John Byrne VS Dan Slott on All-New All-Different Marvel

[cyberhubbs]

Brilliant strategic move by Byrne and Slott. This was all a set-up for a Byrne-Slott collaboration, probably for Image or Marvel, and you're all going to eat it up, lol!!

This is the second time I've heard this theory. First time was that this WAS their collaboration, a sort of performance art thing. Would be damn hilarious if true.

[Dan Slott]

Except based on the very nature of the premise, Peter isn't really going to be "the same person."

Mike,
This is YOU all over. You haven't even read PAGE ONE of the interiors, and are going off of interviewers, blurbs, and cover art, you've made a huge leap, and declared something right-out-of-the-gate that is wayyyy off base.

I've seen you do this with the book for 7-8 years now. You create this Mike-McNulty-version of the book in your head, you make wild assumptions of where you think the book is going, and what you think the book is about...
...and then you judge it based on that.

But there's always some key, fundamental thing you've gotten wrong. Mike, honestly, you know and I know that practically every prediction you've made for this title has been horrendously wrong. Your 7-8 year track record on this is astounding. And it's not just your predictions, it's also your recaps. I have read some of your "synopses" of issues in slack-jawed wonder where you've added in moments and motivations that have NEVER appeared in the actual book. For 7-8 years, your "synopses" have been wonderful accounts of the book that's in-your-head... but not the one that's actually on-the-page.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this comes from your frequent visits and discussions here on CBR, over in the SuperHeroHype forums, and (most likely) the Crawlspace. (The Spider-Man comic that's "discussed" over there is one that has never been released in print-- but rather imagined into being from random images on Tumblr, preview pages, solicits, and the most insane game of Chinese-Whispers/Telephone that has ever been seen on the internet. Seriously. There was a Moderator on that board that was saying that the "Mysterioso" story arc (The Mysterio chapeters of THE GAUNTLET) were ripping off Geoff Johns' BLACKEST KNIGHT, because it looked like people were coming back from the dead. Stop and think about that one for a moment.)

There comes a point where I just have to take a deep breath, release, and realize that you're going to keep doing this nonsense for as long as I'm on Spidey. Dear God, Mike, I wish you would just stop.

It's very much like that argument you got in with ages ago with Peter David.
Here. This is that discussion... reenacted by teddy bears:

[cyberhubbs]

Except based on the very nature of the premise, Peter isn't really going to be "the same person." One of the defining traits of Spider-Man, as a character, is that, in spite of being a superhero, his life out-of-costume never came easy, especially when it came to making a living. He was always busting his ass to get enough money to pay his bills and buy chemicals for his webbing, that part of his appeal came from how he never lived a glamorous lifestyle full of luxury. It not only was a source of dramatic conflict, it's what helped define who Peter Parker is. Now, based on what he will be post-Secret Wars, he will literally have more money than he knows what to do with and be a household name. Now things will have become so easy for him financially there will be almost no conflict when it comes to trying to balance having a job while being a superhero. As a CEO who will have several people working under him to manage his affairs--which he will have to considering he will now be running a global enterprise--Peter can take off any time he wants to be Spider-Man.

While I agree that the wealthy have a few less problems than the common man, they do still have problems beyond getting too big for their own britches. Peter will be traveling between cities, also. So, sure, he has people under him who take care of the day to day workplace issues, but he still has to find that balance between being Spider-Man and everyone needing his immediate attention on something very important nownownow.

Furthermore, we've seen what happens to Peter whenever he believes everything starts going his way, including Dan Slott's earlier "Big Time" stories prior to "Dying Wish." Not only does Peter start to become more cocky, he also starts becoming more complacent. And we saw what the end result of that was. Now he's been put into a situation in which he's extremely wealthy, is international celebrity both as Peter and Spider-Man, who will probably have all kinds of women throwing themselves at him as he hobs-nobs it with the rich and famous. How could Peter not think he has it made and doesn't have to worry about anything ever again? How could he, someone who was picked on all through high school, who people never gave him a fair shake, who always found himself in situations in which people thought the worst of him, not become incredibly smug and think "You all laughed at me as a kid, well who's laughing now?" How could he not become closer to what he was like he first started out as Spider-Man prior to his Uncle Ben being killed? Oh sure, he'll still be doing his whole "with great power comes greater responsibility," but, because of his newly acquired wealth and fame, how could Peter not have developed a huge chip on his shoulder? Granted, we haven't yet seen the stories of him being a international playboy and billionaire, but we may have some idea of what he might be like based on how Slott has written him in the past.

I mean, that's pretty much anyone who's never been rich in their lives. There's a learning curve, no matter how responsible you are. But he also entrusted NY to Miles, so there was some thinking ahead that his new responsibilities might take him away from his hometown for extended periods of time.

And even if he does become cocky...yeah, that's kinda the point. Peter May stray, but he always veers back sooner or later. Seems like you're arguing Peter should not be put in a situation that tests his humility or sense of responsibility. That because of Uncle Ben, he should always be responsible because he already learned that lesson once in his origin and there's no need to revisit the idea that Peter is human and prone to reliving history.

Just because you stub your toe once on the foot of your bed doesn't mean you're never gonna stub your toe again. Even better example, you yourself say your theories are usually wrong, but that doesn't stop you from making new theories based on what could possibly go wrong and how characters should never be put in potentially challenging or dramatic situations.

Who knows, maybe it'll be about who can he trust. Who is there for him and who is there for his money.

[Von]

Mike,
This is YOU all over. You haven't even read PAGE ONE of the interiors, and are going off of interviewers, blurbs, and cover art, you've made a huge leap, and declared something right-out-of-the-gate that is wayyyy off base.

I've seen you do this with the book for 7-8 years now. You create this Mike-McNulty-version of the book in your head, you make wild assumptions of where you think the book is going, and what you think the book is about...
...and then you judge it based on that.

But there's always some key, fundamental thing you've gotten wrong.

Why did all of this just trigger a vision of a sheepdog and a coyote punching their timecards and clocking out of work?

Admit it: you two slot it out over this again and again, then meet up for beers after hours while Mike feeds you story ideas.

[ishikabe]

I wonder if Slott tells Byrne, you didn't read it so your opinion doesn't matter.

Let me read and see!

I guess that carries from the message board all the way to big time writers...

Slott: I know you’ve been down on Marvel (or M*****) for many years now and probably haven’t given my stuff a go… so that seems like a weird shot to fire across my bow.

Slott: How many people here have been liking Flash Thompson as Venom/Agent Venom? When we made that switch 5 years ago, Eddie Brock fans were furious. Cut to 5 years later… the character has had a great run by Rick Remender, been a character in the Secret Avengers, joined up with the Guardians of the Galaxy, and is now getting a new solo book with further adventures in outer space! He’s been in cartoons, video games, and multiple action figures. I go to cons– and I see at least one Flash Thompson/Agent Venom cosplayer at each show! This has been a FUN change– and it was all borne out of the idea of Pete’s former bully, someone who always idolized Spider-Man getting a chance to BE a weird version of Spider-Man– a proud serviceman using those strange new abilities in a way to serve his country. And it worked!

I'm still upset over losing the violent Eddie Brock Venom.

John Byrne: Consider the whole history of comics, dating back to the Thirties, when new material was first being commissioned for publication in what had been, up until then, reprint books. After a brief “settling in” period, roughly 3 or four years — often considerably less — the characters were pretty much locked in, so that the Batman (for example) I “met” circa 1956 was virtually indistinguishable from the Batman of 1946, and would remain so until 1966 or so.

During this period — roughly a quarter century — altho comics experienced steadily diminishing sales, that decline had little or nothing to do with the characters. A series of bad business decisions had been made (among them, reducing the page count in order to keep the 10¢ cover price), and comics as a medium suffered for them. But the characters remained the same. The talent was largely anonymous — we recognized artists by their styles, not their names — and all focus was on the characters. Characters who were kept “on model,” so that the constantly changing audience would find the same product, “generation” to “generation”. The notion that these characters would (or should) “change and grow” was not even considered. Superman was always Superman. Batman was always Batman. Et cetera.

I guess readers now day want a superhero who changes everything about himself like a chameleon. Look at the sales. Who cares what people wanted in the past or what they wanted to stay the same. People want these characters to change all the time. After we move past sex, color, and hero/heel...I guess the next thing to do is for heroes to lose a random arm or a leg to develop stories to write about.

Slott: Peter Parker will BE Peter Parker.

Is that like when Peter Parker was dead and not coming back and if so, is this a new guy with the name Peter Parker who will act in whatever way he wants?

[Goodman]

I feel really bad for some of the people on the Byrne boards. Many of them are crying out for fun, all ages books at a time when Marvel is putting out lots of fun, fresh all-ages books. They reject story continuity, but demand continuity of style with what Marvel did 40 years ago. They believe if Marvel writes for an audience that no longer exists (children living in the 1960s) they can bring back the former ubiquity of comics, in spite of television, computer games, the internet, rising prices and the banishment of comics from their best distribution channel. Mostly I feel bad though because these guys love comics, and there are so many great comics that they could really enjoy if they were a bit more open minded. (I write as a 40 year reader.) This is kind of a golden age.

[Dan Slott]

Is that like when Peter Parker was dead and not coming back and if so, is this a new guy with the name Peter Parker who will act in whatever way he wants?

Tell you what...
From the majority of posts I've seen from you, I can pretty much tell that you're not going to like anything I write. And that's cool. Not every writer is for every reader. Totally cool.
But, here's the thing-- I ain't going anywhere.

So the way I see it, you can spend your many hours online talking about the books that you do enjoy-- and things you want other people to enjoy as well, and you can feed off that positive energy and feel great...

...or you can carry on with this nonsense-- spending precious life force and energy typing bitter, whiny snark about a book you're already pre-hating, will probably hate-in-the-moment, and will continue to hate after-the-fact and well into your golden years.

C'mon. That's not how you really want to spend your time, is it?

[stillanerd]

Mike,
This is YOU all over. You haven't even read PAGE ONE of the interiors, and are going off of interviewers, blurbs, and cover art, you've made a huge leap, and declared something right-out-of-the-gate that is wayyyy off base.

I've seen you do this with the book for 7-8 years now. You create this Mike-McNulty-version of the book in your head, you make wild assumptions of where you think the book is going, and what you think the book is about...
...and then you judge it based on that.

But there's always some key, fundamental thing you've gotten wrong. Mike, honestly, you know and I know that practically every prediction you've made for this title has been horrendously wrong. Your 7-8 year track record on this is astounding. And it's not just your predictions, it's also your recaps. I have read some of your "synopses" of issues in slack-jawed wonder where you've added in moments and motivations that have NEVER appeared in the actual book. For 7-8 years, your "synopses" have been wonderful accounts of the book that's in-your-head... but not the one that's actually on-the-page.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this comes from your frequent visits and discussions here on CBR, over in the SuperHeroHype forums, and (most likely) the Crawlspace. (The Spider-Man comic that's "discussed" over there is one that has never been released in print-- but rather imagined into being from random images on Tumblr, preview pages, solicits, and the most insane game of Chinese-Whispers/Telephone that has ever been seen on the internet. Seriously. There was a Moderator on that board that was saying that the "Mysterioso" story arc (The Mysterio chapeters of THE GAUNTLET) were ripping off Geoff Johns' BLACKEST KNIGHT, because it looked like people were coming back from the dead. Stop and think about that one for a moment.)

There comes a point where I just have to take a deep breath, release, and realize that you're going to keep doing this nonsense for as long as I'm on Spidey. Dear God, Mike, I wish you would just stop.

It's very much like that argument you got in with ages ago with Peter David.
Here. This is that discussion... reenacted by teddy bears:

Okay, Dan. Fair points all, and I won't argue over my faults and shortcomings. Not to mention, as seen in that video you posted, PAD most definitely won that argument. I had forgotten how articulate his distinction between being a critic and being a reviewer was, so thanks for the trip down memory lane.

However, let's not forget you've had a lengthy run on Amazing Spider-Man and so, based on what you've written previously, we should have a good grasp of Peter Parker is like as a character (or least I hope so and it's not just me reading into something that isn't there). And on that basis, we seen what Peter is like when he starts becoming successful, as you yourself showed us during "Big Time." And what we saw was Peter starts thinking how everything is finally going his way, and starts getting more complacent and letting his guard down--which is ultimately lead to Doc Ock taking over his brain and Superior Spider-Man, no? So, on the basis of what we are so far hearing about this new direction post-Secret Wars (and yes, as you say they are not the interiors of the actual comics), it looks as if Peter is going experience another "Big Time" only now, as Spinal Tap would say, it's been cranked up to eleven. And if that's sort-of where you're taking this, that Peter, even though he has more resources than ever to literally be "the world's greatest superhero" than ever before the downside is he becomes a lot more cocky with his newfound wealth and celebrity status, then that's fine.

Or it could just as well be a means for Spidey to have adventures in other cities while Miles holds down the fort in New York. Oh well, you've continually surprised me before, so we'll see what happens when the comics do come out. Happy of 4th of July, and happy belated birthday.

[stillanerd]

While I agree that the wealthy have a few less problems than the common man, they do still have problems beyond getting too big for their own britches. Peter will be traveling between cities, also. So, sure, he has people under him who take care of the day to day workplace issues, but he still has to find that balance between being Spider-Man and everyone needing his immediate attention on something very important nownownow.

That is true. And more to your point, we did sort of see this in the most recent Amazing Spider-Man Annual (though not written by Slott). There the subtext was Peter, not wanting to have to deal with the drudgery of running his own company, was looking for any excuse to go out web-slinging. Hence why he was so determined to return the German tourist couple's cellphone, and why, at the end, he was smiling when he saw the police cars rushing by his window.

I mean, that's pretty much anyone who's never been rich in their lives. There's a learning curve, no matter how responsible you are. But he also entrusted NY to Miles, so there was some thinking ahead that his new responsibilities might take him away from his hometown for extended periods of time.

And even if he does become cocky...yeah, that's kinda the point. Peter May stray, but he always veers back sooner or later. Seems like you're arguing Peter should not be put in a situation that tests his humility or sense of responsibility. That because of Uncle Ben, he should always be responsible because he already learned that lesson once in his origin and there's no need to revisit the idea that Peter is human and prone to reliving history.

Just because you stub your toe once on the foot of your bed doesn't mean you're never gonna stub your toe again. Even better example, you yourself say your theories are usually wrong, but that doesn't stop you from making new theories based on what could possibly go wrong and how characters should never be put in potentially challenging or dramatic situations.

Who knows, maybe it'll be about who can he trust. Who is there for him and who is there for his money.

No, of course I'm not saying he shouldn't be placed in potentially challenging and dramatic situations which test his character. What I am saying is that, based on what we've been told thus far about the premise, it appears as if Spider-Man, the guy who usually depicted as being a hard-luck superhero, is now potentially in a situation which is 180 degrees opposite of that. Moreover, to the level of success he has, it's going to be hard IMO to potentially get him back into that hard-luck superhero status. Then again, we did have J. Jonah Jameson as mayor of New York City and now he's back in the world of journalism again (and I would say a far more fitting set-up as the host of his own Cable News show).

[Mister Mets]

That is true. And more to your point, we did sort of see this in the most recent Amazing Spider-Man Annual (though not written by Slott). There the subtext was Peter, not wanting to have to deal with the drudgery of running his own company, was looking for any excuse to go out web-slinging. Hence why he was so determined to return the German tourist couple's cellphone, and why, at the end, he was smiling when he saw the police cars rushing by his window.



No, of course I'm not saying he shouldn't be placed in potentially challenging and dramatic situations which test his character. What I am saying is that, based on what we've been told thus far about the premise, it appears as if Spider-Man, the guy who usually depicted as being a hard-luck superhero, is now potentially in a situation which is 180 degrees opposite of that. Moreover, to the level of success he has, it's going to be hard IMO to potentially get him back into that hard-luck superhero status. Then again, we did have J. Jonah Jameson as mayor of New York City and now he's back in the world of journalism again (and I would say a far more fitting set-up as the host of his own Cable News show).

I think there is a distinction between speculating on what's going to happen and speculating on how you think you're going to feel about it. There are simply more ways to be wrong on the latter, which is going to be annoying for a writer. You might guess incorrectly about what's going to happen, or you might be right about the broad strokes of the story but end up responding to it much more positively (or negatively) than you thought you would.

[JKtheMac]

Well all I can say is JB has actually changed my mind about some key things. Unfortunately none of those things go in his favour.

Until today I genuinely believed that the editorial direction that forced the decline of the old guard was a bad thing. Now I realise it was a necessary evil. The old guard were just like all old guards. Old and over protective of their own position.

There is a middle ground between the black and white that JB is projecting, and it is exactly that middle ground that Slott sits in. Slott is still writing iconic characters but the situations and colour and plots are changing and dynamic. It seems JB wants the character and the world and the colour and the situations to all remain the same.

The strange thing is JB obviously didn't believe that when he was writing his best work, so he is somehow ideologically opposed to the thing he actually did. He seems a bit confused.

[Keeper of the Crows]

i appreciate your higher road mentality, but it’s an easy one to have when it isn’t your work in the spotlight (if you have or are in that position, then you’re a stronger person than me).

it’s a very special creative who is above all feedback and public reception. you’re creating something for public consumption and i’d say most would care about how that is received by that public. i have friends who say they refuse to read their press or reviews and i almost believe them.

I know this is from several pages ago, but I think it’s a very interesting point. I remember reading a warning on the goodreads author giveaway section about interacting with reviewers. http://www.goodreads.com/author/how_to (under the FAQ)

I understand where your friends are coming from. That’s why I think the editing process is mutually important and frustrating. It can be difficult hearing that your writing is “enragingly sexist” or “in general, the climax devolves into an action horror video game,” but sometimes those comments can bring about drastic improvements as well. The difference is that the editor is usually doing their job (although even they aren't free from preexisting biases), but my point is that reviews have the power to evoke strong emotions, especially when you’re putting a bit of yourself out into the world.

[boots]

That because of Uncle Ben, he should always be responsible because he already learned that lesson once in his origin and there's no need to revisit the idea that Peter is human and prone to reliving history.

Just because you stub your toe once on the foot of your bed doesn't mean you're never gonna stub your toe again. Even better example, you yourself say your theories are usually wrong, but that doesn't stop you from making new theories based on what could possibly go wrong and how characters should never be put in potentially challenging or dramatic situations.

such a good point. it shouldn't be that he's mastered responsibility because of one life altering incident, it should be an ongoing interaction and struggle with that lesson because...well...human.

[boots]

I know this is from several pages ago, but I think it’s a very interesting point. I remember reading a warning on the goodreads author giveaway section about interacting with reviewers. http://www.goodreads.com/author/how_to (under the FAQ)

I understand where your friends are coming from. That’s why I think the editing process is mutually important and frustrating. It can be difficult hearing that your writing is “enragingly sexist” or “in general, the climax devolves into an action horror video game,” but sometimes those comments can bring about drastic improvements as well. The difference is that the editor is usually doing their job (although even they aren't free from preexisting biases), but my point is that reviews have the power to evoke strong emotions, especially when you’re putting a bit of yourself out into the world.

yeah, it's a mixed bag. reader interaction can bring improvement or inspiration but it can also be confusing and pandering (imagine if authors wrote by request). mark waid's "irredeemable" was partly inspired by online fan reactions/interactions. if you're familiar with with the book's concept- that says a lot.

i know some writer/authors like dan abnett completely ignore fan forums in order to preserve integrity of work and sanity, but i have to wonder if those guys can resist the occasional lurk...

[resipsaloquitur]

Whatever happened to the "Adventures" line of books that both DC and Marvel were putting out? With DC, they were typically tied to the DCAU, but I think they were in publication for YEARS after JLU ended. With Marvel, I don't think they were tied to any particular animated line, but they *did* give you young, down-on-his-luck Peter Parker with wacky, "done in one" adventures. Totally free of the main book continuity.

Seriously, were the guys who want a done-in-one, classic Peter Parker EVER reading those lines of books, or were they too busy lamenting that only the "main" title should be the fun one? Because come on.