Oh well. Guess I'll just have to take back what I said earlier...
...about Dan Slott being an ideal choice for a Spider-Man writer. But, if he's going to go and sour even minor characters like Starfox, as he did in She-Hulk #7, by implying he'd become a rapist, to say nothing short of writing a story about Eros being accused of rape by brainwashing as a joke(!), then Slott, simply put, would have to be the last choice for writing Spidey's -- or any other Marvel character's -- adventures in the MCU. (This blog's got some scans of that issue, and no, I don't find it funny. Just depressing.)
Thinking about the back issues I've got with his appearances in the Avengers from the 1980s, I'll admit that he did seem fairly creepy at times even then, but he knew how to use his powers wisely and not for personal gain and exploitation. Here, all Slott's done is something along the lines of say, Straczynski's work on Amazing Spider-Man: he's written something that most people would be glad not to consider part of continuity any longer, and even gladder to see fade into obscurity. When Gardner Fox wrote that rare misfire of a story in The Flash in 1967 about a goofy angel-like entity called Mopee, it was nothing compared to the rising number of duds surfacing today that are so unbearable, that that's why they qualify for the name of that old character that the Comics Buyers Guide later took to using as a way of describing bad stories that people would rather forget.
Now, with this news about She-Hulk #7, I'm uncertain if I want to buy the TPBs already published of She-Hulk written by Slott. If I do, it certainly won't be because he wrote it. And yet, when I contemplate the news of The Thing's cancellation now, I can't help but wonder if, for Slott, this was but a punishment deserved.
Writers of comics, company owned or even self-owned, have to take into consideration that art is meant to encourage and inspire, and not to corrupt morale and trivialize serious issues, nor to turn them into a parody. That's practically what Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Mel Brooks' rip-off, Robin Hood: Men in Tights did during the early 1990s, and now, we have to put up with this garbage here too! Please.
Unless Slott can apologize and just be honest, that he erred, all I can say is that this whole Starfox story tarnishes his reputation IMO.
Update: okay, here's the link to the CBR thread on which Slott defends his take (thanx, fax). Well, okay, I appreciate his efforts, but nevertheless, I'd like to say that the whole premise is so wrongheaded IMO, because:
- It runs the gauntlet of character assasination for Starfox, and can leave a bad aftertaste.
- I would think that Jen would be representing the plaintiff, and not the defendant, in a case like this.
And the best argument I can make here is that, if it's an otherwise impossible story, it shouldn't have been written at all. It takes less effort.
Thinking about the back issues I've got with his appearances in the Avengers from the 1980s, I'll admit that he did seem fairly creepy at times even then, but he knew how to use his powers wisely and not for personal gain and exploitation. Here, all Slott's done is something along the lines of say, Straczynski's work on Amazing Spider-Man: he's written something that most people would be glad not to consider part of continuity any longer, and even gladder to see fade into obscurity. When Gardner Fox wrote that rare misfire of a story in The Flash in 1967 about a goofy angel-like entity called Mopee, it was nothing compared to the rising number of duds surfacing today that are so unbearable, that that's why they qualify for the name of that old character that the Comics Buyers Guide later took to using as a way of describing bad stories that people would rather forget.
Now, with this news about She-Hulk #7, I'm uncertain if I want to buy the TPBs already published of She-Hulk written by Slott. If I do, it certainly won't be because he wrote it. And yet, when I contemplate the news of The Thing's cancellation now, I can't help but wonder if, for Slott, this was but a punishment deserved.
Writers of comics, company owned or even self-owned, have to take into consideration that art is meant to encourage and inspire, and not to corrupt morale and trivialize serious issues, nor to turn them into a parody. That's practically what Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Mel Brooks' rip-off, Robin Hood: Men in Tights did during the early 1990s, and now, we have to put up with this garbage here too! Please.
Unless Slott can apologize and just be honest, that he erred, all I can say is that this whole Starfox story tarnishes his reputation IMO.
Update: okay, here's the link to the CBR thread on which Slott defends his take (thanx, fax). Well, okay, I appreciate his efforts, but nevertheless, I'd like to say that the whole premise is so wrongheaded IMO, because:
- It runs the gauntlet of character assasination for Starfox, and can leave a bad aftertaste.
- I would think that Jen would be representing the plaintiff, and not the defendant, in a case like this.
And the best argument I can make here is that, if it's an otherwise impossible story, it shouldn't have been written at all. It takes less effort.
Labels: marvel comics
I think it's very clear he didn't read the issue, or else he'd know that the story was handled as seriously as it could have been, and that no apology was necessary from Mr. Slott.
Posted by
Ragnell |
4:54 PM
Okay, kids. I may find it more comfy analyzing at times, but in any case, if I goofed in my approach here, I apologize. In any case, I still find the whole story embarrassing due to the fact that it puts a stain on Starfox as a character. A guy like him just doesn't fit in a story like this, because, he's a hero, isn't he? And even minor heroes aren't exactly what I consider worthy of sacrificing on the alter of the slapdash, politically correct platform.
It's also foolish due to the fact that it's the plaintiff who's case should be important here. At least that's what I think.
Posted by
Avi Green |
11:18 AM
Perhaps I should've said I was commenting on the story synopsis/reviews. But anyway...I'm obligated to literally go to all the trouble of reviewing it once it's at my local bookstore and within my reach? Oh, for heaven's sake! If everyone were required to do so, we'd all be worn out, going out of our way to just get ahold of the material. People have the right to say what they think of a synopsis just as much as they do to review it.
Posted by
Avi Green |
1:15 PM
Your points are taken. Also, sorry if I sounded a bit too irritated there.
Posted by
Avi Green |
7:45 AM
I realize how it ends. There's no real telling what Starfox was made out to be. All the same, I still don't think it's the kind of story worth telling.
Posted by
Avi Green |
7:23 AM
Wait a minute, you think that Jen, typically a defense attorney, would be representing the PLAINTIFF in the case?
Posted by
Ragnell |
12:39 AM
Well, if it's the woman who filed the charges we're talking about, I would think she'd be defending the victim in a case like this. But then again, maybe that's just me.
Posted by
Avi Green |
7:04 AM
Avi -- Someone who knows nothing about the basis for the American legal system? I'd say, or else you'd understand the necessity for the guilty and the innocent to get the best possible defense across the board and the need for a good attorney to put her personal feelings aside in order to defend the accused.
Posted by
Ragnell |
7:36 PM