My Thoughts on the Series

[The Joker]

I watched the first 3 eps, cause I decided to give it a chance despite not liking any of the art I'd seen from it. I figured maybe it would look better in motion. It doesnt, it actually looks worse. It's not the lack of detail either, it's the fact that everything is blocky, they all have giant eyes, and it's all so incredibly over-the-top cartoon looking. It doesnt look like a superhero series, it looks like something that should be on Nick, Jr. Everyone looks like a damn Fisher Price Little People toy.

And the character redesigns are all terrible. They made Vulture somehow look even more ridiculous than he does in the comics, Electro is so generic looking that if showed a picture of him with no lable I'd never be able to guess who it was, and they made the Enforcers a team of SWAT-Ninjas.

The writing is ok. The first episode was weak, but it got stronger. I dont understand what they're doing with Eddie, because at this point I could never, ever see him becoming a being of rage and hate like Venom is supposed to be. I also dont see why both this show, and the last show, felt the need to make Electro into a "tragic" villain. But the actual storytelling is solid. I was never bored by it or going "that's f**king retarded" as I often do while trying to watch The Batman.

Overall, I'd give it a 4.5 out of 10. If they radically changed the animation, it would go up to an 8. But I literally cannot stand looking at it.

[Spider-ManHero12]

How do they look square? Also, I don't see how their heads are to big .

[matthooper]

It's made for 10 year olds, so it looks and feels exactly as a 10 year old would want Spider-Man. I think it's the worst looking Spider-Man cartoon they have ever made. The writing is decent enough, but the animation is just so bad, I'm done with it. I gave it a chance.

The lack of pupils makes all of them look soul-less.

[The Joker]

How do they look square? Also, I don't see how their heads are to big .

Look at any male character other than Peter. Flash is square. Norman Osbornes entire head is a square. There was actually a character in the background in episode 2 or 3 who WAS a giant square with arms and legs. They are all squares. Its like a damn Picasso painting, but without the, you know, being GOOD.

[The Joker]

It's made for 10 year olds, so it looks and feels exactly as a 10 year old would want Spider-Man. I think it's the worst looking Spider-Man cartoon they have ever made. The writing is decent enough, but the animation is just so bad, I'm done with it. I gave it a chance.

The lack of pupils makes all of them look soul-less.

I dont know man...when I was 10 years old, I liked McFarlanes Spider-Man. I mean, I look back on his work and see that he really wasnt as good as everyone said he was, he didnt have a very good grasp of anatomy, but even he was better than this crap.

The 90's show had great animation, and it at least had characters who looked like people, and not horrible caracitures of people. So I dont buy the whole "the art needs to be terrible for it to animate smoother" argument. If they could make it look decent on a budget 15 years ago, they could do a similar style and make it look even better now.

And yes, the lack of pupils makes them look hollow. The eyes that take up 2/3s of there head doesnt help the looking like freaks thing either.

[matthooper]

I dont know man...when I was 10 years old, I liked McFarlanes Spider-Man. I mean, I look back on his work and see that he really wasnt as good as everyone said he was, he didnt have a very good grasp of anatomy, but even he was better than this crap.

The 90's show had great animation, and it at least had characters who looked like people, and not horrible caracitures of people. So I dont buy the whole "the art needs to be terrible for it to animate smoother" argument. If they could make it look decent on a budget 15 years ago, they could do a similar style and make it look even better now.

And yes, the lack of pupils makes them look hollow. The eyes that take up 2/3s of there head doesnt help the looking like freaks thing either.

It's simply unwatchable for me. It looks like a parody of Spider-Man. The problem is half the people on the board will like anything Spider-Man and have no real opinions. They are blinded by their love of anything Spider-Man. Believe me, I have loved Spider-Man since I was 5 years old, but bad animation is bad animation no matter how much I love him.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Look at any male character other than Peter. Flash is square. Norman Osbornes entire head is a square. There was actually a character in the background in episode 2 or 3 who WAS a giant square with arms and legs. They are all squares. Its like a damn Picasso painting, but without the, you know, being GOOD. That's just the way some animations are. I mean, just look at the 1990's show. Peter had a square chin in that show. It really isn't a big deal, IMO.

[matthooper]

I will say one thing, I'm sure this has been discussed, but I love a couple of shots from the two episodes I saw. They were almost frame for frame exactly identical to the film.

[The Joker]

Yes, he had a square jaw. A classic way in animation to give your main character a heroic look is to make him square jawed. But when you decide to throw out all shapes other than squares when drawing, there is somthing wrong. It looks terrible.

[matthooper]

. I mean, just look at the 1990's show. Peter had a square chin in that show. It really isn't a big deal, IMO.

You're comparing animimation of a strong hero's jaw to a mis-proportioned drawing with enormous eyes and no pupils?

[Spider-ManHero12]

You're comparing animimation of a strong hero's jaw to a mis-proportioned drawing with enormous eyes and no pupils? No, I do agree with The Joker that a square chin represents a hero and it's been said even by professional artists. However, this show has art that is meant to be fast paced, but still look realsitic without a ton of detail. That's really basically my point.

Also, I haven't seen you in a while, matthooper. Where have you been? :yay:

[LobokDaikon]

It's simply unwatchable for me. It looks like a parody of Spider-Man. The problem is half the people on the board will like anything Spider-Man and have no real opinions. They are blinded by their love of anything Spider-Man. Believe me, I have loved Spider-Man since I was 5 years old, but bad animation is bad animation no matter how much I love him.

Or maybe some of us just take the creators' words for it when they say that the simpler style allows for much faster paced and fluid animation, which is easy to do because so far all of the action has been faster, fluid, and more exciting than almost any other Spider-Man action that's come before. Sure the 90s series looked more realistic, but the actual fights, with the choreography and speed, weren't nearly as impressive as they have been in Spectacular.

[Venom 1988]

The problem is half the people on the board will like anything Spider-Man and have no real opinions. They are blinded by their love of anything Spider-Man. I like the show, but this statment is very true. Some people on here are like sheep, they will love or hate anything other people think.

[The Joker]

No, I do agree with The Joker that a square chin represents a hero and it's been said even by professional artists. However, this show has art that is meant to be fast paced, but still look realsitic without a ton of detail. That's really basically my point.

Also, I haven't seen you in a while, matthooper. Where have you been? :yay:

If it's meant to look realistic at all, they've horribly, horribly failed.

On another note, here's something I dont get. In Flash's posse, there are 2 girls. In the comics, Liz was blonde haired, and blue eyed. In Flash's group, there is a blonde haired, blue eyed girl. But this girl is not Liz. Liz is really, really stereotypically latina. If you're going to still have the blonde haired, blue eyed girl, why not make it Liz, and make the other girl who Pete has a crush of some sort on the latina chick?

[nasmannen]

On another note, here's something I dont get. In Flash's posse, there are 2 girls. In the comics, Liz was blonde haired, and blue eyed. In Flash's group, there is a blonde haired, blue eyed girl. But this girl is not Liz. Liz is really, really stereotypically latina. If you're going to still have the blonde haired, blue eyed girl, why not make it Liz, and make the other girl who Pete has a crush of some sort on the latina chick?


Seriously, does it really matter? Is your life turned upside-down by this?

[Sarcastic Fan]

Ahem,

ANIMATION REALITIES 101

Mostly because I am tired of having to constantly type and re-type this in various threads. I have studied the animation industry for some time, and more than that, I have contacts in the industry who have been working there for decades. Writers, producers, story board artists and even voice actors. I don't work there myself, but I consider myself as much of an expert as one can be without actually working in it, though I hope that eventually changes.

Why does "The Spectacular Spider-Man" look the way it does? Why are the models so streamlined and stylized when we grew up with cartoons where the character models were very detailed?

The answer is this, it is easier to animate and to animate well. To those who keep on citing shows like "G.I. Joe", "He-Man", and other shows from that era, take off the nostalgia tinted glasses and go back and actually look at them. The character models look good when they are static, but the animation is really slow and lousy.

When Bruce Timm first set out to produce "Batman: The Animated Series", people complained about his streamlined character models, I know it might not seem like it considering how universally praised he is today, but it was not the case. Why did he do that? Because he knew you got better animation out of it. Less lines to draw means less lines to animate, especially on a TV budget.

If you want those detailed models and good animation, you need the budget of a feature length Disney movie, and even then it's still not a good idea.

When "Gargoyles" was in production, the character models were a lot more detailed. Frank Paur came in and streamlined them with artists in Japan, and the result was something beautiful. But, to those who still complain about "The Spectacular Spider-Man" not looking like this, I can guarantee you that "Gargoyles" had a much higher budget than "Spidey" does. Hell, look what happened in the third season when the budget was slashed, the models were the same, but the animation was painfully ugly to watch.

Now, Spider-Man is a character that moves. The fights are fast paced, the web slinging is fast paced, and the animation on this show is just fluid, fast and gorgeous. The aerial battle with the Vulture was breathtaking, especially for TV. Now, some will point out the Fox Kids series, but, well, honestly, look at it again. It was not all that well animated. It was full of bad CGI backgrounds, the color palette was not working, and the show was mostly stock footage. It just did not look good.

When you draw a comic book, you are drawing still images that don't have to move. You can add all the detail you want, as long as you meet your deadline. Animation doesn't have that luxury. Thousands of cells go into animating a twenty-two minute production. It is a long and grueling process, and the schedule is very tight.

It is easy to be an arm chair animation producer. Just because you watch a lot of it doesn't make you an expert. I've seen so many statements made on animation and "today's technology" coming from people who just don't know what they're talking about. It's not about being lazy. It's not about dumbing animation down. It's about producing the best animation they possibly can on a budget.

[Green Goblin 1964]

You really needed your own thread just to talk about the same thing we've been talking about since the day it premiered? Come on.

[matthooper]

Ahem,

ANIMATION REALITIES 101

Mostly because I am tired of having to constantly type and re-type this in various threads. I have studied the animation industry for some time, and more than that, I have contacts in the industry who have been working there for decades. Writers, producers, story board artists and even voice actors. I don't work there myself, but I consider myself as much of an expert as one can be without actually working in it, though I hope that eventually changes.

Why does "The Spectacular Spider-Man" look the way it does? Why are the models so streamlined and stylized when we grew up with cartoons where the character models were very detailed?

The answer is this, it is easier to animate and to animate well. To those who keep on citing shows like "G.I. Joe", "He-Man", and other shows from that era, take off the nostalgia tinted glasses and go back and actually look at them. The character models look good when they are static, but the animation is really slow and lousy.

When Bruce Timm first set out to produce "Batman: The Animated Series", people complained about his streamlined character models, I know it might not seem like it considering how universally praised he is today, but it was not the case. Why did he do that? Because he knew you got better animation out of it. Less lines to draw means less lines to animate, especially on a TV budget.

If you want those detailed models and good animation, you need the budget of a feature length Disney movie, and even then it's still not a good idea.

When "Gargoyles" was in production, the character models were a lot more detailed. Frank Paur came in and streamlined them with artists in Japan, and the result was something beautiful. But, to those who still complain about "The Spectacular Spider-Man" not looking like this, I can guarantee you that "Gargoyles" had a much higher budget than "Spidey" does. Hell, look what happened in the third season when the budget was slashed, the models were the same, but the animation was painfully ugly to watch.

Now, Spider-Man is a character that moves. The fights are fast paced, the web slinging is fast paced, and the animation on this show is just fluid, fast and gorgeous. The aerial battle with the Vulture was breathtaking, especially for TV. Now, some will point out the Fox Kids series, but, well, honestly, look at it again. It was not all that well animated. It was full of bad CGI backgrounds, the color palette was not working, and the show was mostly stock footage. It just did not look good.

When you draw a comic book, you are drawing still images that don't have to move. You can add all the detail you want, as long as you meet your deadline. Animation doesn't have that luxury. Thousands of cells go into animating a twenty-two minute production. It is a long and grueling process, and the schedule is very tight.

It is easy to be an arm chair animation producer. Just because you watch a lot of it doesn't make you an expert. I've seen so many statements made on animation and "today's technology" coming from people who just don't know what they're talking about. It's not about being lazy. It's not about dumbing animation down. It's about producing the best animation they possibly can on a budget.


The reasons behind the animation are irrelevant. I don't care why they did it that way. The characters look rediculous. It's as simple as that. I assume it's because I'm an adult, I can certainly see why little kids would love it.

It's simply Spider-Man for kiddies and not Spider-Man for real fans.

[Sarcastic Fan]

The reasons behind the animation are irrelevant. I don't care why they did it that way. The characters look rediculous. It's as simple as that. I assume it's because I'm an adult, I can certainly see why little kids would love it.

It's simply Spider-Man for kiddies and not Spider-Man for real fans.

Oh, so now you're playing the "Real Fan" card. You do realize that by doing that, you lose all credibility.

I am not a child, and I am a real fan, been reading Spider-Man for close to three decades now, and I think this show rocks.

[Web-Head]

It's simply Spider-Man for kiddies and not Spider-Man for real fans.
Not for the real fans?

Then what do you call the subtle homages to Ditko/Romita's visuals, and the fact that not one new character has been created for the show?

If the producers didn't give a **** about the show, they'd create a bunch of new characters. This stuff is for the real fans and newcomers alike.

[Sarcastic Fan]

Not for the real fans?

Then what do you call the subtle homages to Ditko/Romita's visuals, and the fact that not one new character has been created for the show?

If the producers didn't give a **** about the show, they'd create a bunch of new characters. This stuff is for the real fans and newcomers alike.

He played the True Fan Card. Don't even bother, it's like invoking Hitler... you lose the argument as soon as you do it.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Not for the real fans?

Then what do you call the subtle homages to Ditko/Romita's visuals, and the fact that not one new character has been created for the show?

If the producers didn't give a **** about the show, they'd create a bunch of new characters. This stuff is for the real fans and newcomers alike. Exactly, This show is mainly for us hardcore fans, but it's also meant for little kids to watch and they would love the action. Besides, it's obvious the producers wouldn't have made this show just for kids, especially since they are huge fans of the comics.

[Sarcastic Fan]

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png

[Spider-ManHero12]

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png LOL! :woot:

[IamProdigy]

Of course someone who hates the show will make a thread about the reasons he dislikes it...

someone who ENJOYED the show should make a thread now.

[matthooper]

There is nothing wrong with the show's writing, stories or even the action involving Spider-Man, it's the animation of the people. They look rediculous. It's pretty obvious it was supposed to appeal to children. As an adult I simply can't overlook the soul-less eyes and the wacked out proportions.

The animation could have looked like claymation and most of you would still eat it up.

By the way I meant adult fans. I can certainly understand young fans liking the animation. It's similar to other kiddie stuff of today.

[Sarcastic Fan]

You are mistaking character models for animation.

And who the **** are you to judge what other fans like. We like it, you don't. Get over it. Don't call me a ****ing sheep.

[Venom 1988]

Don't call me a ****ing sheep. I didn't.... :huh:

[Sarcastic Fan]

I didn't.... :huh:

I didn't say you did.

[Venom 1988]

I didn't say you did. Oh ok lol, i was just confused seeing as i was the only one that said it

[Sarcastic Fan]

Oh ok lol, i was just confused seeing as i was the only one that said it

I was replying to Matt Hooper there.

[IamProdigy]

There is nothing wrong with the show's writing, stories or even the action involving Spider-Man, it's the animation of the people. They look rediculous. It's pretty obvious it was supposed to appeal to children. As an adult I simply can't overlook the soul-less eyes and the wacked out proportions.

The animation could have looked like claymation and most of you would still eat it up.

By the way I meant adult fans. I can certainly understand young fans liking the animation. It's similar to other kiddie stuff of today.


Funny, I'm 20 and I enjoy the show...so...I guess THIS adult isn't apart of your group that doesn't enjoy the show. And I also over-looked the big eyes since the first episode, it's not a bit deal, because less detail makes it more fluid, and also, the big eyes looks fine in the first episode, so it's not a big issue anymore. Everything about this show I like, even if it's in Kids WB; but it is Spider-Man, which is supposed to, well at least to me, light and "heavenly" as you might say. It's not dark or gothy like Batman, lol.

[Venomfan]

He played the True Fan Card. Don't even bother, it's like invoking Hitler... you lose the argument as soon as you do it.
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png
first one under the "I":oldrazz:

[Venomfan]

Exactly, This show is mainly for us hardcore fans.
no its not, it is 99% made for kids since they are by far the biggest group of people who watch it

[Sarcastic Fan]

no its not, it is 99% made for kids since they are by far the biggest group of people who watch it

If I may quote Greg Weisman from a recent interview:

One of the things my partner Vic Cook has pointed out is that—and I’ve got no figures to back this up, but it sounds right to me—is that there was a time when comics were for everyone. When comics sold in the millions of issues. And that meant that you weren’t just selling to little kids and you weren’t just selling to soldiers in World War II, but this was something that everybody read. And I do see a lot of stuff on the Internet where even the people who like the show are saying, “Well, considering it’s a show made for kids” or “Considering it’s a show made to sell toys” or whatever, “You know, it turned out pretty good.” That kind of thing. Always with these caveats, and the thing is, there’s no doubt in my mind that this is a show made for kids but not just for kids. It was never intended to be a show that worked only for kids, and all one has to do is look at other stuff I’ve done—again, the obvious one being Gargoyles. We always wrote these shows on multiple levels so that, yeah, there was plenty of eye candy and fun—humor, great action, stuff that kids would appreciate—but also there was always stuff there for a larger audience. For not just kids but tweens, not just tweens but teens, not just teens but college students, not just college students but adults. Not just boys but girls as well, men and women. And in this show in particular, not just the novice who has only seen Spider-Man 3 or maybe has seen none of [the movies], and this is their first Spider-Man. But we like to think, since we’re such huge, massive Spider-Man geeks ourselves—those of us making this show—that this is a show that big-time, hardcore Spider-Man fans are going to like, too.

[Venomfan]

If I may quote Greg Weisman from a recent interview:
oh i have no doubt that it is also made for fans, just mostly for kids since thats where the real money is. the amount of characters they have put in the show that have had like 1 appearence in the comics is a testament to that

[Venomfan]

I can certainly understand young fans liking the animation. It's similar to other kiddie stuff of today.
i bet if given a choice they would still prefer 90's TAS looking character models

[The Joker]

Not for the real fans?

Then what do you call the subtle homages to Ditko/Romita's visuals, and the fact that not one new character has been created for the show?

If the producers didn't give a **** about the show, they'd create a bunch of new characters. This stuff is for the real fans and newcomers alike.

Not a single new character? Generic blonde cheerleader girl, big black jock guy, big bald white jock guy...want me to keep going?

[The Joker]

You are mistaking character models for animation.

And who the **** are you to judge what other fans like. We like it, you don't. Get over it. Don't call me a ****ing sheep.

The character models are a big part of the animation. Yes, we all know that animation in the strictest sense reffers to the actual movement of the characters. But for simplicities sake, we reffer to all the visuals as "the animation." If you dont understand that, you're the slow one here, not us.

And if you like the show, great. I'm happy you can take joy in any terrible bulls**t they feed to you. I on the other hand cant. I wanted to like it. I wanted to be able to sit down and go "wow, I was wrong, this all looks alot better in motion than the stills I saw." But it doesnt, and I cant. It's just more of the same watered down, poorly drawn crap that studios seem to be shoveling out to kids these days.

If the reason for the animation looking like it does is the budget, maybe the problem is the studios giving them such a small budget, because they figure that kids are all stupid, and f**k the fans, because they want to keep it as cheap as possible. I'd rather have no series than one that is being screwed over for a quick buck.

And even if that's not the case, it doesnt really matter. Whatever way you look at it, however you want to justify the characters looking like they do, it doesnt matter. Because at the end of the day, they still look terrible. This is a fact. It's not an opinion. They hardly even resemble humans. They're blocky, have eyes bigger than there mouths, squiggly lines for noses, and are all gangly. It's BAD. Rob Leifeild bad.

[Sarcastic Fan]

Not a single new character? Generic blonde cheerleader girl, big black jock guy, big bald white jock guy...want me to keep going?

1. Sally Avril. She was in the comics.
2. Randy Robertson. He was in the comics.
3. Kenny Kong. He was in "Ultimate Spider-Man"

[The Joker]

THAT's supposed to be Kong? Wow, they may have named him after Kong, but he's NOTHING like Kong from USM. Kong from USM is alot brighter than that guy, who's big moment was helping with Flashs master plan of throwing some water balloons. Which, by the way, would be a really mean thing to do if this were the 50's.

[Sarcastic Fan]

And even if that's not the case, it doesnt really matter. Whatever way you look at it, however you want to justify the characters looking like they do, it doesnt matter. Because at the end of the day, they still look terrible. This is a fact. It's not an opinion. They hardly even resemble humans. They're blocky, have eyes bigger than there mouths, squiggly lines for noses, and are all gangly. It's BAD. Rob Leifeild bad.

Ronald Reagan was the fortieth President of the United States is a fact.
This looking terrible is an opinion. This looking good is an opinion.

See the difference?

[The Joker]

No, it's not. There's no sense of anatomy, even in the slightest. The faces dont look human. It's hard to tell who is supposed to be who without them spelling it out (I didnt even know Flash was Flash until they said his name). Art does have standards by which it can be graded on. And using those standards, this fails.

[Sarcastic Fan]

No, it's not. There's no sense of anatomy, even in the slightest. The faces dont look human. It's hard to tell who is supposed to be who without them spelling it out (I didnt even know Flash was Flash until they said his name). Art does have standards by which it can be graded on. And using those standards, this fails.

And who decides those standards? You?

I think I'll let the guy with the Stamford/Oxford Ivy League education who's running this show be a more qualified judge. That is sarcasm, but seriously. It's called stylization.

Who elected you to be the guy who decides the difference between opinion and fact? Scan the letter from Oxford and Webster's.

Words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.

[Ratcrawler]

Kong's a nickname, I think his last name is Harlan.

i bet if given a choice they would still prefer 90's TAS looking character models

I certainly don't. I think they actually looks sillier in the 90s toon. Think about it, if you're going to have grown men dressing like brightly colored animals and whatnot, it's easier to not laugh at it if they look less "real worldly".

[The Joker]

That's a stupid argument. The majority of comics are drawn semi-realistically at least, and no one laughs at them. No one is laughing at Jim Lees Batman, or Alex Ross and Gabrielle Del'Ottos super-realistic work. In fact, they're all lauded as being some of the best artists in comic books ever. Along with Kirby, who they claim this show is paying homage to, even though his style was very realistic comparitively.

[Sarcastic Fan]

That's a stupid argument. The majority of comics are drawn semi-realistically at least, and no one laughs at them. No one is laughing at Jim Lees Batman, or Alex Ross and Gabrielle Del'Ottos super-realistic work. In fact, they're all lauded as being some of the best artists in comic books ever. Along with Kirby, who they claim this show is paying homage to, even though his style was very realistic comparitively.

You mean Steve Ditko.

And the fact is, you can't get good animation with detailed models like that unless you have the budget of a Disney movie. The 90s series could have never gotten the movement like Spidey vs the Lizard in the subway in the most recent episode, without paying at least $1 Million for the episode. Which never happens with ANY animated series.

This is not a comic book. It's a cartoon. If you don't know the difference between still images, and moving images, you have just proven that you are unqualified to continue this debate.

[The Joker]

Justice League was able to do quick fight scenes, with character models that still looked human. So that argument doesnt hold any water either. I'm not complaining about the lack of detail. I'm fine with that. Batman TAS-JLU proved that you dont need alot of detail. The problem is the giant eyes, the blocky characters, and the entire aesthetic of the design is just painful to look at.

And I was not saying that comics and animation were the same. He said that people would laugh at realistic looking figures dressed as animals and such. I was saying that they are usually drawn realistically in the comics and no one laughs. No one laughed at the movie, which WAS people dressed like that. So that was a moot point. If you didnt get that, then maybe you're not qualified to continue the debate, as you have no comprehension skills.

[CHEZ]

Marvel seems to function like, as long as [a Spider-man cartoon] is out there, it's good enough. They don't want to spend the money on quality production. But are happy with small change and small success.

The design is cheap, the animation is cheap and that is incredibly unfortunate because these characters deserve so much more.

It's strange, as cheap as the show is, I still enjoy it to some degree. Maybe because I love the character so much that I am willing to look beyond the poor quality.
But this has been a problem for so many years now, I want to scream "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

If Marvel wants to be a hit with kids--it needs to spend the money to create something ground breaking--or at least original. This cheap level of animation and design will never make the impact it needs to bring Spider-Man into the forefront of all the competition.
As it stands right now, it's playing in the safe zone for small success but in the end will disappear and become forgotten, and Spider-Man doesn't deserve that. Every time they come out with a new version of a Spider-Man cartoon it's always got some kind of problem. It's always missing the mark. It runs for a short time and then goes to dvd and that's it. Then they go right back and pump out another poor animated production. It's a continuous cycle.

They really desperately need to quit being so scared to take the risk to spend big on great quality design and animation. This goes for all of it, including their Ultimate Avengers, Iron Man, Doctor Strange direct-to-dvd releases.
They are so poor that they defeat the purpose.

Look at Pixar.
Pixar takes something completely unknown, spends outrageous amounts of money to produce it, puts it in theaters and everyone flips out. "Wow! Did you see that Incredibles movie? It was amazing!"
Why, can't they do something on that level with our favorite Marvel characters?
Why haven't we seen something from Marvel on the level of Beowulf?


Quit trying to compete with Anime and Manga by copying them or trying to be similar, but spend to create a style of animation that blows them all away.


It's TIME for them to make it happen, and quit sitting idly by as everyone else does it and everyone else is parading in all the success.

[Havok83]

Anyone else that they made Gwen into a nerd type? I thought she should have been portrayed as one of the beautiful and popular girls in school

[The Joker]

Yeah...they turned Gwen into Ultimate MJ.

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

And even if that's not the case, it doesnt really matter. Whatever way you look at it, however you want to justify the characters looking like they do, it doesnt matter. Because at the end of the day, they still look terrible. This is a fact. It's not an opinion. They hardly even resemble humans. They're blocky, have eyes bigger than there mouths, squiggly lines for noses, and are all gangly. It's BAD. Rob Leifeild bad.

Well, 10 year olds don't care if Peter Parker's head is like a square, or whether Harry's face looks like a giant shoe-box. The fact is, each person reacts to the animation, and the show itself in different ways. It's on Kids WB, remember? The realism that you probably crave is not a major issue here. Again, the argument goes - it's made for 10-year-olds. I personally think the animation is below-par, but to state that "they still look terrible" and declare it as fact is even more ridiculous than a 10-year-old actually believing that the animation is great. Fact is, the demographic they're aiming for, honestly, is children, and we, as adults, or teens, may or may not like the animation, but that doesn't really make much of a difference, does it? It only matters what the kids think, and want. If the kids like it, yeah, maybe it'll get a nod for a second season, if not, bye bye Spectacular Spider-Man, either way, our perceptions on the animation are merely opinions, and to that effect, please stop stating that they are facts.

[Visionary]

Jeez, just don't watch the show if you don't like it. Problem solved.

[Kamarov]

I don't understand what the big deal is. The show's story and dialogue are more than enough reason to warrent viwership. As for the animation, it looks good. It could be better that's for sure but it's nothing to be mad about. I'm 23 and I love this show simply because it takes everything from the various source materials. Even the animation and character designs aren't a problem if you enjoyed Ramos' art, which I loved also. I suppose it comes down to taste but I think there's way too much goog going on for this show to be making huge complaints.

[Green Goblin 1964]

Jeez, just don't watch the show if you don't like it. Problem solved.Thank you *claps*

Do you guys really think we want to hear this or care?

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

I'm astonished, we let this go on this far. If everyone starts making "You know what I think about this show?" threads, we'd seriously be in a bandwidth crisis. So, in the interest of the general public, I'm closing this.

Sorry, TJ.