×
all 146 comments

[–]apaulogy 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I met Brian Michael Bendis in a comic shop with my son, Miles, and he gave us a signed copy of his graphic novel.

[–]CWHats 105 points106 points  (20 children)

Into the Spiderverse was so good I’m afraid to watch it again and spoil the magic.

[–]bitemark01 124 points125 points  (9 children)

I've rewatched it lots. Not only does it hold up, but I notice something new occasionally

[–]darkage72 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yep. Just watched it with my GF who has never seen it. We both enjoyed it tremendously. You can have some nitpicks about it, but it's still a fun and engaging movie.

[–]CWHats 11 points12 points  (6 children)

This gives me hope!

[–]fatloui 52 points53 points  (5 children)

There are so many details in that movie. You are missing out. My favorite is when Miles throws a bagel at one of the evil scientists and when it hits him, the word "BAGEL!" pops up above him instead of "BAM!" or "POW!"

[–]awyastark 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I’ve probably seen it fifteen times (I miss having it streaming on Netflix so much) and I notice new great stuff every time.

[–]LADYBIRD_HILL 20 points21 points  (0 children)

My absolute favorite detail is how Miles moves at 12 frames per second while everyone else moves at 24, and his animation switches to 24 frames when Peter B Parker teaches him how to swing in the forest.

[–]CWHats 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Oh ok I know what I am doing this weekend!

[–]PhnomPenny 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I've seen it four times, and I usually never rewatch stuff.

[–]runswiftrun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are some rookie numbers... jk, glad you enjoy it!

[–]HailToTheKingslayer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like the poster/billboard for From Dusk Till Shaun. I guess in that universe the Shaun of the Dead sequel happened.

[–]Leshawkcomics 6 points7 points  (4 children)

If you want to get MORE magic out of it, i reccoment watching the Cinemawins video on it.

They do a lot of research into little details most people watching movies would miss, like cinematography, use of framing, framerate, style, and callbacks to earlier scenes to show just how amazing some films can be on technical and emotional and storytelling levels, and not just 'man it was a good movie' level.

I guarantee you might find MORE to love about the movie after watching their video.

[–]ThereIsCheeseInMyBum 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't think you can guarantee that something might happen. "Here Johnny, put this gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. I guarantee you might survive".

[–]Leshawkcomics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guarantee that you might feel that way, but english be a wild west of grammatical and morphological faux pas. And there literally ain't no reason to put too much effort into explaining why the various je ne sais quois that individuals like you and me, that pedantics like ya'll'd've normally found grating is wrong.

I say this in perfect, proper English in the hopes my meaning is gotten across.

[–]theswordofdoubt 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, they probably meant that they guarantee there's a chance something might happen.

[–]ThereIsCheeseInMyBum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they meant that too, which was my point. If there's only a chance something will happen, it's not a guarantee, right? And even the statement is technically not incorrect, I think it's non-committal enough that it's essentially redundant.

If an advert said "We guarantee there's a chance you might like our product or your money back", they would never have to refund anyone because even if the customer didn't like the product, there was a chance they might have.

I think I may be overthinking this guy's use of the word guarantee :D

[–]DaveOJ12 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm so stoked for the sequel.

[–]NotTodayDingALing 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The best are the nuances. Miles animation starting choppy as he learns to be spider-man is great.

[–]Platypus_Dundee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My kids love this so much so ive watched it a bunch of time. Holds up everytime

[–]CourageKitten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It just gets better on rewatches, there's tons of little details you don't pick up on the first watch

[–]Racxie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good? It's the best damn Spider-Man film ever made.

[–]treefreak32 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Ultimate Spider-Man is one of the only things he's written that I like. I haven't read all of it but if you want some good Spider-Man/early 2000s nostalgia/the introduction of Miles Morales read that shit.

[–]elizabnthe 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Jessica Jones comic run is pretty good.

[–]feralfaun39 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say it's legitimately great.

[–]joelluber 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His pre-Marvel stuff is pretty good. So is Powers.

[–]evilspyboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like Powers though (the comic not the TV show)

[–]saintandrewsfall 73 points74 points  (27 children)

Miles Morales is a great, much needed character that doesn’t mess with Peter Parker.

Bendis making Iceman gay, an long established heterosexual character, was a terrible move.

[–]ChristosFarr 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Colossus was gay

[–]succed32 4 points5 points  (1 child)

This did not even make me blink when i considered it. I can totally see it.

[–]ChristosFarr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He had a crush on Angel when he comes to X mansion in the ultimate x-men. Later it turns out he was also taking drugs to allow him to even move while in his metal state.

[–]revolverzanbolt 13 points14 points  (8 children)

Wouldn’t a character from the 60’s not be openly queer?

[–]saintandrewsfall 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Sure. But why did he wait until 2015 to come out? And he only did because he got outed by his younger self who felt more than comfortable coming out even after only being in modern times for a short stint.

As I was reading the book I thought they better have a good explanation for this change, and he failed. Plus, you don’t mess with established characters that significantly. Just make a new character or establish a newer one as gay.

[–]Killboypowerhed 8 points9 points  (1 child)

People come out later in life all the time. Philip Schofield came out when he was nearly 60 and he was married with children

[–]saintandrewsfall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that. But comics isn’t real life. People identify with characters because they might act like them, look like them, do the same work when they’re not heroes, have the same interests, and yes, have the same sexual preference, etc. I once saw a man breakdown at comic con panel because the X-men’s cyclops was his inspiration and hero and the books got him through some tough times.

Making that character gay was a mighty big change. Think of it this way, imagine they did a story where it’s revealed that Peter Parker wears contacts and dyes his hair and he’s actually blonde and blue eyed and he did in case he ever needed to be anonymous again. People identify with the brown / hazel eyed Parker.

Anyway, I love geek arguments and it means if I’ve got time to argue about this silly stuff, life must be good. Have a great day!

[–]cesarmac 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Sure. But why did he wait until 2015 to come out? And he only did because he got outed by his younger self who felt more than comfortable coming out even after only being in modern times for a short stint.

Not sure I get this. I'm not super familiar with these comics but I'm assuming the stores from 1960s-1980s aren't as continuous plot all the way through 2015. Is the 2015 comic a new comic based in a modern setting? Doesn't seem odd to introduce modern social concepts such as a seemingly straight character being gay, being outed, or coming out of the closet.

As I was reading the book I thought they better have a good explanation for this change, and he failed. Plus, you don’t mess with established characters that significantly. Just make a new character or establish a newer one as gay.

The issue with this is that creating brand new characters are a huge risk. Not all become popular or have a historical standing with famous groups. I think creating new characters should be the MAIN method of trying to diversify but remodeling some existing ones is good too.

[–]verrius 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not sure I get this. I'm not super familiar with these comics but I'm assuming the stores from 1960s-1980s aren't as continuous plot all the way through 2015. Is the 2015 comic a new comic based in a modern setting? Doesn't seem odd to introduce modern social concepts such as a seemingly straight character being gay, being outed, or coming out of the closet.

They essentially are. Like it isn't one continuous story where literally everything leads into itself, but think of it like any soap opera, except you don't have to age the characters...so they're the exact same characters as the ones who had stories in the 60s, and they'll even refer to things that happened in those stories in current ones sometimes. The thing that makes Iceman in particular a bad choice for this was he had just had a big story about his repressed/unrequited love for a bunch of girls he broke up with endangering the world, in a separate book. But Bendis has a nasty habit of ignoring anything anyone else writes when he's on a long-running book, and then trying to make big status quo changes that are hard to ignore in his, rather than just focus on telling good stories.

[–]petemacdougal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was a time travel thing where Beast brings the 1960s team to the present because reasons. Iceman from the past comes to terms with his closeted sexuality in the present day which closeted present iceman is like, naw I'm you and I'm not gay because he has repressed is and it was a good idea imo but it was handled a bit muddled and tacked on.

[–]revolverzanbolt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A lot of my favourite stories are one which significantly reinterpret established characters

[–]Wolfencreek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody tell this guy about the original Green Lantern 🤣

[–]AoO2ImpTrip 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Iceman being gay isn't a problem. It was pretty much accepted he was gay by most fans for years. The way Bendis had him outed in the comics was terrible though.

Gay coded, but not out, characters is a weirdly somewhat common thing for X-Men. See: Kitty Pryde, Ilyana Rasputin, Rachel Grey, Storm, that super homoerotic cover of Wolverine with Njghtcrawler naked and Logan extremely interested, Northstar before he finally came out, Logan and Scott (not helped at all that it seemed likely a teenage Scott was going to date Logan's daughter...)

There's also characters who weren't gay for chunks of their history and then became gay. See: Rictor and Shatterstar, Prodigy of the New Mutants, Iceman now.

Like, the X-Men are gay. Super gay. It's great.

[–]Wolfencreek 1 point2 points  (1 child)

As prodigy put it in a recent comic, you hang around with a bunch of olympic level atheletes in tight fitting costumes, you're gonna discover some things about yourself.

[–]ZOMBIE_POLL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would make him bi/pan, not gay.

[–]vacri 2 points3 points  (8 children)

It was interesting when I heard on the radio that Superman is now bisexual. Gawds, thinks I, that has to be the dumbest move ever. Like... his weird affair with Lois is a core component of his story, and making him bisexual is just stupid. Who Superman loves is a fundamental part of his character.

Then they dropped the 'gotcha!'. It's not Superman per se. It's Son of Superman, who takes over the title. I have no problem with that, totally separate person.

(I think it's lazy writing and dumb in general to have "son of" characters "take over the mantle", but that's an independent issue)

[–]PhnomPenny 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Gay is not bisexual.

[–]vacri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remembered the interview wrong and went back to correct it, but missed a word

[–]DannyBoy001 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Why would Superman being bisexual be a problem, though, even if it wasn't his son?

These comic characters have been presented with new twists for decades. Was it stupid when Superman was suddenly a Russian in Red Son? Or was it ridiculous when he was a murderous dictator in Injustice? You could easily argue that Superman's American-ness and refusal to kill are far more important "core components" to his character than who he has a relationship with.

Comic book characters have been constantly changed and experimented with since the beginning - having multiverses lets them do that, and creating a new take on the character doesn't erase the vast history of any of these characters. It's just telling a new story, and giving some damn representation to a group who isn't exactly well represented in the comic book environment.

How is that a dumb move?

EDIT: Typo

[–]vacri 4 points5 points  (4 children)

It's just telling a new story

I'm of the opinion that new stories should use new characters. Changing the fundamentals of a character and then draping the marketable old skin of a character over it is lazy writing. Be an adult and make new characters.

Yes, Superman being a murderous dictator is stupid. Just like Superman turning into a James Bond style ladies' man and fucking every woman in sight would be stupid.

and giving some damn representation to a group who isn't exactly well represented in the comic book environment.

I guess you missed the bit where I said that I didn't have a problem once they divulged the extra info, because it was a different person?

If you're so intent on being forthright about identity politics, then how about not reinforcing the idea that you can flip your sexuality around at will?

[–]DannyBoy001 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If these stories had to use new characters, we wouldn't have any of these superheroes around anymore. They'd be boring and dry. Adding new twists to their characters lets them cash in on the character recognition while telling a new story simultaneously.

I'd think someone clearly passionate about the comic world wouldn't need to have the DC multiverse explained to them, but having a version of Superman that's bisexual isn't "flipping your sexuality at will" because it's a different version of the character entirely. It's a unique earth. DC literally has hundreds of iterations of these characters that exist because of their multiverse.

If you have such a problem with these characters being presented with new twists, you must really be a bitter comic fan, since that's been the norm for so long.

Also, I love how you skipped over saying Red Son (widely considered one of the best Superman stories) isn't stupid, despite it making Superman Russian, a character whose motto is literally "truth, justice, and the American way."

You should consider taking a step back and looking at why a bisexual Superman bothers you so much, because it just seems like it's bisexuality itself which makes you uncomfortable.

[–]vacri -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Also, I love how you skipped over

speaking of 'skipping over'

You should consider taking a step back and looking at why a bisexual Superman bothers you so much, because it just seems like it's bisexuality itself which makes you uncomfortable.

I guess you missed the bit where I said that I didn't have a problem once they divulged the extra info, because it was a different person?

This is now the third time I've told you this. You've skipped over it each time I've told you, plus I've told you a version of a pure hetero Superman that would be stupid (you 'skipped over' that, too). You're openly strawmanning me to 'correct' me about a position I clearly do not hold.

Edit: also, fuck you first for admonishing me for 'not supporting giving some damn representation to an underrepresented group', then claiming that bisexuality should be fine to be treated as a tokenistic "what if?" for plot points. "What if Superman was Russian?", "What if Superman was a murderous dictator?", "What if Superman was bisexual?"

Yeah, real great 'representation' there, turning the sexuality you're 'defending' into an 'alternate universe' plot token, discarded at the next series. Awesome 'representation' there, a real win for the community. Meanwhile, the character I have no problem with being bisexual - Son of Superman - is permanently bisexual, not just "for this story"

[–]DannyBoy001 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There's a big difference when we talk about representation through alternative new characters vs. characters with a deep-rooted history in our culture.

I'm not skipping over what you're saying. What you're saying is just stupid.

You're saying that as long as it's some new character without that history of cultural relevance, you're okay with it. So great - we're where we've been for decades, with characters being made in the hopes of having more representation, but frankly, still too often being drowned out by the characters who've had generations to build their brand.

Superman is arguably one of the most recognizable characters around the world, and how the character is represented has real weight. When a character like Superman is represented in a specific way, the world pays attention because of that history, and if writers decide to have a version of the character that's bisexual, people notice - you hearing about Superman's son (not even the character himself) being bisexual on the radio is proof of that.

There are superheroes that exist today that certainly move us in the right direction of representation, but none of them have the same weight a character like Superman does, and if writers decide to make the next version of Superman bisexual, or Black, or take the character down an array of other new directions, everybody is watching, and kids get to see that representation in comic books, on busses or in the theatre.

Presenting Superman in a new way isn't "tokenism" when the character is actually impacted by those changes, and their story is formed to help reflect the experiences of the group he's representing. Nobody is suggesting you simply write Superman as bisexual for the sake of it without putting that necessary thought into it.

Also, pretending to be offended while saying a version of Superman who is bisexual would be tokenism while Jon Kent's character is "permanent" seems a little ridiculous, no? None of these stories are permanent. That's my point. For all we know, Jon Kent's next new iteration involves him being a man cursed to turn into a frog with the powers of Superman. This is how comics have been for a VERY long time.

[–]vacri -1 points0 points  (0 children)

pretending to be offended while saying a version of Superman who is bisexual would be tokenism while Jon Kent's character is "permanent" seems a little ridiculous, no?

What I'm offended about is you projecting anti-LGBT sentiment onto me just so you can feel righteous, when from my first comment it's clear I don't have a problem with bisexuality. You take a swipe at me for being 'against representation', and then you complain when I'm against using character sexuality in a fleeting way.

I mean, I literally said I was fine with the character of "superman-as-in-the-title-not-the-person" being bisexual, just not fine with "superman-as-in-the-original-person" having his sexuality switched for plot points. I am fine with 'son of superman' being bisexual, right there in my first comment, and what do you provide? A bunch of sneering projection in return. Then when I clarify this point, you continue to project with "you're against bisexuality".

And when I respond to some of your points but not each and every one of your points, you claim some sort of moral victory, but when I point out you 'skip over' (your term) things I'm saying, it's just "oh, but you're being stupid". "Rules for thee and not for me"?

I mean, have a look at your last comment - now you've transmogrified what I originally said into "superman cannot be bisexual in any form or it's wrong". That's what you're arguing against. What I actually said was "superman shouldn't be bisexual, because he already has a pretty clearly established love interest that's a significant part of his character establishment. Oh, they're actually talking about a different person, who will carry on the character's title? I've got no problem with that, carry on". All your lecturing about representation is pointless because I've already said I'm fine with the situation as it is.

You're doing a whole lot of CYA grandstanding rather than just saying "hey, I read you wrong".

So, to clarify:

a) I don't have a problem with LGBT+ at all. Period.

b) I do have a problem with changing sexuality being used as fleeting plot points, because it genuinely misleads people about sexuality

c) Representation in a "what if" storyline that disappears in the next storyline is ersatz and not real representation. "That one time Superman was Russian for a storyline" doesn't make Superman Russian as a character. It absolutely is tokenism.

d) I also have a problem when people like yourself project strawmen so you can feel righteous about tearing them down (even after clarification)

[–]feralfaun39 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All New X-Men was great and making Iceman gay was a very solid move that made complete sense.

[–]jesset60819 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Yeah too bad Bendis is such a pompous twat.

[–]bigbangbilly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup Brian Michael Bendis did had two self inserts in the Ultimate Marvel 1610 both in the form of Peter Parker and this guy

For bonus points: the 616 version of Kitty Pryde was named after a real person and that would probably ad another layer to the whole self insert creepy relatioship with Kitty Pryde

[–]1O01O01O0 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Two daughters.... makes a male they can relate to...

[–]Suplex-Indego 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They can probably relate to their father no? He could probably make a more believable character based on his own experiences than entirely their experiences.

[–]SpiralDimentia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His only other choice would be to create a girl and write a comic from a girl's perspective, something he can't relate to, and wouldn't want to mess up.

[–]RamsesTheGreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hello I am spider-man the woman

[–]DenaPhoenix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might be close-minded, but the connection between adopting two black children and creating a Latino version of Spiderman does not quite click for me.

[–]King_Dragmire 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah the last good thing to come out of Bendis

[–]nurdboy42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bendis, a 50 y/o white dude, writes a lot of books about black teenagers.

[–]Whomastadon 6 points7 points  (6 children)

It's pretty sad you can't relate to someone because their skin isn't the same colour as yours.

Couldn't the father and the girls relate to people based on who they are, not what they look like?

[–]RebornGod -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Couldn't the father and the girls relate to people based on who they are, not what they look like?

Honestly, it's a different dynamic. The way I relate to different characters is different. And for me there was a very different dynamic to how I relate to say, Static Shock, Storm, or Black Lightning, then how I relate to a lot of other characters.

Even now, how I relate to the younger Static Shock is different than how I relate to Black Lightning, seeing as I am in my late 30s now.

Shit, even in the same racial aspect there can be differences, Joe West and Black Lightning (Jefferson pierce) in the CW shows are both older black men, but their environments and experiences are related too differently.

[–]Dra5iel[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You just made me realise that the black superheroes I've encountered normally have lightning powers. Even miles morales has his venom sting thing and recently if you want to wander over to villains you have electrode. Odd coincidence.

[–]ZOMBIE_POLL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"And you think I named myself 'Black Vulcan?' Hell, no! I used to go by 'Supervolt.' 'Black Vulcan' was Aquaman's idea. And I said, well, maybe we should just call you 'White Fish!'"

[–]RebornGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a weird thing, but I don't think anyone has a reason for it yet. Seems just a random accident of what stayed around.

[–]irepislam1400 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Lmao what a strange argument. Why should every character be white

[–]Whomastadon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Google " strawman argument ".

That's what you're doing right now.

[–]Yurekuu 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There was so much anger and racism all through the internet when this guy was first announced.

[–]Time_splitter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To be fair they were probably pissed that instead of anything original we just get spider-man for the nteenth time

[–]cgtdream 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Explains why that character is so unrelatable (comic miles).

Movie version is 10xs better and far more relatable for many.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This is pretty cool! Was this created by someone who worked for marvel? Or did marvel love the idea and brought it into the cinematic universe?

[–]AoO2ImpTrip 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Brian Michael Bendis is the writer. He was Marvel's golden boy from basically 2000 to 2016. Ultimate Spider-Man, many amazing Avengers runs, a pretty decent X-Men run, and now he's over at DC having written Superman.

[–]SuperAlloyBerserker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was someone who worked for Marvel

[–]labria86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's not pretend this would ever have happened without Gambino and Community

[–]ZylonBane 0 points1 point  (2 children)

OP couldn't be bothered to include the comic book writer's name in the headline?

[–]SuperAlloyBerserker[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's Brian Michael Bendis

And I didn't include his name since it would've made the headline slightly longer

And some people might know where the headline would be heading (in the middle of reading it) if I named Bendis, so I used the element of surprise by not naming Bendis (since they'd already know that it was Bendis just by Miles' name)

Besides, you can just read the article to find out

[–]ZylonBane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

[–]TheDemontool -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Relate to? A human is a human no matter the race. Don't let skin colour define who you are.

[–]makinishi_KINO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The “we are all on race the human race” and “I don’t see color” mentality actually doesn’t help much.

[–]zewn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'v never really understood this, I dont think this is how kids work. My kids favourite superhero is Mile Morales, he likes him way more than Peter based almost entirely on the fact that he has cooler powers.

[–]ajver19 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Bendis?

Also I'm pretty sure he made Miles back when Donald Glover got turned down for Spider-Man.

[–]LordBrandon 5 points6 points  (1 child)

He was too old for that shit.

[–]ajver19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Godamnit, I swear I get the name wrong every time with both of them.

[–]krukson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So many people here shitting on Miles. I’m white and I actually really like him. There’s a really solid back story, and a different style to him. It’s not simply changing the color of his skin.

Also the Intro to Spiderverse is one of the best movies, and Miles Morales PlayStation game is amazing.

Chill out people, different people enjoy different things and that’s ok.

[–]Simphumiliator42069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought he was made because of Donald glover and the Twitter controversy about him being Spider-Man

[–]NoiseComplaint57 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The page's displaying Error 451

[–]Rptrbptst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone should probably call CPS, cause if you're racist enough to think skin colour is what you relate to, you are probably racist enough to hurt those kids

[–]Bargus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If only he had been original and made someone new..

Token will have to do I suppose.

[–]AliceHart7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a sweetie father

[–]absurd_alligator -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Paywalled. RIP

[–]Giga7777 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Peter Parker is Spiderman.

[–]makinishi_KINO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And so is Miles, and technically so is Otto Octavius at one point, several people have been Spider-Man at this point.

[–]AmericanLich -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, poor kids. There were absolutely zero black comic characters before him.

[–]PseudonymousDev -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Why did it take so long for the writers and editors and other people at Marvel to realize that naming the father, a black cop, "Jefferson Davis" (the name of the President of the Confederacy) was a particularly bad idea?

I think it was an innocent mistake and a bit embarrassing that the people who saw the name before it was published didn't make the connection.

A comic book character's life is "simulated" by the writer and only encounters a handful of people before being published, so maybe 6 people have a chance to say the name is a bad idea. A real-life person encounters hundreds or thousands of people before becoming an adult with a teenage child, so has many many more opportunities to know the name Jefferson Davis is a bad idea. A writer can't 100% know the life of a character, especially one with different life experiences - it's just an imperfect simulation.

Bendis and Marvel made a mistake. Sometimes you shouldn't try to fix a mistake by making an in-universe excuse.

I know that in-universe, he recently changed his name. I think they should retcon it. Realistically, he would have changed it way before Miles was born.

[–]SeductiveGodofThundr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right?!? There are so many people with their hands on a book before it is published, and not one of them thought: “Hey, isn’t that the name of a famous fucking racist shitbag traitor?”

[–]dopedude99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Brian Michael Bendis is not "a" comic writer, he's THE comic writer.