“Dead No More” = Spider-Man? Alonso answers “Yeah”

31 Comments

1. This is from Bleeding Cool’s interview with Marvel’s David Gabriel – Marvel’s David Gabriel Talks Doctor Strange, Civil War II And Crossovers

   David Gabriel: ……….. Be on the lookout for dead characters returning to life in the pages of Amazing Spider-Man. The first issue of Captain America: Steve Rogers is sure to turn lots of heads in May.

   For the rest head here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/02/13/marvels-david-gabriel-talks-doctor-strange-civil-war-ii-and-crossovers/

2. @25 (For real this time, since my last post was meant for Jack)

   There is no discussion over “whether” CBR posted the same thing. It has been mostly me pointing that out, and the only other comment was Chase saying the Crawlspace just pointed to CBR. It’s not at all about CBR making the same “mistake”, because they DIDN’T make a mistake. CBR had said that Dead No More’s teasers and creative team indicate that it’s a Spider-Man story, which Slott had already confirmed on Twitter, and was reiterated by Alonso in the interview this article points to. You are completely misrepresenting what I was saying, and by saying that it’s evident, you are outright lying about what was being discussed. You misunderstood me, because I wasn’t saying that CBR made the same *mistake*. I was saying that CBR figured out the same *fact*, so Mohammed’s article should not have needed to be amended to say “It seems Mohamed maybe close with his prediction that Spider-Man will be involved in the “Dead No More” event. However that maybe not quite 100% accurate.” It IS 100% accurate. That is why this headline says “‘Dead No More’ = Spider-Man?”, because THAT is the association that Slott’s correction had seemingly deemed inaccurate.

   While that screenshot does show a poor phrasing regarding Nick Spencer, that still NEVER came up until you asked if it was the focus of the original dispute, which it wasn’t. This discussion has continued as long as it has because it’s NOT as simple as the Crawlspace making a mistake. If Slott’s tweet telling Mohammed to step back (Though he could have gone without insulting reading comprehension as usual) was all he had offered, that could have been the end of it. BD thanked him, and the article was updated, so ANY confusion was resolved, making it irrelevant right then and there. But Slott didn’t leave it at that, and instead went on the offensive towards BD for no good reason. After that, *everyone else* has unanimously decided that Slott’s attacks were unnecessary. Saying whether the Crawlspace’s report was true or repeated a mistake (When CBR made NO such mistake) is altering the truth, and instead lays blame at the Crawlspace for causing this debate. I don’t know how I can be more clear with this, but it doesn’t matter what the Crawlspace and CBR had reported, because none of it justifies Slott’s insults. This isn’t a debate over who cast the first stone. It’s a series of comments agreeing that Slott threw stones when he didn’t need to, and then covered to avoid accountability. He went out of his way to *NOT* have to apologize to the Crawlspace. It’s a sign that when Slott insults someone, he would sooner pretend that he never said something wrong in the first place than offer an apology to whom he wronged. He’s more concerned with how his insults reflect on him if he was held accountable for them than who he hurts with those insults. Instead, he acts like HE is the injured party whenever people point out that what he said was wrong. Establishing a proportion between the Crawlspace’s report and Slott’s reaction, but then only focusing on whether or not the Crawlspace made mistake, completely absolves Slott from his disproportionate reaction. You tried to distinguish Slott’s reaction among two classes, but BOTH are accurate. What Slott gave was an angry overreaction.

3. @#25- The confusion over what was posted has nothing to do with why people are criticizing Slott. Trying to reset the conversation to focus on an irrelevant point does not make what Slott did OK.

   Whether or not Crawlspace was mistaken or not is not the issue. The issue is that Slott overreacted to what was said and how it was said, and attacked Crawlspace unnecessarily. Then he deleted his tweets to avoid apologizing for what he did.

   As stated before, an overreaction is still an overreaction. If someone pushed another person intentionally, and the person who was pushed then punched the first guy square in the face, that’s an overreaction. Just as it’s an overreaction if someone accidentally nudges someone, and apologizes for it, stating it was an honest mistake, and still gets punched in the face. In face, it’s worse in the later case because the person who threw the punch has far less justification for his actions.

   Slott is in that boat. He threw a punch because Crawlspace slightly nudged him, and then apologized for it, thanking him along the way for pointing out the mistake.

   Splitting hairs over what the initial confusion was in no way, shape or form excuses what Slott did afterwards, especially since part of that was him deleting his tweets to avoid culpability. Therefore avoiding having to apologize for HIS actions the same way Crawlspace did theirs.

   So, no, there is no “confusion” over the issue. Slott acted immaturely, verbally attacked a person who didn’t mean him any disrespect, who was courteous when they were corrected, and was in no way provoking a fight.

   In fact, by pointing out that there could have been considerable confusion regarding the initial point of contention makes Slott look even WORSE. Because he wasn’t responding to a post or tweet done out of spite or done to intentionally antagonize him. He was responding to what everyone has agreed upon is an honest mistake on the part of Crawlspace. And that just makes what Slott did even more egregious.

4. @25: I suspect that Marvel’s editors don’t actually know enough to encourage that. I doubt he’d get a thumbs up when Slott actually missed a deadline on Silver Surfer, causing not only that issue to be delayed, but also the two after it, when they’d all been solicited. I think editors would rather an employee spend their time on actually getting their work done.

5. Everybody tip their hats to BD for taking the high road, and also moderating the message-boards so that there isn’t name calling. Now, if the podcast would clean up its language, it’d be 10 for 10!

6. I have wondered if Marvel’s editors encourage Slott to keep on baiting and attacking CS, out of that wrong-headed “all publicity is good publicity” motto. It’s obvious they don’t care, since they would order him to knock it off, and he would obey since he likes employment and income. So he abuses and harasses people with Marvel’s tacit thumbs-up.

   All you Gullibles ought to read back, back, back in this website’s reviews, and see what a wide variety of grades this website assigned various Slott issues over the years (including A’s). It’s really only this newest volume with Peter Starker that has really earned BD’s strongest distaste.

7. The main reason I bring up the misunderstanding is that there does appear to be some confusion over what happened, as evident by the discussion about wherher Slott was upset about something unambiguously true being posted, and whether CBR had made the same mistake.

   @#14- Here’s the screenshot.

   You could also click on http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/2016/02/04/dan-slott-co-writer-of-dead-no-more-event/
   It will redirect you to http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/2016/02/04/dan-slott-writer-of-dead-no-more-event/

8. @#16- No it isn’t. An overreaction is still and overreaction.

   Crawlspace made an honest mistake, and apologized. Slott then made an unnecessary attack against them, and rather than apologize for HIS mistake, deleted his comments.

   Nothing excuses what Slott has done. It was an out of nowhere comment against a person who was being civil and polite to him, and even thanked him for the correction. It was Slott who chose to attack Crawlspace, just as he chose to delete his tweets.

   Slott is an adult, and is in control of his actions. He’s not obligated to respond to anything, and he can choose how and why he responds. It’s also important to note that in their back and forth, Crawlspace specifically told Slott that they knew what he was doing, and that they weren’t going to engage in a back and forth with him, saying it was “Old in 2010, and it’s old in 2016.” So, even after being slighted by Slott, the folks at Crawlspace showed that someone is capable of not reacting in a specific way.

   Because, let’s face it- what Slott said to Crawlspace was far, far worse than what Crawlspace said about Dead No More. And if Crawlspace can chose not to engage in muckracking and a twitter back and forth with Slott, Slott is equally capable of taking the high road.

   But he didn’t. He chose to make an unwarranted verbal attack. Just as he chose to delete the tweets. He overreacted, and should be held accountable for it.

9. If you asked me which is more likely of slott 1.to attack the crawlspace or 2.admit mistake and apologize I think we all know the answer.

10. @BD: Sorry. While I’m still upset about this situation, I hope what I’m about to say displays a better tone than I had before.

    @19: The starting point in your distinction is whether the Crawlspace was right or wrong. In the case of the Crawlspace being wrong, it’s called an “overreaction” for a reason, but the Crawlspace getting something right or wrong still doesn’t warrant the response that was made. That’s the issue at hand. Speculation fueling narratives has nothing to do with this. This article shows that there WAS no honest mistake in the previous article, which was corrected when it said that Dead No More is a Spider-Man story. There was no need for the update, so of the distinctions you point to, what instead happened was an angry reaction to the truth. It wasn’t speculation about something incorrect. It was the Crawlspace reporting what CBR reported – that Dead No More is a Spider-Man story – which was correct. The ONLY thing present in the Crawlspace’s report that was not in the CBR report is the use of the word “event”. Whether it’s an overreaction or an angry reaction, the thing that ties both of them together is that they’re BAD reactions. And that reaction being bad is more important than whether or not “event” was the right term to use.

11. Crawlspace did nothing wrong and shouldn’t have to apologize for anything. Unless I’m wrong, Crawlspace is not a news source but rather a fan forum with reviews from said fans. Does Crawlspace pass along news posted from other sources, sure. But I see this site as a place for people to post their opinions. If Crawlspace believed “Dead No More” tied into Spider-Man, well it’s their right to speculate as such.

12. @18 actually I was talking about the Slott’s massive disagreement with the crawlspace reviews here. When someone from crawlspace points out flaws in Slott’s writting(the 2014 ASM relaunch issues were full of bad writting), he gets mad and tries to mock them online.

    Slott deleted those twitter posts, but I think he’ll take a dig at crawlspace whenever he gets a chance.

13. @#16- I agree that it was an honest mistake. An overreaction to an honest mistake is still different from an angry reaction to the truth (as speculation about something incorrect could fuel existing narratives about the Spider-Man comics.)

14. @#17- But here’s the thing- where was the criticism? What did Crawlspace do that was critical of Slott in this instance? They reported on a story, to the best of their knowledge, and then adjusted it when they were informed that the information was incorrect.

    Nothing Crawlspace did warranted Slott’s slight against them. Even with the justification of Slott was merely “answering his critics,” it still doesn’t hold any weight since Crawlspace wasn’t criticizing him.

15. Slott just can’t accept any criticism when it comes to his writting. And when he can’t accept criticism, he tries to bash them online. How unprofessional!

16. @#12- So, it’s an honest mistake on Crawlspace’s part. And something that was easy to make.

    Heck, I’ve seen someone attribute the “Return of a Legend” part of the promo as being part of “Dead No More.” Yet, as others have pointed out, that is more likely to be a reference to the return of Steve Rogers as Captain America, rather than Dead No More, since that is advertised as a lead in to an event that is occurring later in 2016.

    The vagueness of the promo kind of leads to mistakes like that. Crawlspace made one, an honest one, apologized for it and corrected the information.

    Then Dan Slott made an unnecessary attack against Crawlspace that was entirely unwarranted, and deleted said tweet a short while later.

    It seems like in this case, Crawlspace is the bigger man here. They made an honest mistake and apologized for it. Slott made an unwarranted and unnecessary attack, after the apology was made. And rather than apologize for his actions, he erased what he said to keep it from being used against him.

    I don’t see what pointing to Crawlspace’s original post has anything to do with excusing Slott’s actions. They made an honest mistake, and apologized for it, even thanking Slott for correcting them. Slott was the one who went out of his way to attack Crawlspace. And trying to erase the evidence doesn’t excuse what he did.

    Even if what Crawlspace did was wrong, Slott was wrong in his reaction. And two wrongs don’t make a right.

17. @9 & @14-Phantom Roxas. I appreciate you defending the site but the quote “He is a coward and a hypocrite” is a personal attack. Let’s tone it down a bit.

    @13-Chase the Blues Away tone it down a bit with the “paranoid” comment.

18. @12

    The Crawlspace article says “While the press release simply lists Dan Slott as the co-writer on the “Captain America” issue”, so post a screenshot. Seriously, how does it list Slott as the co-writer of Dead No More? Because listing him as the co-writer of the Captain America issue matches with “Written by NICK SPENCER & DAN SLOTT”.

    Like Chase said, Slott wasn’t going to insult CBR, but he IS going to take the Crawlspace – a website YOU contribute to, so your exposure as a writer is dependent on this site – and throw it under the rug AGAIN AND AGAIN. Mets, you are part of the Crawlspace. You’re here with us. But as far as Slott and his sweeping generalizations are concerned, that means you are Slott’s enemy.

19. #12

    The answer is still NO, because all Crawlspace did was point to the CBR article. It reported on the reportage. The controversy is Slott correcting Crawlspace – but not CBR, as I guess he didn’t feel like biting the hand that lets him have a free pass to insult and mock people who don’t kiss up to him – and then using it as an excuse to throw a childish temper tantrum about the entire website, now comveniently deleted. Which, considering you’re a contributor here, means you are included in Slott’s irrational and paranoid hatred. Congrats!

20. @#5- My rss reader still has the original “blurb” and it reads “Dan Slott co-writer of “Dead No More” event”

    It quotes comic book resources as saying “Comic Book Resources has just released information that “Dead No More” is indeed a Spidey event as it will be…

    Written by NICK SPENCER & DAN SLOTT
    Art by JESUS SAIZ & JAVIER GARRON
    Cover by JESUS SAIZ
    Coming Free Comic Book Day!”

21. The only people who rally around Slott are the gullible children.

22. Finally. The long awaited return of Lance Bannon.

23. And the main defense against “fake names” is that it makes it harder to avoid accountability. I get that. So why is it that, conveniently, whenever Slott does something wrong, we shouldn’t hold *him* accountable for anything? The “fake names” argument is a hollow one. People don’t like Slott’s work, so he needs an excuse to belittle those people. And he slams the Crawlspace as a whole because Slott believes that as long as he can consolidate all his detractors into a small space, by dismissing the Crawlspace as a whole, he can in turn reduce the value of the criticisms against him. His claims against “fake names” are just another way of doing this, which is why he accuses people on CBR of using multiple accounts. He’s not actually trying to refute the argument. By insinuating that it’s just one person behind two accounts, he can cut the amount of people making that criticism in half. So, here’s the hypocrisy. When it involves those who criticize Slott, he will trust a moderator on CBR to handle the people for him. If he can make people accountable for breaking certain rules, then he switches the blame so that it was the critic who did wrong, and Slott doesn’t have to own up to the fault in his story. Yet Slott can easily delete his posts. When there was a discussion about Remender telling people to drown in hobo piss, Slott pointed to it as an example of how people abuse social media, because they can find comments people made and hold it against them. Because I guess newspapers or live/public broadcasts of events didn’t risk the same thing. Anyway, I believe Remender was sincere when he apologized, but in standing up for Remender, Slott instead revealed something about himself. He doesn’t like his own word being used against him. People who use “fake names” are obnoxious fans who must be held accountable for their actions, but because they have fake names, that makes it harder. But the same people who whine about how “hard” it is to pin those people done will cover up their tracks. Slott didn’t apologize. He just deleted a comment so he wouldn’t have something he’d need to apologize FOR. It doesn’t matter at ALL what the Crawlspace reported correctly or incorrectly. Slott was trying to start a fight, and deleted the tweets because they show HIM as the aggressor. He has absolutely no right to criticize people who have usernames on message boards for avoiding accountability when he will repeatedly delete tweets that show him as attacking people. He only claims he never insulted or attacked anyone because he did what he thought was the best way of removing those comments. This isn’t just “a tree falls in a forest, and no one’s around to hear it.” Slott deletes his comments to act like there was never a tree there in the first place. He demands accountability from his critics, yet refuses to lend himself to similar accountability. He is a coward and a hypocrite.

24. @#4- If it was, Slott didn’t have to respond the way he did.

    If it was about reporting that it would be an event written by both Slott and Nick Spencer, Slott could have simply corrected them, politely, and said that they are mistaken. He didn’t. He went one step further and made an unnecessary slam against Crawlspace as a whole.

    Which was AFTER Crawlspace APOLOGIZED for the mistake and corrected their reporting.

    The fact that Slott deleted his tweets to avoid culpability kind of shows he was out of line in his response.

25. @#5- Dan Slott has often gone on about how people using pseudonyms on the internet means that they don’t have any “courage” or “lack conviction” to stand by their arguments. That if they truly believed in what they were arguing, that they would then use their real names whenever they make a post online (This, of course, ONLY applies to those criticizing HIS work and HIS work alone. All those praising him are just “anonymous do-gooders” and I swear I am not making any of this up).

    But, really, what is more of a lack of courage or conviction to stand by their beliefs? People who use “fake names” when arguing about stuff like whether or not Wolverine could beat Batman, or what Superman story they like the best? Or a guy who erases his more problematic comments so he doesn’t have to be called out on them later? A guy who doesn’t apologize for his unnecessary slam to Crawlspace, despite the fact that the person he was interacting with was polite, courteous and THANKED him for correcting him on an issue that they weren’t even incorrect about in the first? And instead of copping to it AND apologizing for his comments, he instead deletes them to avoid culpability?

26. @4: It was absolutely not about Nick Spencer’s involvement in the slightest, especially since the dispute came up AFTER CBR posted the cover in this article, which explicit says “Dead No More by Slott & Garron”. The dispute was over whether or not Dead No More is a Spider-Man story. If there’s any dispute about any Nick Spencer involvement, it’s this exchange. It was Slott trying to accuse Mohammed of lacking reading comprehension, and attributing it to a natural flaw of the Crawlspace, when at most, Mohammed was reporting what Comic Book Resources reported. Slott was trying to “correct” the Crawlspace for only being “close” in their reporting, when it was just repeating what CBR did, which Alonso confirmed here as accurate. So the dispute happened only because Slott is petty and wanted a pretense for yelling at the Crawlspace.

27. Dan Slott has apparently deleted all his tweets on the subject. Fancy that.

    @4

    No.

28. Wasn’t the original dispute about Nick Spencer’s involvement in “Dead No More”?

29. Can’t wait for Dan Slott to tweet Alonso and tell him he’s “close” and to read his own promotional materials again.

    What a maroon.

30. Doc Ock

31. I love how Dan Slott trolls this page. Perhaps he should take some of the posters’ suggestions.