Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 148
  1. #1
    Kinky Lil' Canine Snoop Dogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    9,107

    Default Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

    I knew we were heading towards the apocalypse as soon as Spencer made a new Instagram post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorrek VIII
    What if the Kree and Skrull quarantined in the same rooms together? Aha ha, just kidding... unless...?

  2. #2
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop Dogg View Post
    I knew we were heading towards the apocalypse as soon as Spencer made a new Instagram post.

    Thanks for sharing this. This was a great interview.

  3. #3
    Kinky Lil' Canine Snoop Dogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    9,107

    Default

    does spider-man pour the milk first

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorrek VIII
    What if the Kree and Skrull quarantined in the same rooms together? Aha ha, just kidding... unless...?

  4. #4
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop Dogg View Post
    does spider-man pour the milk first

    This is mostly him reiterating and defending that bone-headed manifesto of his...

    12:42 Tom Brevoort is dead wrong about Ditko not wanting Spider-Man to grow up and go to college. The person who made that decision to do so was Steve Ditko himself. He had full plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards, and it was his decision to have Peter age up and graduate college. Furthermore, not once has anyone traced this quote to Ditko himself. This is basically office gossip and rumor. Ditko never fought it, and was never overruled because again he had plotting credit and control over that decision. He could have kept Spider-Man in high school for the rest of his run and left it for someone else to come afterwards. Ditko confirmed this personally when a fan visited his studio in his final years. Noting that the Master Planner story was planned with Peter in college.
    https://popculturesquad.com/2019/03/...io-sanatorium/


    Other errors he made...


    21:43 The Black Order was introduced in 2013 not 2015.

    29:45 Jack Kirby leaving Marvel was a significant setback for the company, one which it recovered mainly through the help of Archie Goodwin licensing Star Wars comics, and Jim Shooter coming in after that.

  5. #5
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,941

    Default

    Brevoort is delusional about Spider-Man.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  6. #6
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Brevoort is delusional about Spider-Man.
    The fact is as he admits on that interview, he only joined Marvel as an intern in 1989...he has never actually been the main editor of Spider-Man titles, and yet somehow mostly for managing to stick around in a company for a decade or more, he's somehow become this respected voice and allowed to have a say, a privileged say, on stuff that he knows nothing about and has little involvement in.

    The way Brevoort is trotted out and quoted, you'd think he learned at the feet of Lee and Ditko themselves.

    And there's the total lack of irony and self-awareness. Near the end, he talks about top Spider-Man stories -- The master planner saga, KLH, and none of them feature Spider-Man as youthful or in high school and both stories are about him growing up.

  7. #7
    Spectacular Member Spidey_62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Spider-Man can be a lot of things, but I think saying youth is one of the core things can in a way limit creators if they take it the wrong way.

    The PS4 game he's 23 years old, a competent superhero and young adult figuring out his place in the world in all new ways that challenge him. Into The Spider-Verse, he's 38 years old and as compelling as ever because it's Peter in a new light and dealing with new circumstances. Life Story he's super compelling because you get snippets of Peter through his youth and going into his later years figuring out all over again how he continues to fit into the world as a superhero dealing with different problems as he ages. Peter is a youthful character and in a way that makes him such a perfect canvas for stretching him into all kinds of scenarios, because we all grow up, that's a part of youth. I think a lot of us as superhero fans like to hold onto the ideals we learn in our youths from characters like Spider-Man, so part of it is how do we hold onto that part of ourselves as we grow older? I don't think the right questions are being answered if the idea is to just always send him to high school for new cartoons and movies again, so it's been nice to see other adaptations legitimately do different things with him in the last few years that all feel true to Spider-Man.

  8. #8
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    7,039

    Default

    Don't really agree with Brevoort's interpretation of Spider-Man (his "Spider-Man is about youth only" is simply not true), but I guess I don't see the need to dogpile on him, either.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  9. #9
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Don't really agree with Brevoort's interpretation of Spider-Man (his "Spider-Man is about youth only" is simply not true), but I guess I don't see the need to dogpile on him, either.
    Yah I'm kind of in the same boat. I didn't mean to start a dogpile with my comment, or a negative thread. Brevoort's opinion is his opinion and no matter how I feel about it, its his to have. He didn't deserve death threats over it or having people trash him online like what happened around the time of OMD.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  10. #10
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    12:42 Tom Brevoort is dead wrong about Ditko not wanting Spider-Man to grow up and go to college. The person who made that decision to do so was Steve Ditko himself. He had full plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards, and it was his decision to have Peter age up and graduate college. Furthermore, not once has anyone traced this quote to Ditko himself. This is basically office gossip and rumor. Ditko never fought it, and was never overruled because again he had plotting credit and control over that decision. He could have kept Spider-Man in high school for the rest of his run and left it for someone else to come afterwards. Ditko confirmed this personally when a fan visited his studio in his final years. Noting that the Master Planner story was planned with Peter in college.
    https://popculturesquad.com/2019/03/...io-sanatorium/
    The fact that Ditko had a plotting credit from #25 onward doesn't mean that he had equal say in every decision that was made.

    His credit on the books says nothing about what actually came from him or Stan.

    And I wouldn't really take anything Ditko said in his final years as gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Other errors he made...

    21:43 The Black Order was introduced in 2013 not 2015.
    He's on a podcast, having an informal discussion in the middle of a pandemic.

    He edited the comics in question. He was there.

    He could've consulted his records to get an exact date on when those characters were actually introduced for the sake of full accuracy but, you know, it really doesn't fu*king matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    29:45 Jack Kirby leaving Marvel was a significant setback for the company, one which it recovered mainly through the help of Archie Goodwin licensing Star Wars comics, and Jim Shooter coming in after that.
    Nothing Brevoort says discounts that. Do you not think that everyone acknowledges that Kirby leaving was a major blow to Marvel?

    Brevoort's point is that if Kirby, of all people, could leave and yet Marvel could still survive and thrive, that everyone - including himself - is expendable.

    That, ultimately, the characters and the universe have proven to be able to endure no matter what key creative voices may depart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Brevoort is delusional about Spider-Man.
    No, he simply has an opinion that differs from yours. That's not delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The fact is as he admits on that interview, he only joined Marvel as an intern in 1989...he has never actually been the main editor of Spider-Man titles, and yet somehow mostly for managing to stick around in a company for a decade or more, he's somehow become this respected voice and allowed to have a say, a privileged say, on stuff that he knows nothing about and has little involvement in.
    Yes, when you successfully work in a field for two decades, your opinion tends to carry some weight.

    It's amazing that someone who doesn't work in comics and who just sounds off anonymously on message boards would be so indignant that an actual comic professional who has actually contributed to the industry and has, for years, had a personal hand in shaping the direction of comics, would be asked their opinion and have the unmitigated gall to give it.

    I don't agree with every single thing Brevoort says but I certainly understand why he is asked for his opinion and I respect the perspective that he brings.

    And he hasn't "managed to stick around" at Marvel. He started at the lowest level and worked his way up through professionalism and hard work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The way Brevoort is trotted out and quoted, you'd think he learned at the feet of Lee and Ditko themselves.
    And you have?

    Don't worry, if you ever become a top editor in the comics industry, I'm sure people will give your opinions a little more credence too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    And there's the total lack of irony and self-awareness. Near the end, he talks about top Spider-Man stories -- The master planner saga, KLH, and none of them feature Spider-Man as youthful or in high school and both stories are about him growing up.
    Spider-Man is youthful in both stories because he's never not been youthful. He's still youthful to this day.

    He's especially youthful in the Master Planner saga, obviously, being that it's so early on.

    But Brevoort is simply citing those stories for what they are - key Spider-Man storylines.

    Peter can grow up...to a point, which Brevoort says. He just can't grow up to the point where he stops making mistakes.

  11. #11
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    The fact that Ditko had a plotting credit from #25 onward doesn't mean that he had equal say in every decision that was made.

    His credit on the books says nothing about what actually came from him or Stan.

    And I wouldn't really take anything Ditko said in his final years as gospel.



    He's on a podcast, having an informal discussion in the middle of a pandemic.

    He edited the comics in question. He was there.

    He could've consulted his records to get an exact date on when those characters were actually introduced for the sake of full accuracy but, you know, it really doesn't fu*king matter.



    Nothing Brevoort says discounts that. Do you not think that everyone acknowledges that Kirby leaving was a major blow to Marvel?

    Brevoort's point is that if Kirby, of all people, could leave and yet Marvel could still survive and thrive, that everyone - including himself - is expendable.

    That, ultimately, the characters and the universe have proven to be able to endure no matter what key creative voices may depart.



    No, he simply has an opinion that differs from yours. That's not delusional.



    Yes, when you successfully work in a field for two decades, your opinion tends to carry some weight.

    It's amazing that someone who doesn't work in comics and who just sounds off anonymously on message boards would be so indignant that an actual comic professional who has actually contributed to the industry and has, for years, had a personal hand in shaping the direction of comics, would be asked their opinion and have the unmitigated gall to give it.

    I don't agree with every single thing Brevoort says but I certainly understand why he is asked for his opinion and I respect the perspective that he brings.

    And he hasn't "managed to stick around" at Marvel. He started at the lowest level and worked his way up through professionalism and hard work.



    And you have?

    Don't worry, if you ever become a top editor in the comics industry, I'm sure people will give your opinions a little more credence too.



    Spider-Man is youthful in both stories because he's never not been youthful. He's still youthful to this day.

    He's especially youthful in the Master Planner saga, obviously, being that it's so early on.

    But Brevoort is simply citing those stories for what they are - key Spider-Man storylines.

    Peter can grow up...to a point, which Brevoort says. He just can't grow up to the point where he stops making mistakes.
    Funny enough, nobody ever grows up to the point where they stop making mistakes.
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  12. #12
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    And I wouldn't really take anything Ditko said in his final years as gospel.
    So we take the word of some guy who Ditko never worked with in any capacity, who came on well after his time, and who's just repeating second-hand information...over the actual co-creator of the story? Is that what we are supposed to do? Ditko is supposed to be held to higher standards than some publisher at Marvel who has never created any character or written a story of note? As per Blake Bell's biography Ditko alone among Marvel Method "co-creators" negotiated a plotting credit (which was still something that didn't satisfy him, he wanted the by-line to read written by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, art by Steve Ditko) which for instance Kirby didn't. And Lee openly said in interviews in the '60s (at a time when Lee was at his most forthright as many commentators noted) that he was following Ditko's plots in both Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

    Furthermore, Ditko in many of his writings has always been open about story disputes with Stan Lee
    - The overuse of Fantastic Four cameos.
    - Trying to shoehorn more outlandish science fiction and mystical concepts (aliens in Issue 2, Goblin's original concept of a Egyptian demon discovered in a sarcophagus).
    - Redoing of covers to cover Spider-Man's butt ordered by Lee over Ditko's objections. No seriously (https://www.cbr.com/knowledge-waits-...er-man-covers/).
    - A rejected idea to kill Betty Brant in a common accident which he pitched to Lee early in their collaboration, but the latter rejected and talked him out of it (Ditko is on record for Lee being right on this call, the only time he gives credit to Stan's judgment).

    It's kind of bizarre, that when Ditko talks consistently about real issues that bothered him and which he kept writing about in his fanzines and overly long newsletters, people repeat instead made-up easily debunked rumors like "Ditko had problems with Norman being Goblin", or "Ditko didn't want Peter to graduate high school", not one of which has any shred of evidence, documentary or otherwise. Furthermore, as publisher and editor, it is indeed Brevoort's job to know all these exact details and get the facts right. Writers and artists may not know the lore and backstory and inside baseball stff, and they rely on the editors and publishers to school them in on the context. If Brevoort is mistaken, or is actively misleading to push his agenda, then that has consequences in not allowing talent to have a full deck of cards on what to do, where they might go, and whether it's consistent with the original intent of stories.

    Brevoort's point is that if Kirby, of all people, could leave and yet Marvel could still survive and thrive, that everyone - including himself - is expendable.
    The real point is that what keeps the characters alive is the work done in maintaining, reviving and updating the characters as times change. After Kirby left, Marvel experienced a downturn, not immediately or drastically, but definite one. And what saved them was the decision by Archie Goodwin to license Star Wars comics, i.e. not characters Marvel created but characters George Lucas did. So there's nothing about the characters being inherently survivable. What brought Marvel out was the work done by Wein, Cockrum, Claremont and Byrne on X-Men, and the work done on Spider-Man in the '80s, and Jim Shooter's imaginative run as EIC where he provided royalties to creators and others.

    What counted was that creators realized that audiences had changed, and the characters had to change with the times. That's what saved Marvel, and kept Marvel relevant.

    Don't worry, if you ever become a top editor in the comics industry, I'm sure people will give your opinions a little more credence too.
    If Brevoort was making a literary argument for why Spider-Man works best when he is young, that would be an opinion. Except that's not what he's doing. When Brevoort starts making claims that Steve Ditko disagreed with Peter aging out of high school, and that he's true to the original intentions...he's not making an opinion, he's claiming his opinion is fact, and claims about facts can be checked, investigated, corrected, and in this case refuted.

    He just can't grow up to the point where he stops making mistakes.
    "Making mistakes" has nothing to do with age or growing up. You don't stop making mistakes as you grow older. Take the current POTUS, the oldest man to take office in US history (circa 2016), and boy does he make mistakes. The people who voted for Brexit, were also older voters mainly.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 04-02-2020 at 03:54 PM.

  13. #13
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huntsman Spider View Post
    Funny enough, nobody ever grows up to the point where they stop making mistakes.
    No, but they do grow up to the point where it's no longer as acceptable.

    The younger Peter is, the more you can allow for the fact that he frequently screws up.

    The missteps people make in their teens and twenties are much more forgivable and attributable to lack of experience than it is once someone gets into their 30s and 40s and so on. At that point, it's just sad.

  14. #14
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    No, but they do grow up to the point where it's no longer as acceptable.
    What exactly is no longer acceptable?

    The younger Peter is, the more you can allow for the fact that he frequently screws up.
    Peter in the classic era struggled to balance being a superhero and being a working-class guy at the same time without the resources of Bruce Wayne, or Clark Kent's Kansas and Antarctic getaways which facilitated those balances and prevented the double-life from being an actual issue in the story.

    There's nothing to suggest that anyone else in Peter's given situation would handle his situation better than he does. Ergo he isn't a screwup.

    Being a screw-up, which Peter wasn't, not in the Ditko era anyway has nothing to do with that.

    At that point, it's just sad.
    It's sadder when you do endless stories of him being and remaining juvenile as he has been in BND and for most of Slott's run.

  15. #15
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    So we take the word of some guy who Ditko never worked with in any capacity, who came on well after his time, and who's just repeating second-hand information...over the actual co-creator of the story? Is that what we are supposed to do? Ditko is supposed to be held to higher standards than some publisher at Marvel who has never created any character or written a story of note? As per Blake Bell's biography Ditko alone among Marvel Method "co-creators" negotiated a plotting credit (which was still something that didn't satisfy him, he wanted the by-line to read written by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, art by Steve Ditko) which for instance Kirby didn't. And Lee openly said in interviews in the '60s (at a time when Lee was at his most forthright as many commentators noted) that he was following Ditko's plots in both Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.
    Again, a co-plotting credit doesn't tell the whole story. It just doesn't.

    As for taking Brevoort's word even though he never worked with Ditko - I would simply say that there's as much credence to whatever he's heard as an industry professional, whether it be second hand gossip or not, than there is to most other rumors that are attached to the early days of Marvel. In other words, I wouldn't take it as stone cold truth but I'm sure there's something to it. You can take it for what it is and attribute as much or as little weight to it as you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Furthermore, Ditko in many of his writings has always been open about story disputes with Stan Lee
    - The overuse of Fantastic Four cameos.
    - Trying to shoehorn more outlandish science fiction and mystical concepts (aliens in Issue 2, Goblin's original concept of a Egyptian demon discovered in a sarcophagus).
    - Redoing of covers to cover Spider-Man's butt ordered by Lee over Ditko's objections. No seriously (https://www.cbr.com/knowledge-waits-...er-man-covers/).
    - A rejected idea to kill Betty Brant in a common accident which he pitched to Lee early in their collaboration, but the latter rejected and talked him out of it (Ditko is on record for Lee being right on this call, the only time he gives credit to Stan's judgment).
    Ok. We all know that Stan and Steve regularly butted heads on ASM. That doesn't mean that every single dispute that they had is documented in interviews. If anything, it's very likely that what we know is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    It's kind of bizarre, that when Ditko talks consistently about real issues that bothered him and which he kept writing about in his fanzines and overly long newsletters, people repeat instead made-up easily debunked rumors like "Ditko had problems with Norman being Goblin", or "Ditko didn't want Peter to graduate high school", not one of which has any shred of evidence, documentary or otherwise. Furthermore, as publisher and editor, it is indeed Brevoort's job to know all these exact details and get the facts right. Writers and artists may not know the lore and backstory and inside baseball stff, and they rely on the editors and publishers to school them in on the context. If Brevoort is mistaken, or is actively misleading to push his agenda, then that has consequences in not allowing talent to have a full deck of cards on what to do, where they might go, and whether it's consistent with the original intent of stories.
    This might sound crazy, I know, but I think it's possible that Brevoort might know what he's talking about, even if you disagree with his views.

    This might also sound crazy but writers and artists that work for Marvel might also actually know a thing or two about the characters they're writing about.

    If nothing else, they certainly have every opportunity to educate themselves, right? I mean, they're not just sitting at Brevoort's knee waiting to be fed information.

    I'm very sure that writers like JMS, Dan Slott, Nick Spencer, Chip Zdarsky, etc., are all in possession of a full deck of cards regarding Spidey and have their own thoughts on the original intent of the stories that Stan, Steve and others did with or without Brevoort influencing them. I mean, honestly. Are you for real thinking "what if all these poor saps don't know as much as I do?" Come on now.

    Also, part of what Brevoort's job entails is - to a certain extent - "pushing an agenda." That's not overstepping, it's part of what they pay him for.

    But again, he isn't directly editing any Spider-Man books so why worry at all? Be concerned about Nick Lowe, if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The real point is that what keeps the characters alive is the work done in maintaining, reviving and updating the characters as times change. After Kirby left, Marvel experienced a downturn, not immediately or drastically, but definite one. And what saved them was the decision by Archie Goodwin to license Star Wars comics, i.e. not characters Marvel created but characters George Lucas did. So there's nothing about the characters being inherently survivable. What brought Marvel out was the work done by Wein, Cockrum, Claremont and Byrne on X-Men, and the work done on Spider-Man in the '80s, and Jim Shooter's imaginative run as EIC where he provided royalties to creators and others.

    What counted was that creators realized that audiences had changed, and the characters had to change with the times. That's what saved Marvel, and kept Marvel relevant.
    There are many things that make publishing a perilous, uncertain business.

    But on a strictly creative level, Marvel was able to survive Kirby's departure. Many great eras have occurred since then.

    Brevoort's point - because he was being asked about the difficulty of filling the void of a creator like Bendis - is that, if Kirby could leave and things could still continue, then no one single person is so vital to Marvel that their departure would be a fatal blow to the company. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    If Brevoort was making a literary argument for why Spider-Man works best when he is young, that would be an opinion. Except that's not what he's doing. When Brevoort starts making claims that Steve Ditko disagreed with Peter aging out of high school, and that he's true to the original intentions...he's not making an opinion, he's claiming his opinion is fact, and claims about facts can be checked, investigated, corrected, and in this case refuted.
    Except that your refutation of his facts with your facts can be equally refuted. See how that works?

    When it comes to the early days of Marvel - and with most creative endeavors in general - the "truth" is often a murky proposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    "Making mistakes" has nothing to do with age or growing up. You don't stop making mistakes as you grow older. Take the current POTUS, the oldest man to take office in US history (circa 2016), and boy does he make mistakes. The people who voted for Brexit, were also older voters mainly.
    As I said in a post above, it's easier to forgive the mistakes of a young man. Once you get older and keep making mistakes, or worse, the same mistakes - you're just an idiot.

    Trump is a moron. The fact that he's the age that he is makes his failings as a human being despicable, not forgivable. And all these older voters who voted for him or Brexit in the UK are just unmitigated asshats who ought to have known better but didn't. A young person making those choices seems more permissible because you can believe or hope that they might see the error of their choice in time. With older people, you know that isn't going to happen. They're just dumb.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •