Superior Spider-Man #11

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Doom is a bad example here. The character has been inconsistently depicted as having flawed nobility and being utterly reprehensible.

Some of them were just Doombots, malfunctioning ones, and not the real deal. Half-jokes aside...Doom has been consistently written as a noble anti-villain since the 80s. The exceptions to that are stuff like Mark Waid's Unthinkable and more recently Slott's Fantastic Four, and stuff like Children's Crusade and Fraction's run on FF. But Hickman's run featured the noble and tragic Doom, as did Bendis' Infamous Iron Man. The dominant version of Doom is the noble anti-villain who believes it's his duty to rule the world but also accepts that with that entitlement comes the duty to save the world when needed. That's the Doom of Secret Wars '84, in which he became the protagonist of the first and greatest Marvel event.

The only Doom story in the anti-Doom tracts (Waid, Slott, Fraction, Children's Crusade) that is a good story is Unthinkable, none of the rest are as good as what Hickman and Bendis did. In any case, Doom provides that latitude to writers and readers in terms of how to frame him and approach him. Mark Waid's Unthinkable is a great story and while I think Waid's stated reasons for that story is dubious (he wanted to single-handedly kill the noble Doom and make that version of the character unusable), it's a great story regardless and valid in that Doom shouldn't be too cuddly. After a lot of stories going on with Papa Doom, it was important to do a story that made Doom scary and threatening again. In that respects, I think it works.

Magneto's redemption is rooted in social movements that sought to find exculpatory evidence in an offender's background.

That's true for Doom too. He's a Romani, a member of a persecuted community (who are still heavily persecuted in Europe today including nations like Spain and France which are First-World nations) who historically were also targeted for genocide by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Otto has had "nice" moments, Some of it was Silver Age tripe (such as his romance with Aunt May),

That's the Bond villain aspect of Otto. But that shouldn't be mistaken for real depth.

So, Slott is less interesting and inferior because he is not adhering to a Silver Age cliche that should have died in the 80s?

No because he hasn't told a story as good as the Silver Age cliches at their best.

Lee was an over-rated hack who only got the job because his uncle owned the company.

Lee got a lowly job in Timely in the 40s. He gradually worked himself up and got bigger positions notably in the talent acquisitions department. He was the one who recruited Ditko fresh out of art school and a few other gigs to work at Marvel because he recognized his skills. Lee and Ditko were fairly close in the '50s. In fact it was Lee who introduced Ditko to Ayn Rand's works, of which Lee was a fan (of the stories more than the philosophy contrary to Ditko).

He actually undercut Ditko's (good) idea to have Spider-Man age and grow.

Lee never had a real ideological bone in anything. And in his run with Romita Sr he actually did progress Peter in many ways. And as editor he encouraged developments in other parts. Lee never truly practiced that "illusion of change" idea that people attribute to him. And what Lee meant by "illusion of change" was also different than how it came to be practiced.

The problem with Ock is that as a classic villain he was just...evil. At least Superior has given him some conflicting traits.

There's nothing wrong with characters being evil. Joker is evil but he's an interesting character, as is Darkseid, as is Red Skull, and for that matter Green Goblin and most Spider-Man villains. At the end of the day, Spider-Man and his supporting cast will always be more complex character than the rogues. And I don't see how Superior disproved that. The point of Superior is that the only way Otto becomes a complex character is by making him Spider-Man. That doesn't prove Otto is complex. It simply proves Spider-Man is complex. To make Otto complex you need to work with the Lee-Ditko version and show us what's underneath that.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Seriously, what's the point of making character to have experiences if they are going to end up on Square One all over again?

If the experiences the character undergoes is contrary to the function of the character, and executed poorly besides, I don't see how this could be otherwise. Superior Spider-Man could never have worked out and lasted. The premise was a dead end to start with and all Slott and Gage did was spiral around that dead end even if ultimately that was where it all led into.

But no one would say that Bay's films aren't successful, right? No one would insist that their box office take is strictly illusory?

That's not what was discussed. You were saying <<"One's personal dislike of something shouldn't negate the reality that it was actually very popular and did not "outstay its welcome" with most fans.">> That kind of caveat would never be used in any discourse about Bay's films.

That they weren't "really" successful at all and that there's always some catch or condition that say they didn't succeed on their own merit.

Everyone does that. People who denigrate the marriage said it wasn't really popular, that it didn't sell because people liked it and so on. I seem to recall some posters here making that argument several times. Stephen Wacker and Slott himself when addressing the sales drop from JMS to BND said stuff like JMS' run only sold because it was Civil War tie-ins and words to that effect, which was also repeated by other posters here. Either everyone's defensive, petty, and biased about stuff they like and are dismissive about things they don't care for. Or there are in fact caveats and asterisks and "Um..actuallys" about everything. My belief is that Superior Spider-Man sold strongest on its initial gimmick. Of course, a lot of people who bought it liked it. But most of it was based on the concept and the entire nature of the stunt of removing Peter Parker off the books.

It's also why LOST was such a big success. Getting a gimmick and a solid hook that brings people to stay with a story takes some skill but that doesn't amount to any great creative achievement. LOST after all is a successful show but it's not considered a good show. Few would rank it alongside Sopranos or Mad Men or Breaking Bad.

The truth is if you dislike something that achieved some amount of commercial and success it is natural to find motives for why the thing you disliked is successful. People who dislike Michael Bay films will say it targets teenage boys with explosions and skimpy dressed girls and so on. People who dislike Friends will likewise say it was a mediocre show with shallow characters saved by the chemistry of the cast.

It was recognized both at the time and since for its quality.

The overall view among neutral corners is that the series peaked early and never lived up to its initial setup and that the rest was just a padded mess and that the conclusion where Peter returns lacked the oomph it needed and felt tonally off. The fact that the conclusion wasn't written by Slott, but by Gage likewise adds to the issue about how to treat it as an overall whole, since Slott didn't seem to care enough about the conclusion of his story to write it himself. That also makes the overall end-idea of "Peter being the real superior" come off as trite, insincere, and hollow. Sure that might be what Slott was aiming for but it certainly didn't land sufficiently.

That's the neutral view of Slott, that he's better at initial concept and pitch and faulty in execution outside the opening introduction to his story-event du jour. His dialogue is generally weak and uneven. Sometimes good but often quite bad and varying poorly, filled with dated slangy stuff to seem hip. Slott's run on Spider-Man overall isn't as respected and influential as stuff like Fraction's Hawkeye, Hickman's run on Avengers, Aaron's run on Thor, Tom King's Vision, Al Ewing's Immortal Hulk if one were to compare him with his contemporaries at Marvel.

[Ursalink]

If the experiences the character undergoes is contrary to the function of the character, and executed poorly besides, I don't see how this could be otherwise. Superior Spider-Man could never have worked out and lasted. The premise was a dead end to start with and all Slott and Gage did was spiral around that dead end even if ultimately that was where it all led into.

Superior Spider-Man was certainly a stupidity when it was Ock stealing Peter's body, but it could actually work when it was a clone of Peter Parker. Actually, a clone of Peter Parker who is HALF Otto Octavius could actually be interesting.

And if you ask me, Steel Spider could have a role here. After all, he was first a fan of Doc Ock and then changed to Spidey's fan; so the Superior Spider-Man's staff could actually work for him.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Superior Spider-Man was certainly a stupidity when it was Ock stealing Peter's body, but it could actually work when it was a clone of Peter Parker. Actually, a clone of Peter Parker who is HALF Otto Octavius could actually be interesting.

Do we want Spider-Man's own Connor Kent having issues about whether Otto or Peter is his real Dad? And besides Kaine is already there for a Peterclone who's a psychopath.

Ultimately, it's moot. Spider-Man already has a legacy. His name is Miles Morales. Any story you want to do about someone else being Spider-Man has a seat taken. You want an anti-hero Spider-Man, you have Venom.

[Ursalink]

Do we want Spider-Man's own Connor Kent having issues about whether Otto or Peter is his real Dad? And besides Kaine is already there for a Peterclone who's a psychopath.

Ultimately, it's moot. Spider-Man already has a legacy. His name is Miles Morales. Any story you want to do about someone else being Spider-Man has a seat taken. You want an anti-hero Spider-Man, you have Venom.

Pal, Kaine was blinded by rage, he was no psychopath. Who can blame him, considering how he was born?

[Prof. Warren]

That's not what was discussed. You were saying <<"One's personal dislike of something shouldn't negate the reality that it was actually very popular and did not "outstay its welcome" with most fans.">> That kind of caveat would never be used in any discourse about Bay's films.

Yeah, because films are self contained units. They're complete unto themselves as opposed to the ongoing serialized nature of comics.

The analogy you're trying to make is idiotic. Films don't "outstay their welcome." Comics storylines that take place over many months can.

The discussion was about whether SSM's success was due to its own merits or because of the Spider-Man name or because Slott somehow made the character only appear to be successful. This is something disgruntled comic fans do all the time - claim that a successful run wasn't really successful at all or was only successful due to some "cheat."

Everyone does that. People who denigrate the marriage said it wasn't really popular, that it didn't sell because people liked it and so on. I seem to recall some posters here making that argument several times. Stephen Wacker and Slott himself when addressing the sales drop from JMS to BND said stuff like JMS' run only sold because it was Civil War tie-ins and words to that effect, which was also repeated by other posters here. Either everyone's defensive, petty, and biased about stuff they like and are dismissive about things they don't care for. Or there are in fact caveats and asterisks and "Um..actuallys" about everything. My belief is that Superior Spider-Man sold strongest on its initial gimmick. Of course, a lot of people who bought it liked it. But most of it was based on the concept and the entire nature of the stunt of removing Peter Parker off the books.

It's also why LOST was such a big success. Getting a gimmick and a solid hook that brings people to stay with a story takes some skill but that doesn't amount to any great creative achievement. LOST after all is a successful show but it's not considered a good show. Few would rank it alongside Sopranos or Mad Men or Breaking Bad.

Few people would also try to compare the sci-fi Lost with the gritty worlds of Sopranos or Breaking Bad.

Few people would rank Star Wars alongside The Godfather. Because they're pretty different and don't invite comparisons.

And since when is Lost really "not considered a good show?" I'm not a fan myself but I would readily concede that it was considered by many to be good.

The truth is if you dislike something that achieved some amount of commercial and success it is natural to find motives for why the thing you disliked is successful. People who dislike Michael Bay films will say it targets teenage boys with explosions and skimpy dressed girls and so on. People who dislike Friends will likewise say it was a mediocre show with shallow characters saved by the chemistry of the cast.

Idiots tend to act like idiots is what you're saying?

When people who don't like something can't just admit that it's not for them and move on but instead try to denigrate that thing as well as the people who enjoy it, it's called being an *******. There's no excuse for it. It's just being dumb.

The overall view among neutral corners is that the series peaked early and never lived up to its initial setup and that the rest was just a padded mess and that the conclusion where Peter returns lacked the oomph it needed and felt tonally off. The fact that the conclusion wasn't written by Slott, but by Gage likewise adds to the issue about how to treat it as an overall whole, since Slott didn't seem to care enough about the conclusion of his story to write it himself. That also makes the overall end-idea of "Peter being the real superior" come off as trite, insincere, and hollow. Sure that might be what Slott was aiming for but it certainly didn't land sufficiently.

I don't think you're qualified to speak of the "overall view among neutral corners" because funnily enough, this "overall view among neutral corners" you reference just sounds like the usual hater rhetoric.

That's the neutral view of Slott, that he's better at initial concept and pitch and faulty in execution outside the opening introduction to his story-event du jour. His dialogue is generally weak and uneven. Sometimes good but often quite bad and varying poorly, filled with dated slangy stuff to seem hip. Slott's run on Spider-Man overall isn't as respected and influential as stuff like Fraction's Hawkeye, Hickman's run on Avengers, Aaron's run on Thor, Tom King's Vision, Al Ewing's Immortal Hulk if one were to compare him with his contemporaries at Marvel.

Again, your referencing of the "neutral view" sounds like you're parroting the usual bitter nerd rage concerning Slott.

He seems to be doing quite well in comparison to his contemporaries at Marvel. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for some but it's true.

Aside from the accolades and success of ASM, his run on Silver Surfer earned an Eisner and that run is every bit as respected as the runs you mention.

[Toxin45]

Mephisto is just being used for spider-family mess ups and still a villain in the avengers series for something.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Few people would also try to compare the sci-fi Lost with the gritty worlds of Sopranos or Breaking Bad.

Stark Trek is considered one of the greatest TV shows of all time and it's science-fiction. People wouldn't hesitate to say it's a classic on the same level as Sopranos and Breaking Bad.

Few people would rank Star Wars alongside The Godfather. Because they're pretty different and don't invite comparisons.

The AFI Top 100 list ranks Star Wars #13 in its list of 100 greatest American movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27...rsary_Edition)

So it is ranked alongside Godfather by the American Film Institute, among others. The Wizard of Oz another fantasy film is on the list, at #10, also included are other science-fiction films like Blade Runner, ET, King Kong, 2001 a space odyssey, a clockwork orange.

And since when is Lost really "not considered a good show?" I'm not a fan myself but I would readily concede that it was considered by many to be good.

It became a joke among a bunch of folks. It was trashed by Alan Moore and George RR Martin. The popular game Batman Arkham City made numerous jokes against it. And it's often sited as an example of JJ Abrams' mystery box ideas and how unsatisfying the execution of that tends to be.

When people who don't like something can't just admit that it's not for them and move on but instead try to denigrate that thing as well as the people who enjoy it, it's called being an *******. There's no excuse for it. It's just being dumb.

By this logic, everything is beyond criticism. People who like The Birth of a Nation are racists but calling them racists for liking a racist movie is being an *******, why can't people admit that Birth of a Nation is "just not for them" (which well, yeah that's literally true).

I don't think you're qualified to speak of the "overall view among neutral corners" because funnily enough, this "overall view among neutral corners" you reference just sounds like the usual hater rhetoric.

By neutral I mean people who are "agnostic" about the marriage, i.e. they liked the marriage stories but they aren't too invested in it to believe Spider-Man would be ruined. People who admit liking some of Slott's stuff and so on, who feel that Superior's early issues started well. Like this article here on the final issue of Superior 31 (http://www.chasingamazingblog.com/20...at-happened/)/

I find it weird that any criticism of Slott is greeted by you with the charge of "Hater"? Do you actually think Slott is perfect that he made no mistakes in the entirety of his run and so on? I mean I would never say any writer I admire/like/respect is perfect or free of blemish, even Alan Moore isn't perfect.

his run on Silver Surfer earned an Eisner.

Silver Surfer won an Eisner for its art by Mike Allred. Both Slott and Allred won an award for the overall collaboration but Allred got a separate award for that which Slott didn't. Slott apparently works in a marvel-style method in that he relies heavily on artists to visualize and map out aspects of his story before he fills in afterwards. Christos Gage said as much in a podcast. So that might have counted against him.

[Agent Z]

The thing about Otto is that there's nothing inherent to the character that suggests redemption, unlike Doom and Magneto. Doom and Magneto were oppressed kids pushing back against a world and ultimately became worse people but still occasionally provide glimpses of the people they were/could-have-been, which is what makes them tragic figures. Infamous Iron Man which had Doom take on Iron Man was interesting/fascinating because it shows that Doom's actions even were he to be sincerely good would never be redeemed but Doom accepts it and decides he'll try anyway. Which made it tragic when that ended. Likewise Cullen Bunn's Magneto has him admit and reflect that all Magneto will be is a "boogeyman for humans" and not a hero or savior. That's way more interesting than anything Slott did.

When Dr. Octopus was introduced he had no backstory and he was written consistently as a sadistic gangster, mad scientist and terrorist for the first 30 years of the character's history (1962-1992 i.e. the defining period of any Marvel character's history). Then Tom Defalco introduced a weepy backstory in the '90s which never entirely fit the character that existed before and which in itself is dime store psychology rather than anything tragic and grand (Daddy beat him, Mommy smothered him). Octopus' actions after the accident have always been cold, calculating, and driven by gaining money/power/respect. There's nothing suggesting insanity in the legal sense and from a writer's point of view, it's a total copout.

In any case, if we consider Spider-Man's second 30 years (from 1992-2022), we haven't seen Classic Otto a great deal. The last time was in JMS' and Jenkins run. Likewise, Spider-Man's second 30 years is largely inferior to the first 30 (a good chunk being occupied by the Clone Saga and its aftermath, and then BND and Slott's era will do that for you). So readers have been denied access to the version of Dr. Octopus that Lee and Ditko intended. Neither creator ever intended Otto to have redeeming virtues. And Octopus' best stories (Master Planner, Sinister Six, Owl-Octopus War) have classic Octopus.

Doom and Magneto being victims of oppression were retcons introduced decades after their debut. If you're going to dismiss Otto's redeeming features because they didn't originally exist, then the same applies to Doom and Magneto. The only difference between those two and Otto is Otto's redeeming qualities and tragedies were written later.

[Agent Z]

Well a counter to that is Liv Octopus from ITSV, she's a total gangster-thug mad scientist and a lot of people say she's better than Molina's Ock (and I agree).

Citation needed? I've seen a lot of praise for Liv Octopus that doesn't even mention Molina's Ock. Even then, praise for what is essentially a gender flipped Ock doesn't negate that the more morally complex Ock is extremely popular.

[Jman27]

Oh hey status quo, I didn't miss you.

whats the point of character development if they are going to just go back to doing the same stuff?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Doom and Magneto being victims of oppression were retcons introduced decades after their debut.

Doom's origin as an Romani persecuted by the Latverian authorities was mentioned in Fantastic Four Annual #2 by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. In 1963. So Doom's backstory was established in his first decade by his original creators no less.

Magneto's backstory as a Holocaust survivor was established in the Octupusheim Saga in Uncanny X-Men #150, published in 1981, less than two decades since the first publication of X-Men, and little over the decade of the X-Men as a serial ongoing since they were cancelled in-between and went into reprint for some 5-6 years. The latter fact likewise highlights why Magneto's change stuck. Since the original Lee-Kirby take on X-Men and Magneto failed conclusively and Claremont's revision took a title given the proverbial second chance from the lowest lows to the highest high becoming Marvel's biggest team and biggest title and the greatest team period in comics.

So in either case it's an exaggeration. By contrast between 1963 and 1993, between Octopus' first appearance and Tom Defalco's "An obituary for Dr. Octopus" (spider-man unlimited #3) published in 1993, there wasn't a single origin for Doctor Octopus or any hint as to him being redemptive. Those three decades are Spider-Man's best selling period and most acclaimed as well.

If you're going to dismiss Otto's redeeming features because they didn't originally exist, then the same applies to Doom and Magneto.

As stated above, it doesn't apply.

The only difference between those two and Otto is Otto's redeeming qualities and tragedies were written later.

The other difference is that stories featuring a milder softer Doom and Magneto provided better stories. Better than sympathetic Otto stories.

Sympathetic or more human takes on Doom have given us:
-- The story of Doom's mother Cynthia being burnt at the stake and her soul gone in hell was in Astonishing Tales #08 (published in 1970). Written by Gerry Conway (before his run on ASM). This was elaborated by Roger Stern and Mike Mignola into the masterpiece that is TRIUMPH AND TORMENT, Stern's best work (which means one of the best comics period).
-- Secret Wars 1984.
-- FF #258 ("Interlude")
-- Emperor Doom.
-- Infamous Iron Man.

These stories are as good if not better than outright villainous Doom including the Battle of the Baxter Building, Doom steals the Surfboard, Unthinkable.

Sympathetic takes on Magneto:
-- Octopusheim Saga
-- The Trial of Magneto
-- Magneto by Cullen Bunn
-- X:Men First Class

In the case of Magneto unlike Doom, outright villainous versions rarely produce usable or good stories. Planet X is a good example. IT was written by Grant Morrison, a fairly talented guy, in good form no less. And he wrote a bad story with a bad version of the character. Planet X had a good writer working on a bad idea and working on form and the story still turned bad...that means that the idea in itself is bad.

In the case of Otto, sympathetic stories aren't as good as the Master Planner Saga, Sinister Six, Owl/Octopus Saga. Either a good writer hasn't done it well or there's something wrong with the idea. Paul Jenkins, one of the best Spider-Man writers said that Otto was a sociopath, like Ted Bundy. That's a little more extreme than me, but it's in the ballpark.

[Prof. Warren]

Stark Trek is considered one of the greatest TV shows of all time and it's science-fiction. People wouldn't hesitate to say it's a classic on the same level as Sopranos and Breaking Bad.

Does Lost have to be as celebrated as Breaking Bad to be considered good?

Does every movie have to be as good or better than the most prestigious examples of the medium to be good?

No, of course not.

Star Trek is a show that, by its quality and the way it reshaped television, transcends genre. It belongs in any conversation about great TV.

Just because Lost isn't on the same level as the best television has to offer doesn't mean that it isn't good.

The AFI Top 100 list ranks Star Wars #13 in its list of 100 greatest American movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27...rsary_Edition)

So it is ranked alongside Godfather by the American Film Institute, among others. The Wizard of Oz another fantasy film is on the list, at #10, also included are other science-fiction films like Blade Runner, ET, King Kong, 2001 a space odyssey, a clockwork orange.

Yes, different genres are represented on lists such as these. But typically it is also understood that different genres are judged by different measures.

If you're talking about them individually, Star Wars is a great movie in a different way than The Godfather is a great movie.

Just as Some Like It Hot is great in a different way than Casablanca. They don't invite direct comparisons.

It became a joke among a bunch of folks. It was trashed by Alan Moore and George RR Martin. The popular game Batman Arkham City made numerous jokes against it. And it's often sited as an example of JJ Abrams' mystery box ideas and how unsatisfying the execution of that tends to be.

As I said, I'm not a fan of Lost. But just because something is a punching bag among some people doesn't mean that there isn't a fan base who values it.

And just because something didn't stick the landing, whether it be a movie, a novel or a TV show, doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge the aspects that did work.

By this logic, everything is beyond criticism. People who like The Birth of a Nation are racists but calling them racists for liking a racist movie is being an *******, why can't people admit that Birth of a Nation is "just not for them" (which well, yeah that's literally true).

This is ridiculous on a couple of levels.

One, not everyone who likes The Birth of a Nation is by default a racist. There are students of film who are able to appreciate Birth of a Nation as a historical document and for its cinematic qualities without subscribing to the politics it represents, just as people can study and appreciate Triumph of the Will without being Nazis. So you can't lump "everyone" who expresses a liking or appreciation for Birth of a Nation under one umbrella.

Two, you're making the jump from cultural snobs jeering people who like Friends because it's trivial low brow fluff to calling out racists. Not the same, right?

Trying to paint fans of something you don't like as being as dumber and less sophisticated than you is always a dick move.

It may be something that everyone is guilty of from time to time but it doesn't make it any more right.

By neutral I mean people who are "agnostic" about the marriage, i.e. they liked the marriage stories but they aren't too invested in it to believe Spider-Man would be ruined. People who admit liking some of Slott's stuff and so on, who feel that Superior's early issues started well. Like this article here on the final issue of Superior 31 (http://www.chasingamazingblog.com/20...at-happened/)/

"Let me quote a blogger who agrees with me" is not an effective argumentative tool.

I find it weird that any criticism of Slott is greeted by you with the charge of "Hater"? Do you actually think Slott is perfect that he made no mistakes in the entirety of his run and so on? I mean I would never say any writer I admire/like/respect is perfect or free of blemish, even Alan Moore isn't perfect.

I never said Slott was perfect. But to dismiss his success, as his critics tend to do, is absurd. By the way some describe his work, you wouldn't think that this is someone who is widely recognized for his craft and has the career to show for it.

Silver Surfer won an Eisner for its art by Mike Allred. Both Slott and Allred won an award for the overall collaboration but Allred got a separate award for that which Slott didn't. Slott apparently works in a marvel-style method in that he relies heavily on artists to visualize and map out aspects of his story before he fills in afterwards. Christos Gage said as much in a podcast. So that might have counted against him.

I'm sure Allred would say that his work with Slott on SS was a true collaborative effort and that his success on it would not be possible without Slott.

[Prof. Warren]

whats the point of character development if they are going to just go back to doing the same stuff?

One, this is comics. Eventually reverting to the status quo, or at least a ballpark approximation of it, is kind of what they do.

Two, Ock has been "back" for a single cliffhanger page. Let's wait and see where things go before assuming that everything that's happened to Ock in the last few years has been completely undone.

I would think that even if Ock is back to his classic form that remnants of his time as SSM will continue to inform his characterization going forward. But we'll see.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

As I said, I'm not a fan of Lost. But just because something is a punching bag among some people doesn't mean that there isn't a fan base who values it.

Yeah but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't voice a critical or dismissive opinion either. I happen to think the Star Wars prequels are great films, and I think the third one is overall the second best after A New Hope. But if I were to get upset about people making fun of the prequels or attacking fans of the prequels of which there is a huge cottage industry, I wouldn't be able to go online and go outside (though people in day-to-day I meet tend to be neutral/positive to the prequels).

One, not everyone who likes The Birth of a Nation is by default a racist. There are students of film who are able to appreciate Birth of a Nation as a historical document and for its cinematic qualities without subscribing to the politics it represents,

Yes but they wouldn't say "I like the film for its intended message and surface meaning" which is what I meant. That movie was explicitly racist as every film scholar worth their salt has pointed out. A great movie or great work in any medium can be appreciated for both its surface level meaning and its inner depth and overall scope. Nobody would ever argue that The Birth of a Nation is a truly great movie or make a serious case for that. It's a historical curio carefully studied and handled by professors as it should be.

Two, you're making the jump from cultural snobs jeering people who like Friends because it's trivial low brow fluff to calling out racists. Not the same, right?

I am merely pointing out that your idea of strict separation and respect cannot be an universal standard. So the most extreme version communicates that instantly.

Trying to paint fans of something you don't like as being as dumber and less sophisticated than you is always a dick move.

I never did that. What I said was, "The truth is if you dislike something that achieved some amount of commercial and success it is natural to find motives for why the thing you disliked is successful. People who dislike Michael Bay films will say it targets teenage boys with explosions and skimpy dressed girls and so on. People who dislike Friends will likewise say it was a mediocre show with shallow characters saved by the chemistry of the cast."

In the case of Friends, it's pointing out that the show works because of the cast and actors making the best out of material that is fairly weak and formulaic. It isn't attacking fans. I guess you can say that I am attacking fans of Michael Bay's films...but in my experience they tend to be a shameless bunch who accept that as a mark of pride.

"Let me quote a blogger who agrees with me" is not an effective argumentative tool.

It's so nice for people to be blithely ignorant and dismissive about a world where print media is fading (which means little room for comics publications and other stuff) and attack people who post out of passion (since few will pay them for what they wish to write on) and assume that all bloggers are the same. All in the context of a post, arguing against over-generalizations.