Dan Slott ignores that Barry Allen acted in defense of Fiona Webb
In a conversation with another tweeter, who's not fond of forcing Peter Parker out of his body and replacing him with Dr. Octopus, Slott (whom I'm almost certain was trolling anonymously here a few days ago) said the following about Barry Allen, the Silver Age Flash:
Whoa. Has he throughly missed the hows and whys of Barry Allen killing a villain whom Geoff Johns later resurrected for no good reason. The Reverse-Flash returned to the present to murder the woman who almost became Barry's second wife, Fiona Webb (whose real name was actually Beverly Lewis), and Barry was forced to act in defense of an innocent's life. Sure, it may not have been intentional, but what's the life of a creep who'd murdered Barry's first wife by destroying her brain tissue worth compared to the life of a defenseless woman? Does this mean Slott would have been fine with Eobard Thawne sending Fiona to the afterlife? Come to think of it, if a story were written in the Bronze Age where the Green Goblin had tried to murder Mary Jane Watson, and Peter Parker were forced to take drastic measures to defend her life, would he have a problem with that, even if the supervillain didn't end up in the morgue?
(Speaking of which, there was a storyline in the Spider-Man daily comic strip published by King Features a year or so ago where Sabretooth hounded Spidey, whom he thought knew the whereabouts of Wolverine, culminating in a showdown at a Florida auditorium where both Logan and Victor Creed wound up in a stalemate. But not before Victor threatened to cut Mary Jane into ribbons if Spidey didn't tell him where Wolverine was. Logan thankfully turned up to confront him. But what defeated the story was Spidey's failure to go ballistic on Sabretooth for threatening an innocent woman who happens to be his wife to get answers Spidey didn't have. It was so poorly written and thought out, I was disgusted and haven't read the daily newspaper strip since.)
Once again, Slott has proven he just doesn't understand heroism. Cary Bates' story for concluding the Silver/Bronze Age Flash may not have been perfect (the trial part did go on a bit long, I admit), but the premise that Barry would be forced to take drastic measures to save the life of an innocent was handled well enough and far from the poor taste seen in comics today (and that can include Johns' run on the Flash with his dismal cardboard caricature of the Reverse-Flash, right down to the repetitive violence and other perverted signs that littered his take). And Slott commits the error of criticizing a fictional character instead of the writer who took the direction he presumably dislikes to start with. I think that shows just how much he really cares about Peter Parker too.
@Batdude21 What's to stop OLDER fans from saying that Jay Garrick is Flash? Not a murderer like Barry Allen who snapped Prof. Zoom's neck!
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 3, 2013
(Speaking of which, there was a storyline in the Spider-Man daily comic strip published by King Features a year or so ago where Sabretooth hounded Spidey, whom he thought knew the whereabouts of Wolverine, culminating in a showdown at a Florida auditorium where both Logan and Victor Creed wound up in a stalemate. But not before Victor threatened to cut Mary Jane into ribbons if Spidey didn't tell him where Wolverine was. Logan thankfully turned up to confront him. But what defeated the story was Spidey's failure to go ballistic on Sabretooth for threatening an innocent woman who happens to be his wife to get answers Spidey didn't have. It was so poorly written and thought out, I was disgusted and haven't read the daily newspaper strip since.)
Once again, Slott has proven he just doesn't understand heroism. Cary Bates' story for concluding the Silver/Bronze Age Flash may not have been perfect (the trial part did go on a bit long, I admit), but the premise that Barry would be forced to take drastic measures to save the life of an innocent was handled well enough and far from the poor taste seen in comics today (and that can include Johns' run on the Flash with his dismal cardboard caricature of the Reverse-Flash, right down to the repetitive violence and other perverted signs that littered his take). And Slott commits the error of criticizing a fictional character instead of the writer who took the direction he presumably dislikes to start with. I think that shows just how much he really cares about Peter Parker too.
Labels: comic strips, dc comics, Flash, marvel comics, moonbat writers, Spider-Man, violence
It wouldn't surprise me if it was Slott who had commented on that earlier post of yours, Avi. It's worded very similarly to his previous replies here. And his tendency for trolling is well-established by now. If it was from the New York area, it was probably him.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:18 AM
Like a lot of leftists, Slott can't see the distinction between justifiable homicide (e.g., self-defense, or defense of another innocent person) and murder. With that attitude, I hope he never serves on a jury.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:41 PM
Slott's a f***ing moron. Any time he tries a discussion outside the realm of comics he comes off as a 5th grader. All he does is repeat the crap he reads at popular lefty websites.
Posted by
Hube |
7:06 AM
You got that right, Hube! A lot of leftists, young and old, simply regurgitate crap from sites like Lost Kos and Media Matters, thinking it makes them sound intelligent, but it just reaffirms how stupid they really are.
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:33 PM