Slott goes the race card route justifying a change in Peter Parker's race
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.
Some of the comments, rigidity, rationalizations, and-- in some cases-- flat-out-anger by some that Spider-Man MUST "be white" scare me.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
Marvel always works best when it's "the world outside your window". And sometimes that requires recalibration.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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?
Me too. But it doesn't have to be a white Peter Parker. RT @IrfonPennant @DanSlott I just want to see Peter Parker interact with Iron Man :P
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
In that case, it doesn't have to be Slott speaking.
It's not about "for the sake of it". It's because "Why not?" Why CAN'T an African American, Asian American, or ANYBODY be Spider-Man?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
He was a product of his time. Times change. RT @** @DanSlott It's not "Spider-Man" must be white. Peter Parker IS and has always been white.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
In that case, Slott is a product of his time too!
False argument. RT @*** @DanSlott Luke Cage would never be cast as white, and rightfully so. The outrage would be palpable.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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:
Luke Cage's race is built into who he is and why he does what he does. There is nothing inherently "white" about Peter Parker.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
Wait. If race has "nothing to do w/ it"... RT @***** @**** @DanSlott PP is a comic icon & should not be changed race has nothing to do w/ it
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Wait. RT @*** @DanSlott why not create NEW heroes of color than shoehorn them into familiar roles? Move forward rather than repaint the past
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Icons belong to EVERYBODY. Why making "NEW heroes of color" doesn't work: You can't just make an ICON. & "separate but equal" isn't America.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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?
MY grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Didn't make 'em right. RT @*** @DanSlott Cultural saturation. Peter Parker is an icon. My grandma knows him.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
Everything is... until it isn't. :) RT @***** @DanSlott I don't believe Spiderman has to be white, but Peter Parker must be because he is.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Translation: if editorial wants to go full change-of-race, he'll back them full force.
RT @*** @DanSlott ok so if he were always black, would UB ok w/ changing him to white? If not your argument's invalid, it has 2 go both ways
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
In a world where Peter Parker had always been Black, we'd probably be in an alternate universe that was wonderfully color blind to begin w/.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
RT @** @DanSlott except the character's inception. He's "inherently white" in context, b/c he was created that way. Like human beings, yea?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
No. He was "created that way" because he was a product of his time. And-- thank God-- in some ways times have changed.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
And in some ways, they haven't. Poor storytelling like Slott's still reigns supreme, and won't be changing in the forseeable future.
.@tomturbine28 Tobey Maguire had blue eyes even though for 50+ years Peter Parker's eyes have been brown. How did we ever survive? :-P
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
Wait. RT @*** @DanSlott What if some people just want things 2B traditional & consistent w/ the comics? I have nothing against black people.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
If your argument ends with the phrase "I have nothing against black people..." ...you might want to rethink it. Friendly advice.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
You're not talking about his "character" RT @** @DanSlott 'cause your company drew him as a white kid... that's the character I grew to love
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
His "character" didn't even exist under Slott. He was "out-of-character".
Yup! :-P RT @weinmanj @DanSlott Have you gotten the false-equivalence "Then why can't Luke Cage be a white guy??" replies yet
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Please scroll back thru my feed to my Luke Cage response. And mentally add a facepalm .gif. RT @**** @DanSlott So, do a white Black Panther.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
It boils down to this: A non-white child is playing with a Spidey action figure, would YOU go up to him & say: "You can't be Spider-Man."
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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?
"I hear you're telling people Spidey shouldn't be white." No. I'm saying EVERYBODY should get a shot at being Spidey irregardless of race.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
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.
Story re-opened. Now, sit your ass down. RT @spidertrek813 @DanSlott Peter Parker is white. End of story. pic.twitter.com/zrzY3uePmT
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
In an age where Samuel L. Jackson is a perfect Nick Fury, we're past the point where the movies HAVE to look EXACTLY like the comics.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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.
Write down 10 words to describe Peter Parker. "White" shouldn't be in there. Or the first 100. Or thousand. If it is, you don't get him.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
So says the man who characterized Peter very poorly.
You guys know that Hugh Jackman is 6'2, right? He is a FOOT taller than Wolverine is in the comics. Did that ruin the X-Men movies? NO.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
The comics can look different than the movies... ...and we'll all survive. YAY! (G'night.) pic.twitter.com/zXZwmOHgr0
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
Yes, keep citing movies as your justification, please. Again, I thought it was all the other way around.
Guys, you get that Black Panther was created by Stan & Jack 2B a king of an African nation-- & that's a defining part of his character, yes?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
And if he were created as a white guy from a white country, that wouldn't define his character?
And from the pt of his origin, and throughout ALL of his stories, Luke Cage's ethnicity is a key part of who he is and what he does, right?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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?
Using the "Why can't you have a white Black Panther or white Luke Cage?" is 1 of the weakest arguments you could possibly make on this front
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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?
This is all YOUR fault. We should only do B&W comics from now on. :-P RT @SotoColor @DanSlott are you screaming into wind again?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
He's shrieking into the wind now.
Sorry to "go there" again. Too many people still responding to yesterday's tweets in my feed. & so many trying the "White/Black Panther" BS.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
Poor fellow, he forgets that bodysuit that can refute his claim so long as he keeps this up.
I keep hearing "Fair's fair..." &
"Why not switch POC characters to white ones?"
Because "Fair is NOT fair".
Here: http://t.co/81T9ziyKPK
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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.
No. RT "Dan Slott says we need to change color of heroes because skin color doesn't matter. But Luke Cage, B Panther has 2B black Hypocrite"
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
What I said is that actors should have a shot at being Spidey regardless of their race.
And I hope, guy I RT'ed, you can see now why it's--
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
--not "hypocritical" to say that POC characters like Black Panther & Luke Cage should remain the way they are. Have a nice day. :-)
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
By that logic Dean Cain (who's part Japanese) already has. :-) RT @Kingpin5050 @DanSlott So by that logic Will Smith could play Superman.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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.
Amazed at how
"Spider-Man should be cast regardless of race."
is being spun into
"Black Spider-Man/Sales Stunt/They're Calling Me Racist!"
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
Especially by the guy who made the "Hypocrite" & "Why not make Black Panther white?!" rant.
You won't get outta that hole by digging faster.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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.
RT*** "@Marvel according to @DanSlott being a white person means your history or culture can't define you because you're not black. Yikes."
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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.
And after 75 years of Marvel comics... there'll still be plenty of white characters to go around no matter what. Honest. :-D
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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:
Didn't see Whiplash, Boyhood or American Sniper. Thought Imitation Game, Birdman, Grand Budapest Hotel & Theory of Everything were excellent
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 22, 2015
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
I have read the tweets, Dan Slott as much as he tries to weasel out of it he is a hypocrite. They have a point if color does not matter why do they need to change it?
Being white is part of Peter plain as simple it would be as wrong as changing a black character white for no reason other than shock value.
If the best person to play the character is different so be it but it is clear Marvel and DC are using diversity for marketing tactics which is very sad.
I am black and I do not think Peter should be changed black, that would also hinder the possibility for a Miles Morales movie.
I want good stories and real characters not gimmicks.
I also love Captain America.
You do not have to have the same color skin to like or feel a connection to the character.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:29 AM
So, Marvel has to change the race of established characters (Captain America, Spider-Man) because because Luke Cage, Black Panther, and the Falcon are not "iconic" enough? (And, presumably, they had to create a female Thor, instead of launching a solo series starring Sif or Valkyrie, for the same reason.)
Captain America and Spider-Man weren't always icons. There has to be a first time for everything. Until relatively recently, very few comic book heroes were familiar to the general public(that is, people who didn't read comics): Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, and maybe the Hulk and Spider-Man. And all of those were because of TV adaptations.
And if Cage, Falcon, Valkyrie, and other characters are not as iconic as the big stars like Cap and Spidey, then, the question is, why not? Why hasn't Marvel promoted them better, starring them in their own solo comics series, multimedia adaptations (movies, TV, toys, video games, T-shirts), and assigned the best writers and artists to develop them?
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:46 PM
"Slott's dislike for himself sometimes scares me"
This is incredibly key.
On the one hand, I actually agree with a good deal of what Slott says. I don't have a problem with a non-white Spider-Man or a non-white Peter Parker. Ideally I'd just want someone who embodied the spirit of the character. Normally, and nonchalantly, I'd naturally gravitate toward actors who look like the traditional characters in the comics, and I make no apologies for that. But on the other hand, to take the example of Michael B. Jordan, I just think he looks the role of Johnny Storm, and if on some level seeing a black Human Torch is cool for a segment of the population, then I'm more than fine with it. I'd like a Miles Morales movie, and on the other hand if they could put a new spin on Peter Parker, I'd be open to a nonwhite actor playing him.
But, basically, the way Slott approaches the whole issue, his over-the-top obsession with it and penchant for arguing about it online for hours with strangers... it all seems to be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much". There's something else going on here.
It's like... Okay, I follow the argument and I agree with it in spirit most if not all of the time.
But after the tenth tweet and the hundredth diatribe, I'm just like...
"Yeah, Dan Slott, you're just a fat pathetic self-hating white man. Your core of identity is one of guilt and self-hate. You are the same as a religious zealot from hundreds of years ago, a mix between someone who whipped themselves across the back because of perceived 'guilt' and someone who Calvinistically told everyone else around them that they were sinful and evil."
He's a pathologically self-hating white liberal with no sense of dignity or self-control. You can see this by his fatness and by his inability to let things go on the internet. No self-control. And his touchiness over everything connected to Spider-Man and his work on it suggests over-sensitivity and lack of self-esteem. So to hide all these insecurities he becomes a "righteous" bully, as if minorities need him to defend them... by means of something so immaterial as movies and actors and Spider-Man.
Does he have kids? I hope he doesn't have kids.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:49 PM
Spider-Man is white because Steve Ditko is white, and Spidey is based on Ditko's life.
Anyone who thinks Spidey could ever be anything but white is wrong.
You can't just rewrite a creator's biography and change his race to be stylish.
End of story.
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/690/
Posted by
Robby Reed |
4:49 PM
Slott is a huge racist who trashes amyone who disagrees with him and blocks people on Twitter who mention him in a negative way.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:39 PM
My brother made me laugh by saying that Dan Slott should lead by example on the diversity front, quit writing Spider-Man, and insist a black man replace him. Somehow I don't see that happening anytime soon.
You missed the tweet where he talked about "white history months." That was a classic, too.
I can't believe no one pulls him aside and says, "Stop acting like an immature clown and start acting like a professional. This is getting ridiculous."
Dan Slott is the king of the unforced error.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:38 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for Slott to quit writing Spider-Man and hand the job over to a black or Hispanic (and/or gay or female) writer.
For that matter, don't expect a limousine liberal to give his own land back to Native Americans, or to donate his own time and money to help the homeless.
Liberals are for affirmative action and social reform, as long as someone else has to pay for it.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:12 PM
It's telling that in all his tweets listed, he pretends Miles Morales and Miguel O'Hara don't exist.
What a cunt
Posted by
Kory Stephens |
9:06 AM
One can get a migraine attempting to meander through Slott's verbal gymnastics.
It baffles how Marvel lets this idiot loose on social media.
Posted by
Hube |
11:54 AM
I'd probably buy into Marvel's claims that it's all for diversity if this weren't the exact same crew that pointlessly killed off long-standing black characters like Goliath and Brother/Doctor Voodoo.
And Samuel L. Jackson isn't actually playing Nick Fury. Sam Jackson is playing the same Sam Jackson badass character he's made millions off of playing. It's just that this time he has the name "Nick Fury." He's no more Nick Fury than Jennifer Garner was Elektra.
Michelle Rodriguez (of all people) had some excellent thoughts on the 21st century blackface trend we're seeing. The usual PC suspects made her walk some of it back, but the gist was that maybe the creative types ought to come up with new and interesting minority characters instead of just recasting existing Caucasian characters. Instead, what we're getting is cynical, lazy lipservice to the god of Diversity without actually coming up with new and interesting ideas.
Posted by
The Drizzt |
6:57 PM