Spider-Offices Kremlinology

[The_Sneezing_Stormtrooper]

If that's what you think, then you're completely missing the point of what people are saying.

Complain about Spider-Man comics all you want. Nobody's saying you can't complain about the comics.

People are saying:

1. Don't call comic creators names
2. Don't make stuff up about comic creators and their motivations
3. Don't distort and misrepresent things to paint comic creators in the worst possible light
4. Don't go on mean-spirited rants about how "everyone who worked on X should be FIRED and never work for Marvel again"
5. Don't make stuff up about how every comic you like is FAILING financially, without any hard proof

All of this comes down to not being mean and not making stuff up.

This came up because early in this thread a poster decided to make up some weird and mean-spirited stuff about comic creators, and one of those comic creators came in to say that it was all nonsense.

1. What names has Zeb Wells been called? Was it okay for Zeb Wells to call the fanbase Annie Wilkes? Why don't you hold Marvel writers to the same standard?

2. Why do you think it's inappropriate for people to theorize what's going on behind the scenes in a Spider Office Kremlinology thread?

3. I more of less agree but that doesn't mean you have to automatically assume the best either. If a writer gives you reason to assume the worse then people are going to.

4. If I think the people managing Spider-Man are going a bad job then I'm going to say they should be fired, and yes, they should be fired.

5. I actually 100% agree here but the problem is that Marvel doesn't give us tangible sales data so whether people assume the book is either doing well or badly is speculation either way.

[Spider-Tiger]

So what if a writer does hate Mary Jane? Are writers not allowed to have opinions anymore? I'm actually reminded of one interview I read with John Byrne where they talked about his Alpha Flight run. He specifically mentioned that he tried to give MORE screen time to characters he disliked. Some of the best selling issues he did of that run were with characters he didn't care for. Why do we need to agree with a writers opinion on characters to determine whether or not we like what they write?

I'll preface this by saying that I don't know that any of these people necessarily "hate" MJ. But theoretically, if they did, they probably shouldn't be hired to write this title. Just as it wouldn't make a lot of sense to hire someone who hates Peter Parker.

However, if a writer is making blatantly misogynistic comments like the one Kaitou mentioned, they shouldn't be hired to write for Marvel's largest IP. It should be treated no differently than someone going around making stereotypically racist remarks about a character like Miles Morales.

Got a source on that Larsen quote? I tried to find it and couldn't at a brief google.

I tried looking for it as well and couldn't find it.

Interestingly enough I found an old post from 2008 where he criticizes the approach to OMD and offers how he would have gone about it instead (divorce.) He even goes so far as to accuse Joe Quesada of tracing photographs for his artwork.

Don't agree with much of what he says, but I'm surprised I actually find myself agreeing with some of his points.

[Mister Mets]

I didn't post that initially so I'm not sure why you're asking me for that. I clarified that Doctor Who was available in North America in 2007 and you asked me for proof. Honestly, it feel like you're just moving the goalposts here and I've said what I wanted to say on this topic anyway. You should probably stop comparing Doctor Who's release in 2007 to a manga that has never been translated to English because it's not even close to an accurate comparison but if you want to knowingly be wrong then knock yourself out.

I think that was posted a few pages back. Feel free to look for that yourself.

The link does not mention Doctor Who.

https://ifanboy.com/articles/im-here...ork-dan-slott/

There was some chatter about Slott having a Demonoid (bittottent) account, but if we're trying to gauge his hypocrisy, it's relevant to know what he downloaded.

The search results for "Dan Slott Demonoid Doctor Who" are not helpful.

[The_Sneezing_Stormtrooper]

The link does not mention Doctor Who.

https://ifanboy.com/articles/im-here...ork-dan-slott/

There was some chatter about Slott having a Demonoid (bittottent) account, but if we're trying to gauge his hypocrisy, it's relevant to know what he downloaded.

The search results for "Dan Slott Demonoid Doctor Who" are not helpful.

I don't know, man. I didn't initially claim it was Doctor Who he was pirating. I clarified that it was available when someone said that Dan Slott pirating was okay because Doctor Who wasn't available. You'll have to ask the poster who originally said he was pirating Doctor Who where they got their info.

If Dan Slott did have a demonoid account then chances are that he was pirating multiple shows and movies either way.

[Spider-Tiger]

If anything this chat SHOULD be talking about writers and artists but obviously some posters are unable to handle that without getting defensive and lashing out back at other posters.

Which seems to be whatever any discussion involving criticism of editorial or the writing devolves into. Lots of pearl clutching and a general attitude of "well if you don't like it then go away."

Which is one of many reasons that I've just generally tried to avoid inferring negative opinions in writers or using terms like "hack." It allows the topic of discussion to focus acutely on the criticism of the writing rather than being shifted to however that criticism is being conveyed.

[The Negative Zone]

If anything this chat SHOULD be talking about writers and artists but obviously some posters are unable to handle that without getting defensive and lashing out back at other posters.

Calling someone a hack isn't a personal attack. It's a reflection of their writing ability which is an appropriate level to take it too.

If it's all about stating your opinions and criticizing writing ability then it should be easy enough to explain and critique the actual writing instead of calling them a hack. It's much more mature and respectful. I think the current run is awful, but I'm not going to say things like that about Wells, I'll say that the story is confusing, doesn't make sense, aggravating, and that I've honestly lost hype. If Wells were ever to read the post then he'd have more of an idea at least than me just calling him a "hack" at something who likely does as a passion job. (No comic creator is in it for the fame or the money..)

If people were perhaps less extreme and more respectful maybe some of these creators would actually listen to feedback or we at least wouldn't have back and forth arguments between fans AND creators.

[NC_Yankee]

If it's all about stating your opinions and criticizing writing ability then it should be easy enough to explain and critique the actual writing instead of calling them a hack. It's much more mature and respectful. I think the current run is awful, but I'm not going to say things like that about Wells, I'll say that the story is confusing, doesn't make sense, aggravating, and that I've honestly lost hype. If Wells were ever to read the post then he'd have more of an idea at least than me just calling him a "hack" at something who likely does as a passion job. (No comic creator is in it for the fame or the money..)

If people were perhaps less extreme and more respectful maybe some of these creators would actually listen to feedback or we at least wouldn't have back and forth arguments between fans AND creators.

“How do you know he doesn’t like women?” (JoBeth Williams) “ It’s in the script, the women are written as 1 dimensional.” ( Jeremy Piven ( Just Write)). That is how I see Wells in ASM when it comes to MJ & Felicia. They are written as 1 dimensional characters.

[TinkerSpider]

That is also what someone who isn't interested on writing ASM because of fans would say.



And why's Zdarsky a writer who's interested in undoing OMD who's currently against the current editorial? Where this impression that he's anything like the average OMD hater come from? 'Cause as far as I've seen, he only vaguely said he's interested in doing light hearted Spidey stories, mentioned the fans are too divided on what they want and he doesn't wanna deal with that nonsense.

While he most definitely can't talk shit about Marvel without burning bridges, I see no reason to believe he'd refuse to get into ASM because of editorial's refusal to undo OMD, he only mentioned he doesn't wanna deal with fans, and I don't see why that's so hard to believe.

That’s not what I said.

I said that in a podcast Zdarsky referenced that he knows how to give Batman fans what they want: gritty. But he doesn’t know how to give Spider-Man fans what they want. And he also said Spider-Man isn’t micromanaged storywise, a writer can tell whatever stories they want within certain parameters.

Using logic, if a writer can do anything they want within parameters, but Zdarsky doesn’t know how to give fans what they want - then the issue is the parameters do not dovetail with fan desires. Especially since Zdarsky knows he can give fans fan favorite stories - his Spectacular run was very well received with SSM 310 considered an instant classic while Life Story will go down as as a definitive Spidey AU.

And Spencer gave fans what they want. And he was fired. Because of Substack, true, but they wasted no time signing off on a reversal of Spencer’s status quo, with his last issues obviously changed at the last minute and with CB Cebulski admitting they did make changes.

Zdaraky has never said anything to my knowledge about Spider-Man fans being irrational, trolls, bullying, etc. Never that I can recall, and I follow interviews pretty closely. Assuming he is “afraid” of the fan base is just as much ascribing motivations and mindreading as assuming the opposite.

Tom King's run most definitely had backlash, but I haven't heard anything about death threats, but then again, I don't pay much attention to Batman.

He had a very angry backlash that I think did contain death threats from certain dim corners. It was only somewhat mitigated by King pointing out he moved heaven and earth to marry Bruce and Selina only for the rug to be pulled out from underneath him by Warner Bros brass (and keep in mind WB was being sold at the time with executive turnover which could account for the reversal).

“How do you know he doesn’t like women?” (JoBeth Williams) “ It’s in the script, the women are written as 1 dimensional.” ( Jeremy Piven ( Just Write)). That is how I see Wells in ASM when it comes to MJ & Felicia. They are written as 1 dimensional characters.

Quoting for truth. Every female character in Wells’s run is merely an object to either make Peter feel pain or to reward him. They have no interior lives, and little to no exterior lives. Their emotions don’t count, they are just plot devices to manipulate how Peter feels about himself.

This isn’t saying Zeb Wells hates women as a person. This IS saying there is a discernible streak of misogyny and sexism in his writing that goes back years and is even present in his episode of She-Hulk.

“Hack” is a criticism of the writing. If you don’t want “hack writer” to be be used, better ban “good writer” as well.

Writers are putting a commercial piece of intellectual property into the world. If they can’t handle criticism, perhaps they would be happier scribbling fan fiction in a private journal and taking another job for money.

[bob.schoonover]

It's a pretty well established sales strategy across a variety of forms of media, but it's not the only approach that exists. I do think there's an argument to be made about whether or not this is truly an effective long term strategy for the comics industry. Or whether there's diminishing returns at play. The fact they've had this mindset for years and it hasn't positively impacted long term sales trends (at least when sales figures were still available) probably suggests that they may benefit from changing their approach. But lamenting about the behaviors of an amorphous boogeyman mob that is unlikely to ever change seems futile.

I think it's entirely fair to question the strategy as a long term plan - the other cases I provided links for are more diffuse in terms of what they're selling, how often, how much it varies*, etc. On the other hand, I think it's fairly borne out that "safer" runs that are running concurrently to big spectacles don't sell as well. Zdarsky's PP:SSM and Taylor's FNSM were both mostly controversy-free runs that explored and changed Peter's various relationships (SSM w/Jonah and Teresa, FNSM w/Aunt May). Now, we can quibble about various things here - were the runs given enough time to find their legs, was there enough marketing and sales support for the books, etc. - but I don't think it's entirely surprising that when they decided to try yet another Spider-man satellite title, they gave it to a well-known set of Spider-man creators and have (presumably) encouraged them to "go big."


*With the news, especially, you can be mad to varying degrees about the economy, environment, Ukraine, state politics, city politics, the state of policing, etc. in one news cast.

[Daibhidh]

This isn’t saying Zeb Wells hates women as a person. This IS saying there is a discernible streak of misogyny and sexism in his writing that goes back years and is even present in his episode of She-Hulk.

Yes. The intentional fallacy works both ways. Statements about the implied author aren't statements about the actual author and statements about the actual author aren't statements about the implied author. Inferences from the one to the other need to be made with care and are at best suggestive. (The implied author for those not familiar with the relevant bit of literary theory is the impression of the character of the author a reader gets from the work in question and from nothing else.) It's presumably possible for an author to put all their misogynistic imaginations into their work and be a perfectly nice feminist guy in the rest of their life.

Incidentally, the finale of She-Hulk implies that all the middle of the run of the series, including Zeb Wells' episode, were examples of something that has been done to death and however well they were done they weren't really worth doing again. (In Wells' case, he took a series about a strong female character and wrote an episode about man pain. I don't know why he was given script work on the upcoming Marvels film, which is you know, about three women and you'd think requires a basic interest in scenes that pass the Bechdel test.)

[Huntsman Spider]

Got a source on that Larsen quote? I tried to find it and couldn't at a brief google.

I think you'd have to ask Kaitou D. Kid, since I was mostly replying to his post.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't know that any of these people necessarily "hate" MJ. But theoretically, if they did, they probably shouldn't be hired to write this title. Just as it wouldn't make a lot of sense to hire someone who hates Peter Parker.

However, if a writer is making blatantly misogynistic comments like the one Kaitou mentioned, they shouldn't be hired to write for Marvel's largest IP. It should be treated no differently than someone going around making stereotypically racist remarks about a character like Miles Morales.





I tried looking for it as well and couldn't find it.

Interestingly enough I found an old post from 2008 where he criticizes the approach to OMD and offers how he would have gone about it instead (divorce.) He even goes so far as to accuse Joe Quesada of tracing photographs for his artwork.

Don't agree with much of what he says, but I'm surprised I actually find myself agreeing with some of his points.

Yeah, divorce would have at least been something "relatable," if we had to go there. Plenty of people marry in their twenties and then divorce a few years later after realizing they went in too soon without fully understanding the ramifications and responsibilities of being married. The only issue would be that Peter and Mary Jane went through a lot of growth (and suffering) to be together, so a divorce would feel a lot like they just gave up on each other . . . and giving up their marriage in a literal Faustian bargain with a literal devil wasn't any better, even if Quesada tried to dress it up like a noble self-sacrifice (to save Aunt May, because Peter couldn't handle being responsible for her impending death as a result of the chain of events begun by publicly unmasking at Tony Stark's urging, and arguable emotional manipulation, during Civil War).

[Conn Seanery]

You can thank everyone who couldn’t follow the forum rule quoted below for this thread closure.

Also, anyone who genuinely thinks calling someone a “hack” doesn’t break that rule is just plain wrong. Is it as bad as telling someone to f-off? Of course not, but it is nonetheless a clear demonstration of rude, uncivil, and disrespectful behaviour.

TREAT COMIC BOOK PROFESSIONALS WITH RESPECT

The CBR Community is a safe space for creators or other industry professionals to stop by the site and interact with readers and fans. Whether they’re here in person or just a name on a page of a comic or article you’ve read, they’re all to be treated with respect. Having read or purchased a product someone has worked on does not mean you’re permitted to talk about them however you like. Insults, personal attacks and threats will not be tolerated. There are times when users lose sight of the line between the person and the work; criticism of the work is welcome, insults to the creator of the work are not. The same rules of civility apply and insulting behavior will not be tolerated.