Ain't It Cool News interview with Dan Slott

loved the stuff about the hulk.

Only because I made the exact same argument :)
 
Wow, long interview. I'll check it out later.
 
Yeah, it's big. I haven't even read it myself. I'm gonna get breakfast first and read it while I eat.
 
Great interview. I wish more writers were so dilligent with continuity. Wow.
 
Great interview, especially part 2. Thanks for the post.
 
And Slott's right, check out Ookla the Mok. It's fun.
 
Slott is the man. Good interview, and thats saying a lot coming from its source.
 
Yeah, I wish there were more writers like Slott. The fanboy-like enthusiasm drips from his words. This is a man that really has a passion for his job. Heck, he hardly even talks about it as if it is a job. This is genuine fun to him. I wish more writers would express themselves like that.
 
Bug: Okay, She-Hulk's cousin…The Hulk. Bendis recently made out in ILLUMINATI that the Hulk's rampages leave definite casualties. This just on the heels of your SHE-HULK issue where the very competent Jen Walters - aka She-Hulk - insisted that they didn't. You responded on the topic at Newsarama. I completely agree with your take on the Hulk, in his origin alone, Bruce risks his own life to save Rick Jones from a bomb that he helped create. This act alone shows that, in his nature, he is a noble soul that would not allow his own creation to harm an innocent. And yes, there's a question here somewhere. To put it bluntly, Bendis has more clout at Marvel at the moment than you, and so his particular take is likely to be more canonical. Therefore, to a lot of readers, the Hulk is a killer. Is this frustrating to you? Would you prefer for Marvel to have more definitive character bibles to prevent such inconsistencies?


Slott: Twelve words: The Hulk has never been responsible for the loss of innocent life. I stand by that. Show me a comic that’s set in standard Marvel continuity where he is directly responsible for the loss of innocent life. You can’t. Is that saying “The Hulk has never killed”? No, it’s not.

I’ve heard all the arguments. And it pretty much boils down to these five points:
1. The Hulk is a force of nature and forces of nature kill people.

No. Hulk as a “force of nature” is a metaphor. The Hulk is a gamma-spawned monster, a person, and the embodiment of Bruce Banner’s rage. He’s not a freaking volcano. Next.

2. He smashes people through buildings. That would kill them. And it’d probably kill the people who live inside those buildings too. So there.

If that’s your criteria, then by that logic Iron Man and Thor are mass murderers too. Just think of how many people they’ve thrown through buildings.

3. But Iron Man and Thor would have checked first. Or known where and how to throw people through those buildings. Hulk’s just a mindless brute.

If that’s your stance, then why not just say that a small sliver of Bruce Banner’s intelligence would help him (subconsciously) do the exact same thing?

4. But I’ve got this comic right here! A comic where Hulk kills somebody! Game over.

Check the comic again. Is it in standard Marvel Continuity? (We’re NOT talking about Ultimate Hulk, a Hulk from a What if?, or a make believe story). Did that person eventually “come back”? Check a few issues later. Was Hulk directly responsible for the act? Was it a case of mind-control or hypnosis? And finally: Was it an innocent life? Hulk killing a bad guy is well within the criteria of my 12 word statement.

5. But it’s not realistic. Of COURSE he’s killed people. He’s the Hulk.

Okay, here’s the BIG thing. Comics aren’t realistic. Sorry to break it to you. They’re stories about CHARACTERS. And maintaining the INTEGRITY of those characters is, at times, more important than maintaining the reality of that world. If the Hulk takes an innocent life, you forever ruin the character of Bruce Banner- who he is and what he’s about. If one innocent life is lost DUE to the Hulk—it IS his fault—and he needs to redeem himself. If two or three innocent people die and Banner does not take himself out—he is now a reckless killer, a person who knowingly is responsible for multiple counts of manslaughter—and he becomes TOTALLY irredeemable .

If you try to hold ALL comics up to reality they will ALL fall apart at some point.

Take Daredevil for instance. This is a man with NO superhuman strength. And yet we see him swing and bound from rooftop to rooftop. Well… Have you BEEN to New York? When you get to the end of a block, in order to cross an avenue you have to clear the lengths of two sidewalks and four lanes of traffic (sometimes six if there are bus lanes). That’s impossible. There’s no way around it. It can’t be done. Seriously. Get your best Olympic athlete. Even with a running start, they’re not going to clear the length of ONE sidewalk and one parked car, let alone two, three, or four. The idea that Daredevil can do that, or even swing across it, is ludicrous. What’s he doing? Reaching the end of the block, climbing down the building, crossing the street, climbing up the next building, and resuming his bounding? No.

You know how he does it? He’s a comic book character. And he’s not in the real world. And, btw, the Hulk has never been responsible for the loss of innocent life. Suck it up.

Whew! All right… Rant over. Next question?


Someone should send this to Bendis.
 
gildea said:
loved the stuff about the hulk.

Only because I made the exact same argument :)


I think it was one of those arguments we actually agreed on.
 
Yeah, I liked the Hulk rant too and it was pretty well put together too.
 
I think I need to make a Dan Slott pwned Bendis pic. Akin to my old days on here:

Waid.jpg
 
woah...he owned that guy!

slott rules.
 
Harlekin said:
Yeah, I wish there were more writers like Slott. The fanboy-like enthusiasm drips from his words. This is a man that really has a passion for his job. Heck, he hardly even talks about it as if it is a job. This is genuine fun to him. I wish more writers would express themselves like that.
I finally read it over some waffles and I have to say, his optimism struck me the most. The guy can apparently never be dealt a raw hand. If someone comes up with a big crossover event, rather than feeling put-upon to contribute he'll willingly throw his cards in so he can at least have some input and try to make it better through the perspective of the characters he's writing. If he has a cool story idea that doesn't work with established continuity, he'll just whip up a quick and sensible explanation for it without a big fuss. Hell, they canceled the Thing and all he can say is that it sucks but he's hoping it does well in trades so it might come back! What a nice change from the writers who take themselves way too seriously to be inconvenienced by continuity or accepting that their comics are part of a larger world where ripples affect everything. Good interview.
 
Exactly, the optimism and the fanboy attitude. I loved his reaction to: How do you respond when someone writes a character you don't like out of character?

Answer: Pissed off.

Great interview.
 
Yeah, his rant about people taking 5 minutes to read through some back issues and get a feel for the character was nice. He does it, and he's almost universally loved by fans. That ought to tell people something.
 
I saw Dan Slott was in this thread so he read everyone's comments. Surprised that he did not say hello.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,140
Messages
21,906,587
Members
45,703
Latest member
Weird
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"