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

[Dan Slott]

People can take anything you say on the internet and selectively re-edit it, misinterpret it, and/or just lie about it, to make it sound like you've said the exact opposite of what you were saying, or something else completely in order to service their own ends.

Case in point:

This was a fun moment in my life that I've talked about once or twice on social media.

This was something that happened to me.

This story hasn't been told anywhere else except for the times that *I* told it.

There is nowhere else on the internet where you can read about this other than *my* social media accounts.

That's important for later. Ready? Here's that story again:

I Have Always Been a Terrible Person: How Teenage-Me Met Michael Moorcock
As a teenager, growing up in London, there was one day when I noticed a small, unused suggestion box in my school library. I asked the librarian if it was there for suggesting new books and magazines.
"No," she told me, "it's for authors."
"So it's to get books BY those authors?"
"No. It's to get local authors to come and talk to the school. If there are enough requests, we'll see if we can get them to pop over for a lecture."
Being a big fan of all the Michael Moorcock books (especially ELRIC and HAWKMOON), I did what any terrible person would do. I collected a bunch of different colored pens and wrote out "Michael Moorcock" in as many different, individual, and phony-looking signatures as possible.
Thinking that hundreds of kids from my school wanted Michael Moorcock to come speak there, they invited him over and reserved the auditorium for a large turnout.
Which ended up being me and about six of my friends.
"Is this it?" asked my favorite author.
"Yeah," said all of us.
Mr. Moorcock suggested we move the talk to a more private setting.
And it was awesome. We all got to ask him lots of one-on-one questions about the characters and rich worlds he'd created, his process of writing, and-- well-- it was one of the most special, enlightening, and memorable moments of both my life and my entire education.
And I owed it all to being a truly terrible person.
Make of that what you will.
10504861_10204364637690693_3723336349188273716_o.jpg

Silly story, right?

A couple of my online detractors read this, then sometime later misremembered it.
They bounced the story back and forth with each other, and then changed it.
In their new collaborative reworking of how they remembered it, there was now a Michael Moorcock COMPETITION and the school that got enough votes would get to have Michael Moorcock come to their school.
In this version, since I single handedly rigged the competition so that my school would win, I was the terrible person who DEPRIVED the school that SHOULD have won.

They then went on to tell this new (and totally incorrect) version to other people online.

When I confronted one of the people who had workshopped and spread around this false version-- when I showed them the original posts, the ONLY source for the story-- they wouldn't back down. Their response was that their version might be the accurate version and I might have been lying when I originally told it online.

The internet is a curse.

*Addendum: That person in question is sticking to their guns and is still lying and standing by *their* made up version of *my* story where it was a "contest" that I rigged. (Insert facepalm .gif here.)

The internet isn't just a curse. It's a stupid curse.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

Your description of it is similar to the clues about Baby May still being alive, with the twist that it's the real Aunt May.

That's factual, but also kind of missing half the story - DeFalco wanted to pursue it to the end, and when Harras still put his foot down, he balked out of writing the Gathering of Five prelude altogether and left it to Byrne. It's an interesting precedent that just makes us wonder if it was a similar scenario with Spencer.

If Spencer's goal was to "undo OMD", assuming he had buy-in from editorial, he could've (and should've) spun that story at the start of his run.

We only needed a 4-part story to tell OMD; could've easily un-did it in another 4 parts (definitely did not need 70 plus issues to spin it).

He also did not need 70 plus issues to undo Sins Past... after all, comics is a business, and Spencer's run was profitable. And as you very adequately put it, we don't even know if editorial bought in (I'd believe not, as Dan said, and he's basically one of the few hard confirms we've had on this case, besides what the Youtubers posted here alleged), which basically just leads to the hypothesizing here.

I mean, that's what I'd call the biggest difference between hypothesizing and conspiracy theories. Dan said Nick wanted to undo OMD, but that editorial wouldn't let it; and we got the run we got. Given the myriad contradictions by the run's finish, at this point I think both hypothesis have the same weight to them: it could have been because the run was shortened, or it could also have been because of Spencer just wanting to tell it the way he wanted (despite editorial not allowing it; not unlike the DeFalco situation above).

I'm reminded of how in the recent months after Spencer's run wrapped, people were basically making it out of thin air that "there were shouting matches between Quesada and Spencer" as far as concluding the story goes. I think Quesada wasn't even in a Chief Creative Officer position at the time (I may be wrong), but people were spinning it around in some places. That, there, I'd just say fits conspiracy altogether - we don't know what happened, but they wanted to believe it so hard, Spencer HAD to get in a shouting match with a higher up because that's how badly the guy wanted it to be true.

[charliehustle415]

The internet is a curse.

*Addendum: That person in question is sticking to their guns and is still lying and standing by *their* made up version of *my* story where it was a "contest" that I rigged. (Insert facepalm .gif here.)

The internet isn't just a curse. It's a stupid curse.

Dan, you're an amazing writer whose work on Spidey will reverberate for generations.

Why do you do this to yourself and try to convince people who are unconvincable?

Some comic dorks are just as bad as Qanon dorks - there's no winning.

The internet is a curse if you allow yourself to be consumed by it.

[wleakr]

He also did not need 70 plus issues to undo Sins Past... after all, comics is a business, and Spencer's run was profitable.

I mean, that's what I'd call the biggest difference between hypothesizing and conspiracy theories. Dan said Nick wanted to undo OMD, but that editorial wouldn't let it; and we got the run we got.

There's a big difference between dealing with Sins Past or any other past story arc and undoing OMD (or re-establishing the marraige anew in 616).

In the former, the current writer can choose to follow-up with that arc or push it in the background and so can next writer. The next writer can choose to never deal with any aftermath from that arc, if they so choose not to handle the characters involved.

The marraige, you HAVE to deal with some type of way, even if you push it in the background.

So, with Sins Past or anything else, it doesn't matter to deal with it now or later (or even at all).

But should editorial ever decide to allow the marraige back in 616, IMHO it would be a cop out for a writer to do that arc, leave the book and hot potato the future handling to the next writer to contend.

It seems like when it was announced Spencer was leaving the book and his major long-running storyline was going to be wrapped up, a portion of fans was anticipating either an acknowledgment of OMD or even a complete restore of the marraige.

Had that occurred, it would have literally been how he ended his run, drops the mic and now it's someone elses problem to deal with.

The same problem Marvel wanted to get away from when they did the marraige in the first place.

I just hope that should it ever come back in the 616, whomever is charged with that, respects the concept enough to execute some stories for a period of time on their watch.

However, as it stands, I'm enjoying the Spider-books as they are.

[wleakr]

Dan, you're an amazing writer whose work on Spidey will reverberate for generations.

Why do you do this to yourself and try to convince people who are unconvincable?

Because with great power there must also come great responsibility!

[Kevinroc]

If Spencer's goal was to "undo OMD", assuming he had buy-in from editorial, he could've (and should've) spun that story at the start of his run.

We only needed a 4-part story to tell OMD; could've easily un-did it in another 4 parts (definitely did not need 70 plus issues to spin it).

Had he done so at the start, he would have had all those issues to show how to "properly" write a married book. Instead, if we are to believe that was his goal, it appears he was trying to end his run on that and potentially pass the buck to the next writer to figure what to do next.

But that's just a conspiracy theory concocted on my part....lol!

Spencer wrote Peter with an engagement ring and a desire to propose to MJ.

A plot point even brought up at the beginning of Sinister War and then completely dropped without explanation.

And just like Strange confronting Mephisto about Peter's soul was changed to asking about Harry's soul, this also was not explained in the story or by anyone involved. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say this wasn't about Sins Past.

[Daibhidh]

Think of all the times in a comic book where it's been prophesied that a certain character will die. Tease after tease has happened showing over and over again that the prophecy is coming to pass and there's no way out... Yet in the final chapter of the arc, a different outcome happens and the prophecy actually lined up a different way.

Are you saying that in all of the cases where a story like that happened, that the editor was at fault for NOT having the character die?

It seems to me that thinking that all twists or all disconfirmed expectations are the same is the thinking that gave us the M Night Shalayam movies that followed Sixth Sense.

Sixth Sense is one of the twist endings in storytelling, in part because the very point of the twist is that it announces itself up front but we just don't see it because we think we know the story we're watching, and in part because the story it is in fact telling after the twist is a better story with better people in it than the story before the twist. And then in M Night Shalayam's following films neither of those things are true: we just have twist endings for the sake of the twist endings.

If you have a prophecy that a character is going to die and then the character doesn't die, that's not even a twist ending. It's not a twist ending any more than when the villain puts the hero in a death trap and predicts that this time the hero cannot escape. In both cases the narrative problem is how will the characters get out of this situation this time. In both cases, the audience do not want the hero to die and, unless the genre of the story is tragedy, they expect that the hero will in fact not die.
By contrast, I think while retconning Sins Past - a story nearly two decades old - was popular it was not nearly as popular as the return of the marriage, so it's not replacing a worse story with a better story. Our heroes overcome the obstacles to getting their marriage back is a better story than retconning the retcon affecting the personality of a long dead character. And while Spencer's run has a lot about Peter and Mary Jane's relationship and a lot about doing deals with villains, it has rather less to do with the issues raised by Sins Past. So as a twist it's not really playing fair. It's not an interesting twist.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

There's a big difference between dealing with Sins Past or any other past story arc and undoing OMD (or re-establishing the marraige anew in 616).

In the former, the current writer can choose to follow-up with that arc or push it in the background and so can next writer. The next writer can choose to never deal with any aftermath from that arc, if they so choose not to handle the characters involved.

The marraige, you HAVE to deal with some type of way, even if you push it in the background.

So, with Sins Past or anything else, it doesn't matter to deal with it now or later (or even at all).

But should editorial ever decide to allow the marraige back in 616, IMHO it would be a cop out for a writer to do that arc, leave the book and hot potato the future handling to the next writer to contend.

It seems like when it was announced Spencer was leaving the book and his major long-running storyline was going to be wrapped up, a portion of fans was anticipating either an acknowledgment of OMD or even a complete restore of the marraige.

Had that occurred, it would have literally been how he ended his run, drops the mic and now it's someone elses problem to deal with.

The same problem Marvel wanted to get away from when they did the marraige in the first place.

I just hope that should it ever come back in the 616, whomever is charged with that, respects the concept enough to execute some stories for a period of time on their watch.

Yeah, I do agree with you it's a broad, sweeping change, that you might not just want to dump on the shoulders of the next writer - though, curiously, and unrelated, but it kinda happened on Daredevil right now. Zdarky's run basically ended with Matt dying, somehow reviving, and now Ahmed's run has to basically work around how did it even happen.

Sins Past definitely did not carry that weight. At the same time, though, I also think it wouldn't need 70 issues to undo - the core premise of the story was mostly simple, and I think it could work similarly to how you laid out an "undoing OMD" story being done in relatively short order as well. The most crucial story beats pertained to Gabriel and Sara not being Gwen's actual biological children, but machinations of a villain.

However, as it stands, I'm enjoying the Spider-books as they are.

Text is terrible to convey someone's intended tone, but I'm honestly glad for the person whenever they do like the current run. Spencer's run also wasn't much to my taste, and I can't say I like Wells' (though I DID enjoy Beyond, warts and all), but this is a hobby, and geez, I'd rather enjoy my hobby.

I did enjoy Slott's Electro three-parter no less, and since his Spidey titles just resumed, I'm keeping an eye on them as well. They might just scratch that same itch.

[Kevinroc]

There's a big difference between dealing with Sins Past or any other past story arc and undoing OMD (or re-establishing the marraige anew in 616).

In the former, the current writer can choose to follow-up with that arc or push it in the background and so can next writer. The next writer can choose to never deal with any aftermath from that arc, if they so choose not to handle the characters involved.

The marraige, you HAVE to deal with some type of way, even if you push it in the background.

So, with Sins Past or anything else, it doesn't matter to deal with it now or later (or even at all).

But should editorial ever decide to allow the marraige back in 616, IMHO it would be a cop out for a writer to do that arc, leave the book and hot potato the future handling to the next writer to contend.

It seems like when it was announced Spencer was leaving the book and his major long-running storyline was going to be wrapped up, a portion of fans was anticipating either an acknowledgment of OMD or even a complete restore of the marraige.

Had that occurred, it would have literally been how he ended his run, drops the mic and now it's someone elses problem to deal with.

The same problem Marvel wanted to get away from when they did the marraige in the first place.

I just hope that should it ever come back in the 616, whomever is charged with that, respects the concept enough to execute some stories for a period of time on their watch.

However, as it stands, I'm enjoying the Spider-books as they are.

I'm honestly glad you're enjoying the books.

There's too much negativity on the internet. And I can admit I have been too negative myself. It's something I've been trying to work on, but I still err.

[Garlador]

I'm honestly glad you're enjoying the books.

There's too much negativity on the internet. And I can admit I have been too negative myself. It's something I've been trying to work on, but I still err.

I hate the current run. I’m candid about that. Far from the first time, with Spider-Man or other characters. Some runs just bomb for me. It happens.

I expect I’ll like a future run, or hopefully USM, or just read something else. One run I dislike doesn’t destroy my love of a character. I try not to get too bogged down in the negativities. I have a campaign to push for the positives of what I and others do want instead.

[HypnoHustler]

He also did not need 70 plus issues to undo Sins Past... after all, comics is a business, and Spencer's run was profitable. And as you very adequately put it, we don't even know if editorial bought in (I'd believe not, as Dan said, and he's basically one of the few hard confirms we've had on this case, besides what the Youtubers posted here alleged), which basically just leads to the hypothesizing here.

Someone who would also be in the know has said the same to me… the Kindred reveal wasn’t editorial interference and the plan all along was basically what happened (in which case, wtf Spencer…). The only thing that changed was the number of issues to get there. The original plan was the Kindred saga would stretch 100 issues, not 75! But the ending was always going to be more or less, the same. I can’t reveal my source as it was a private correspondence and they didn’t give permission to quote them (I will say it wasn’t Spencer or Lowe), but the person basically said what Slott is saying here.

[Xix25]

What more would you have liked Dan Slott to say?

It seems he explained his understanding. The main counter-response is that he's lying, rather than evasive.

Not to pretend to have brilliant insight and all the answers that some people just don't like and want to see? I see no reason for Slott to comment at all vs carrying on with his life.

[boots]

I see no reason for Slott to comment at all vs carrying on with his life.

Can be applied to everyone on this thread

Why even forum

[Lee]

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.

People also say a lot of things so they can get views online. Doesn't mean it's true

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.

[Xix25]

Haven't seen much from Dan that is verifiable to be frank, so to say he's been 'correcting misinformation' would be quite misleading.