It's clear they're delighted they offended people
So wait, the CAP story's turning out to be what it appeared to be all along, and those who freaked out are saying it must have been changed?— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) June 29, 2016
For all we know, it could have been, but what matters for now is that Marvel's staff lied deliberately, all in order to disgust the audience, later laugh behind their backs at how they "fooled" everyone, not to mention obscured a ludicrous rendition of Red Skull. Something the press is unlikely to comment on.
.@ronmarz Best part: People who tried to take the "Do you understand how comics work?" argument off the table because it was "offensive".— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
The question is whether Slott and his ilk understand how the original setups for various heroes worked. They don't. And Slott didn't stop with that:
How dare you make a comic book that grabs people's attention!— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
HOW DARE YOU!
For the wrong reasons, but will they admit that? Of course not.
Remember the good ol' days when Stan Lee DIDN'T put the most hyperbolic, attention grabbing things on a cover? What? Huh?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
Did Lee and Kirby ever try to peddle turning a hero into a vile villain as a real deal? Not from what I can recall. When they wrote their story for Tales of Suspense where Red Skull brainwashed Cap, they made it clear from the start it was all mind control, and definitely never retconned Steve's background.
This is why it was the biggest slap in the face when Wally replaced Barry as the Flash.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
Or when Barry replaced Jay. https://t.co/XKS9p2AEaf
Umm, did DC turn Barry into a Parallax villain the same way Hal Jordan was several years later? No, that's not what happened either. Interesting how Slott implies he doesn't like Barry Allen as a Flash either, and probably not even Jay Garrick.
"Sorry we helped gin up false fears that a writer and/or editorial team were anti-Semitic," said absolutely nobody today.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
Sayeth an apologist who won't admit the Red Skull as stand-in for conservatives is offensive to decent Europeans as well.
Last week I had a number of non-Jews explain to me (a Jew) why the Cap story was anti-Semitic.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 29, 2016
Good times, right? https://t.co/RTwC1r4JJb
Predictably, he won't admit there's Jews out there who also found the setup distasteful, and don't have to feel sorry they "overreacted", because trolling the audience is in poor taste, and if they're going to cliche that technique into the ground, then they don't deserve our hard-earned money. Slott's comment is disrespectful to non-Jews, and suggests he has a low opinion of them.
Nick Spencer had stuff to say too:
Just wanted to say thank you for what was actually a pretty phenomenal response to STEVE ROGERS: CAPTAIN AMERICA today. A few things...— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) June 30, 2016
He sounds like a "professional victim", who's actually rather delighted to make anybody mad so he can look like he was unfairly slammed. He also lets know that:
This is a story that will have huge consequences for the entire Marvel Universe. This book is really just where it all starts.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) June 30, 2016
Other books you should definitely be getting for starters: CIVIL WAR II. SAM WILSON: CAPTAIN AMERICA. THUNDERBOLTS. UNCANNY AVENGERS.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) June 30, 2016
But crossovers are just the problem with today's marketing technique, and this is one of the most revolting ways you could promote one (which is apparently Civil War 2). They clog out all stand-alone storytelling, and they're also quite money-consuming. Above all, many of them turn out to be unmemorable, flash-in-the-pan junk that isn't widely talked about in the years to come, and are riddled with leftist politics that serve the writing staff's interests far more than the consumer's. Anybody who pays good money for what they're turning out is doing themselves a serious disfavor.