Things to keep in mind when concocting behind-the-scenes conspiracy theories...

[Kevinroc]

Dan is correcting misinformation. He works for Marvel, he's written hundreds of Spider-Man comics. When it comes to the behind the scenes hows and whys he knows better than the fans do.

He's well within his right to correct misinformation about the industry he works in and the comic series he works on.



That YouTube channel came up in another thread recently:

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6641154
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6641212

In the "Power of X-Men: Apocalypse" podcast (at 25:30), Dark X-Men writer Steve Foxe says he asked the Spider-Man office for permission to use Ben Reilly, asked if they were doing anything with the character "over the next couple of months". He says the Spider-Man office were excited that they wanted to use him in X-Men, because they didn't have "imminent plans" (Foxe mentions that Spider-Man is about to go into Gang War).

The YouTuber then spun this as the Spider-Man office having said "we have no plans on using Ben Reilly ever again".

So I'd be inclined to take any second hand information from this YouTube channel with a huge grain of salt, at best.

I just want to point out that anything anyone says on the internet should be taken with a "huge grain of salt," but I will also add what Sal/ComicPop said that Spencer told them is so lacking in details that it could mean a lot of things. Cebulski has already admitted that Marvel Editorial had changed the ending (although he certainly made it seem like it wasn't a big deal, which again, can mean a lot of things).

Dan Slott stating that retconning One More Day was never on the table isn't mutually exclusive to the idea that Spencer's ending was changed by Marvel Editorial.

This is all grounds for why these behind the scenes conspiracy theories exist. But it doesn't necessarily mean anyone is outright lying.

The engagement ring was about bad timing. That seemed to be the message. Peter wanted to propose again, and the timing just doesn't work out.

It's the Parker luck in action.

It's that the Engagement Ring was brought back up at the start of Sinister War and then never referenced in any way again. It's conspiracy theory fuel.

[WebLurker]

When it comes to Marvel and OMD, I've come to think that one should follow Rule of Acquisition #190; "Hear all; trust nothing." Too many different statements across too many years regarding the sausage-making, too little public information regarding how it actually all works (e.g. whatever is keeping OMD in place, what would have to happen for it to be undone, etc.), and everyone involved being way to emotionally invested in the whole thing. Bottom line is the Powers That Be still want OMD in place and the marriage to never come back and that's not changing anytime soon. As long as that's the case, it doesn't really matter why it's become the editor's hill to die on; same difference either way.

[boots]

I mean there's a difference between being reliable and being in the know. The latter doesn't necessarily imply the former and I'm not sure why you want to use the fallacy of appealing to authority here to say otherwise.

that's not how the fallacy of appeal to authority works

i'm not taking advice on how to cure cancer from dan. or how to service my car.

would he know what went on in his workplace? probably moreso than anyone outside his workplace. like you would about your workplace?

[Xix25]

I'm not exactly listening to someone who fudges details and stories about their experiences either, so I'm confused why so many people here have a lot of faith without some strong reasons IMO. Either way, no need to get this worked up over my disagreements with your consensus.

[boots]

I just want to point out that anything anyone says on the internet should be taken with a "huge grain of salt," .

there's disinfo or misinfo on the internet. there's urban legends and telephone game. and there's also facts and takes with multiple verified sources. it's a wild place but it's not all bullshit.

[Dan Slott]

I'm not exactly listening to someone who fudges details and stories about their experiences either...

Be fair though. You're incredibly interested in this thread about my experiences, takes, and opinions. You signed up for these boards *just* this month and a nice percentage of your total posts have been right here on *this* thread.

[boots]

I'm not exactly listening to someone who fudges details and stories about their experiences either, so I'm confused why so many people here have a lot of faith without some strong reasons IMO. Either way, no need to get this worked up over my disagreements with your consensus.

i'm unsure if either us are getting worked up?

other than questioning how that particular fallacy applies, i'm curious what proof we have that dan fudges his stories? what is this based on? who have you spoken to? how were they involved?

if you're confused why anyone would take someone's story of their workplace at face value, i guess the reverse of being curious why you'd doubt their work story would also apply.

[boots]

Since you brought them up...

I'm curious what "behind the scenes" info you might be willing to share regarding the Spider Clone Bros. As someone who loves the Clone Saga and named my son after Ben Reilly, you can imagine how much I care about seeing them appear as often as possible -- yet the Spider-Office has admitted not really knowing what to do with Ben (and maybe Kaine as well). It seems to me the trouble may come from a blurring of the lines between the two characters: Kaine becoming the Scarlet Spider -- and a hero -- made him more similar to Ben; then when Ben is brought back (by you!) it's as though Kaine has kinda taken his place, so Ben returns as a villain, which arguably leads to him becoming more like Kaine -- and perhaps both characters have maybe lost what differentiates one from the other, leaving neither in a good place.

I seem to recall that you originally planned to bring Ben back in Spider-Island instead of Kaine: do you have an opinions on whether move might've been "better" for the characters long-term?

Also, totally unrelated question: I came to love your work due to reading your Great Lakes Avengers stuff. Any chance you can work them into your current stuff? Or maybe a new one-shot?

Thanks for all your great comic work and for taking the time to discuss comics with us!

-Pav, whose Benny Boy is almost 6 months old... Attachment 135875

a ben i'm happy to see! big congrats pav

though i'd also like to hear dan's thoughts on your questions!

[Alex_Of_X]

Dan, fave arc of Zeb's ASM and why?

[HypnoHustler]

Dan, fave arc of Zeb's ASM and why?

Do you think Dan reads it?

[Mercwmouth12]

Do you think Dan reads it?

That's actually easy to answer it's the 2 backups he wrote in issue 31 because he wrote it and the break up with Felicia. It's no secret he's not a fan of the character

[wleakr]

Do you think Dan reads it?

I would think he's too busy with his own work and other commitments to fully invest in reading anyone elses stories.

Could be wrong though!

[Alan2099]

I'm not exactly listening to someone who fudges details and stories about their experiences either,

EVERYONE that's ever told a story about their life has fudged details about their experiences. Sometimes it's recalling things wrong, sometimes it's leaving out stuff to make the narrative flow better, sometimes it's cutting out things that take too long to explain or that you wouldn't care about anyway. Then there's the occasional brainfart where you said something and you don't know why you got the detail wrong.

Somebody not having a 100% recollection of everything that's ever happened to them or around them is no reason not to listen to a person.

Generally if somebody tells me about what happened at their work, I have no reason not to believe them. Maybe they said an idea was Bob from accounting when it was actually Frank from marketing, and maybe "I was talking with some people," really meant "I was sitting their and happened to overhear..." but everybody does that. I do that. You do that. If you tell me otherwise, then I know you're lying.

Maybe 5 to 10% of what somebody's saying is a little bit off, but that's no reason you can't get some decent info from the story.

[Dan Slott]

Inaccurate reporting from sites about WHAT'S been said at panels and WHO said what at panels is a great source for misinformation that becomes conspiracy theories.

I've been on panels where I've said things where the words "no" and "not" have been left out of my quotes, giving things I've said 180 degree different meanings. And I've had someone sitting NEXT to me at a panel say something, and then had it attributed to me in articles. All kinds of stuff like that happens. And the kicker is-- there will be VIDEO of the panels where you can clearly see and hear who said what. But that doesn't matter. Because once a Spidey conspiracy theory has made the rounds across the internet, it's set in stone, no matter what the reality of the situation is.

I have a new favorite though today.

Someone recounted what I did and didn't say this year on an NYCC panel along with other Spidey creators and editorial.

But here's the thing:

I wasn't on that panel. AT ALL.

I didn't do any panels at NYCC this past year. I wasn't sure if I was going to be traveling with family and out of the city during NYCC this year. So I committed to doing the show far too late in the game. The only Marvel event I took part in was signing SPIDER-BOY posters at the Marvel Booth for an hour.

But now, in the world of Spider-Conspiracy Theories I was magically on that panel and probably up to no good. :-P

[Kevinroc]

Inaccurate reporting from sites about WHAT'S been said at panels and WHO said what at panels is a great source for misinformation that becomes conspiracy theories.

I've been on panels where I've said things where the words "no" and "not" have been left out of my quotes, giving things I've said 180 degree different meanings. And I've had someone sitting NEXT to me at a panel say something, and then had it attributed to me in articles. All kinds of stuff like that happens. And the kicker is-- there will be VIDEO of the panels where you can clearly see and hear who said what. But that doesn't matter. Because once a Spidey conspiracy theory has made the rounds across the internet, it's set in stone, no matter what the reality of the situation is.

I have a new favorite though today.

Someone recounted what I did and didn't say this year on an NYCC panel along with other Spidey creators and editorial.

But here's the thing:

I wasn't on that panel. AT ALL.

I didn't do any panels at NYCC this past year. I wasn't sure if I was going to be traveling with family and out of the city during NYCC this year. So I committed to doing the show far too late in the game. The only Marvel event I took part in was signing SPIDER-BOY posters at the Marvel Booth for an hour.

But now, in the world of Spider-Conspiracy Theories I was magically on that panel and probably up to no good. :-P

You're definitely up to no good. You're posting on CBR. None of us are up to any good around these parts.

(Edit: Just to be clear. This is an intentional joke post.)