Slott's turning haphazard in his attempts to play company spokesperson for Marvel. Here's a pretty long list of tweets he's written:
Slott's dislike for himself sometimes scares me too. In this case, we're not talking so much about Spidey as we are about Peter Parker, who suffered some of the worst abuse by a writer under Slott's penning.
Like we ever asked it be. And sometimes it's not the world outside our window. Besides, what is so inherently "realistic" about a world where a guy gets powers from a radioactive spider bite instead of dying from poisoning? And yet, if it is the world outside, why does he uphold a direction taken after Peter makes a faustian pact to dissolve his marriage to a woman who got badly mistreated too, even under J. Michael Straczynski?
In that case, it doesn't have to be Slott speaking.
We can ask the same question about why can't Spidey be married. As for different races playing Spidey in the MCU, that would've been fine if they kept the concept in its own world - the Ultimate line - but now, it's all being grafted together, and if the whole idea is to emphasize "diversity" alone, that's where they fumble.
In that case, Slott is a product of his time too!
So that means he's not a fan of Luke Cage? Guess he's not a fan of Shang Chi or Colleen Wing either. But then Slott says:
And why? Because of the mask Peter wears? Sorry, false argument. Remember: Black Panther wears a whole bodysuit mask too, and the same argument could be made about him. Slott's doing little more than emphasizing the whole "care about the costume, not the character" argument. And didn't he hint just a tweet ago he's okay with changing Power Man's race? As usual, Slott doesn't think things through.
And if he's so concerned about Spidey's race changing, does he also feel the same way about DC's major stars like Superman? I guess he does, and for him, Black Lightning and Vixen are not enough; it can only be the established characters whose roles qualify. As some may recall, DC did pull some of these diversity stunts a decade back post-Identity Crisis, using at least 3 established 3rd tier roles like Atom, Blue Beetle and Firestorm. At the time, it was surely because they knew changing the race/gender/orientation of the characters would not prove successful with the audience, so they foisted it on minor heroes instead, but only proved what cowards they really are. More recently, they pulled the same stunt with Golden Age heroes like Green Lantern Alan Scott, and that's been no success either. Not even with minority groups.
If icons really do belong to everybody, then white protagonists belong as much to blacks, Asians and Latinos as they do to white people. So what's his point?
Tsk tsk tsk, he's pulling out race cards again. Nobody said superheroes of different races aren't welcome, but they'd work better in roles created specially for them, not by shoehorning them into the role of an already established protagonist. And for somebody who's so concerned about the issues, he sure doesn't seem particularly concerned how the industry's idea of race, gender and orientation is often limited to just American folks of different race. African-Americans, but no Ivory Coasters, Asian-Americans, but no Mongolians, Latino-Americans. but no Chileans. There have been some foreign minorities in the past (Sunfire and Sunspot), yet these characters have been marginalized as time went by, and too few attempts to try more serious efforts have been made, if at all.
Translation: if editorial wants to go full change-of-race, he'll back them full force.
Translation: Robbie Robertson and Glory Grant were never enough, because they're co-stars, not
costumed superheroes. It can only be costumed crimefighters who qualify for his vision, and not supporting casts.
And in some ways, they haven't. Poor storytelling like Slott's still reigns supreme, and won't be changing in the forseeable future.
So now he's using excuses like eye color in a movie world to justify what they're doing back in the four color world. I hereby conclude - movies truly have had a bad effect on comics.
Raising that old race card again, I see. Some friendly advice - quit acting like everybody who disagrees is just a racist. If Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were alive and disapproved of changing Superman's skin color, I don't think he'd be so quick to call them that.
His "character" didn't even exist under Slott. He was "out-of-character".
So he's saying a non-white child can't possibly appreciate a white hero? I guess that's what he can't admit to. Interesting how he implies children only play with toys and don't read the comics. Does that mean nobody should read any of the archives?
No, he's just justifying the company's steps to the bitter end, all without admitting story quality matters. Changing a character's racial background doesn't guarantee good storytelling will follow. In fact, here's an example of a TV remake that certainly didn't work out: 10 years ago, Ving Rhames starred in a remake of Kojak
, but unlike Telly Savalas, there was little else Greek-American about the new rendition, save for the character name. What's the point of giving the new actor the same character name if they can't try much further? A better idea would be create a new role with a family name commonly used in south Africa, and build a background emphasizing this. But nowadays nobody's creative enough to think of that, so they veer for the cheap instead of the challenging.
In that case, we're past the point where comics have to look exactly like the movies! We're also past the point where Slott's lecturing generates any interest, and is frankly boring.
So says the man who characterized Peter very poorly.
Yes, keep citing movies as your justification, please. Again, I thought it was all the other way around.
And if he were created as a white guy from a white country, that wouldn't
define his character?
He could've been created white too, Mr. Slott. And let's say he was of Finnish descent. It wouldn't be key to who he is?
Then kindly look in the mirror and see the qualities of your own argument, Mr. Slott. You're the one who had Peter replaced with Dr. Octopus. Say, if Peter were black, would Slott be so eager to depict even a mind-swapped Spidey taking advantage of Mary Jane?
He's shrieking into the wind now.
Poor fellow, he forgets that bodysuit that can refute his claim so long as he keeps this up.
No, fair IS. There's more blacks and Asians out there if he'd just look at all the recurring co-stars in various books. But to Slott, they're all worthless, because character focus was never his concern. Even Jim Rhodes, co-star in Iron Man, doesn't matter to him.
Oh, I see, now
he tells us! But then why was he wasting all that time lecturing why Spidey's race needs to be changed? He's just reaching for the excuse folder again.
And Slott's already buried his other career opportunities by being such a crude troll. He's just one of many hack writers today who go out of their way to demonize potential customers just as much as older ones.
That's what Slott's doing. A man who doesn't think Armenian history
matters. And who hasn't exactly been standing up for blacks either. He never seems to care about the blacks who've suffered at the hands of Boko Haram in Africa
, and he'd probably never approve a fictional comics story based on those real life issues.
If they even survive financially, which is looking less likely every year. Poor storytelling only ensures their eventual downfall.
There's also this tweet about other movies:
What, he's not happy American Sniper paid tribute to the Punisher?!? A telling clue he's no fan of Marvel, just their paychecks.
Labels: Europe and Asia, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, Spider-Man