How Waid and Slott reacted to Mark Hughes' disagreements
Since we're on the topic of Superman and Mark Hughes, here's a related subject: Waid couldn't respect Hughes' difference of opinion, and how did he respond? Guess:
So Hughes has just experienced the sad reality about Waid, who's startlingly nasty in his conduct towards people he doesn't agree with, and it's not just over politics alone. Slott didn't do much better, and said:
He also wrote on Twitlonger prior to viewing Batman vs. Superman:
Then, here's a comment by Mark Waid, where he tries to play victim:
Gee, and here all Hughes presumably did was voice a disagreement with him. Only, I don't think he even spoke to him about this recently. If this has what to do with the Superman-taking-lives topic, I sure don't see what the big deal was that he overreacted, though it's certainly not the first time he's ever been so petty. When somebody else brought this up, he said:
He just couldn't let it go by without one of his big cursy fits, could he?
There's at least one more writer who commented on the Superman vs. Batman movie, and I'll decidedly post his tweets too:
Well then, why did he ever create the Punisher? Somebody pointed that out, and he said:
I'm not so sure of that. Even at the start in 1974, he wasn't depicted as a criminal per se. It was a short time after the Gwen Stacy affair, and he was targeting Spider-Man because he thought he was a criminal himself (he thought Spidey guilty of taking Norman Osborn's life), but after deciding he was innocent, he backed off. Conway's alluding to how, in this new film, Batman bludgeons/kills some of the criminals. While there were a few stories in the Golden Age where he did too, I'm willing to admit this does look over the top, and may not be a great idea. But Conway's far-left politics are just why I don't see the point of complaining. What he should argue is whether Batman should be depicted killing in self-defense or to save innocent lives.
And if it weren't for how the new film depicts the Masked Manhunter, one could think it all looks absurdly like Superman's the one who ends up doing the slaying while Batman's the one WB/DC goes out of their way to protect reputation-wise. Now that I think of it, Conway may have lamented Bruce Wayne's portrayal there, but Slott, Waid and company don't seem as worried about. Nor do they come to terms with how bad their own writing is, or became.
I hope Hughes understands now that Waid, Slott and others of their ilk are a bad lot, and give comicdom a bad name. It's surely the main reason why the industry's doing so badly.
Update: Hughes contacted me to say that he hadn't interviewed Waid, though he wanted to. Let me assure that when somebody like Waid acts as awfully as he does, it's really not that big a deal to interview him, but it's definitely sad Waid has to be that way.
Wow, @MarkWaid blocked me b/c he was rude to me & I told him he's wrong. This is a/b respecting other writers' interpretations. Grow up.— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) March 17, 2016
This is only a/b whether writers who have Superman kill in special situations understand him. If you get pissed @ me a/b that, you're NUTS.— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) March 17, 2016
The hilarious part is I interviewed @MarkWaid for Forbes, & I love a lot of his work. If he's acting rude to me in anger, that's too bad.— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) March 17, 2016
Here's the difference: I'm not mad or insulting people for their preference. Since, ya know, I don't really disagree w/it.— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) March 17, 2016
But hey, they're free to act badly if they wish. I stand by my article's the idea that demanding single interpretation is mistaken. Cheers!— Mark Hughes (@markhughesfilms) March 17, 2016
So Hughes has just experienced the sad reality about Waid, who's startlingly nasty in his conduct towards people he doesn't agree with, and it's not just over politics alone. Slott didn't do much better, and said:
.@markhughesfilms wrote a comprehensive piece for Forbes about it being ok for Superman to kill. https://t.co/5wbvCrFuJ1— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) March 21, 2016
I disagree w/ it.
Mark's colleague, @robsalk, wrote a counter article for Forbes. I agree w/ it (except where he agrees w/ Mark.) ;-)https://t.co/dbtaVYV9wt— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) March 21, 2016
He also wrote on Twitlonger prior to viewing Batman vs. Superman:
Have I've gone on and on about the sequence in MOS where Superman kills someone? You bet. To be fair though-- MOST of that is me responding to someone who's asking directly about it. So if your friends who are MOS fans would stop RT'-ing those, chances are it wouldn't show up in your TL-- even if you follow me. So asking THEM to stop, or muting or blocking my Twitter account would easily solve that problem.My, what an exercise in self-vanity. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already shunned Hughes over his disagreements, and for now, Slott's certainly proven that, no matter how positively Hughes talks about his work, he doesn't honor his arguments at all. I'd strongly advise Mr. Hughes to avoid Ron Marz too, because he's just as bad, if not more so, and even Kurt Busiek's not proving the best representative for the medium lately. And they'd be just the beginning.
The thing that won't stop it, is sniping at me to "stay in my lane".
It is my lane. Because I'm a Superman fan and have been reading Superman comic for over 40 years. I get to travel on that lane.
And for the guys who are the most aggressive and nasty about it online, guess what? DC's paid me to write Superman a number of times. So, to the most internet-butthurt over my opinions about Superman, I outrank you.
Then, here's a comment by Mark Waid, where he tries to play victim:
Genuinely sincere question: why is blocking someone here for annoying you such an unforgivable crime? No snark, truly baffled.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 18, 2016
Gee, and here all Hughes presumably did was voice a disagreement with him. Only, I don't think he even spoke to him about this recently. If this has what to do with the Superman-taking-lives topic, I sure don't see what the big deal was that he overreacted, though it's certainly not the first time he's ever been so petty. When somebody else brought this up, he said:
@dceufacts @markhughesfilms FINE. FOR FUCK’S SAKE, HE’S UNBLOCKED. ARE WE ALL HAPPY NOW?
— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 18, 2016
He just couldn't let it go by without one of his big cursy fits, could he?
There's at least one more writer who commented on the Superman vs. Batman movie, and I'll decidedly post his tweets too:
If a Batman who plans a pre-meditated murder is the Batman this generation of viewers and readers want, that’s a sad commentary on fandom.
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) March 26, 2016
Well then, why did he ever create the Punisher? Somebody pointed that out, and he said:
The irony is, the Punisher was not originally intended to be admired. He’s the Batman gone bad. https://t.co/9VcNhWI8OB
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) March 26, 2016
I'm not so sure of that. Even at the start in 1974, he wasn't depicted as a criminal per se. It was a short time after the Gwen Stacy affair, and he was targeting Spider-Man because he thought he was a criminal himself (he thought Spidey guilty of taking Norman Osborn's life), but after deciding he was innocent, he backed off. Conway's alluding to how, in this new film, Batman bludgeons/kills some of the criminals. While there were a few stories in the Golden Age where he did too, I'm willing to admit this does look over the top, and may not be a great idea. But Conway's far-left politics are just why I don't see the point of complaining. What he should argue is whether Batman should be depicted killing in self-defense or to save innocent lives.
And if it weren't for how the new film depicts the Masked Manhunter, one could think it all looks absurdly like Superman's the one who ends up doing the slaying while Batman's the one WB/DC goes out of their way to protect reputation-wise. Now that I think of it, Conway may have lamented Bruce Wayne's portrayal there, but Slott, Waid and company don't seem as worried about. Nor do they come to terms with how bad their own writing is, or became.
I hope Hughes understands now that Waid, Slott and others of their ilk are a bad lot, and give comicdom a bad name. It's surely the main reason why the industry's doing so badly.
Update: Hughes contacted me to say that he hadn't interviewed Waid, though he wanted to. Let me assure that when somebody like Waid acts as awfully as he does, it's really not that big a deal to interview him, but it's definitely sad Waid has to be that way.
Labels: Batman, dc comics, marvel comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, Spider-Man, Superman, violence
"I hope Hughes understands now that Waid, Slott and others of their ilk are a bad lot, and give comicdom a bad name. It's surely the main reason why the industry's doing so badly."
That's curious. Please elaborate.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:55 PM
I'm no fan of Conway or his politics, but, in all fairness, I admit that the Punisher was not originally a hero to be admired. He was an anti-hero or a sympathetic villain, and he was an antagonist for Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Captain America.
In the mid-1970's, Marvel may have been trying to expand their audience, and to appeal to the fans of Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson movies (and/or to fans of paperback book series like the Executioner, Destroyer, and Death Merchant). So they tried using the Punisher as a solo hero in two B&W magazines, Marvel Preview #2 and Marvel Super Action #1. Since that did not lead to a permanent series, I assume sales were not good enough.
In the 1980's, there was another action movie fad (Rambo, Commando, Mad Max), so Marvel once again used Frank Castle to jump on the band wagon. First a mini-series to test the waters, then an ongoing self-titled series. This time it must have worked. Judging by the umpteen billion spin-offs, the Punisher must have been one of marvel's most popular characters in the '80's.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:50 PM
That's curious. Please elaborate.
Easy: They're assholes.
Posted by
Hube |
1:45 PM