if it's done well. Just because Slott didn't use it well doesn't mean it didn't have great potential for Peter's character.

And Spider-Man is a sci-fi/tech story at heart, mixed in with soap opera style elements (unlike Daredevil/Punisher which are crime dramas). If you don't like sci-fi, Spider-Man might not be the best character for you, which is what I'm getting from your rant.

On an unrelated note, I agree that JMS was an overall better writer than Slott, but please don't act like you have the objective standards with which to measure them. I doubt you have any experience in English Literature to behave so pretentiously, and the whole point of literary criticism is that nothing can be objectively better than something else. It literally all depends on the prior experiences and context with which the reader views the work.

[Starrius]

Bull. Shit.

Peter is NOT supposed to be an everyman since he NEVER was. Wasn't it Stan Lee who had him build a device that could miraculously nullify all magnetic fields when he was 15? It was also Stan Lee who had him repeatedly out-smart Doctor Octopus with his superior command of science. And build stuff like spider-tracers. And new web-fluid types. If anything, it is other writers who have ignored the well-established fact that Peter was a super-genius to make him an "everyman" who did Spider-Man objectively wrong - since they ignored a key aspect of his character. Not to mention the fact that most people are NOT aggressively bullied in high school, are NOT science geeks, are NOT extremely handsome, are NOT extremely noble/self-sacrifificial, etc. And the list goes on. Anyone who does think Peter is anything like a normal person either has an extremely overinflated sense of ego, or needs to read a Spider-Man comic.

Also, I'm not sure what connection Peter working at a place like Horizon or PI has to do with the amount of relationship drama in the book... because there is none. And if you think a story needs to have "street crime drama" to be interesting, then I think you need to expand your reading horizons. The fact is that street crime drama is not fit for a character like Spider-Man who can waltz into any gang den and take them all out while laughing and joking, since they pose 0 threat to him. Personally, I think stories with real stakes are a lot better.

Horizon Labs was a great job for Peter because it makes the Peter Parker side relevant and useful. If Peter is just working for the Bugle or whatever, then why should anyone care about Peter? In fact, you could make the argument that Peter is being irresponsible by even bothering to have a secret identity. However, if Peter is a successful scientist (which is more realistic given Peter's character) then Peter's life has stakes too. Every time he is out as Spider-Man, is he making the wrong choice when he could be finding a cure for cancer in his lab? Every time he flakes out on work, there are REAL responsibilities there that he has to choose between. What if someone steals his tech and uses it for evil (ex. Ock in Ends of the Earth)? What responsibility does Peter have for that? Giving Peter more spotlight means you are elevating the stakes in the book in a logical manner, and really getting back down to the core theme of Spider-Man - responsibility. Same with Parker Industries, if it's done well. Just because Slott didn't use it well doesn't mean it didn't have great potential for Peter's character.

And Spider-Man is a sci-fi/tech story at heart, mixed in with soap opera style elements (unlike Daredevil/Punisher which are crime dramas). If you don't like sci-fi, Spider-Man might not be the best character for you, which is what I'm getting from your rant.

On an unrelated note, I agree that JMS was an overall better writer than Slott, but please don't act like you have the objective standards with which to measure them. I doubt you have any experience in English Literature to behave so pretentiously, and the whole point of literary criticism is that nothing can be objectively better than something else. It literally all depends on the prior experiences and context with which the reader views the work.

You could be a little courteous
no need to dismiss one's opinions with the bull-sh-t remark
and accuse the poster of ranting

[blackspidey2099]

You could be a little courteous
no need to dismiss one's opinions with the bull-sh-t remark
and accuse the poster of ranting

I think the usage of "bullshit" and "rant" are fair remarks for a post so long it didn't fit in the character limit. I mean, my post was a bit of a rant too. It's not a bad thing, lol.

[WebLurker]

Bull. Shit.

Peter is NOT supposed to be an everyman since he NEVER was.

Wonder what I've been reading all this time then?

[Carabas]

Wonder what I've been reading all this time then?

To me he didn't even seem like an everyman even before he got superpowers.