Comics Get ready people, JMS and Joe Q are planning ANOTHER Spider-Man event

[roach]

Batman, for one, particularly from 1941 or so (after the bugs had been worked out) to around 1965.

You know, back when readers knew when to quit, didn't demand growth and change, didn't ask why Robin didn't age, and when sales topped 1 million copies per issue.


Something only becomes stagnant when you stay with it too long. To anyone just coming in, it's called "new" and "fun".

Batman LMAO
Batman who was killing criminals or the Batman who wore multicolored batsuits and cruised the universe.

 

[Gregatron]

Well, Pig-****er, if you were REALLY as intelligent as you CLAIM to be, you'd've noticed I acknowledged you said yer an *******, and noticed that last jab was towards th' fact yer clueless to how yer viewed. Which only shows how dumb a **** you really are.

A flashy vocabulary don't make you "intelligent", bunky. Methinks you need to reconsult yer dictionaries and learn what does.

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge/information.

Herr Logan has demonstrated this ability.

 

[gildea]

Spider-Man has no supporting cast. He is a loner, and prefers it that way.

disagree.
Black cat, human torch, curt conners, capt stacy & jean de wolfe (when they were with us), jjj and robbie also count for spidey as well as peter.

Spider-man is a loner but he is not alone. In fact concept wise you could make a case for him having a larger cast than peter. Pete after all was the wallflower who transformed himself into an outgoing wise cracking and charming hero.

 

[roach]

You know, back when readers knew when to quit

and when should readers quit reading comics????

 

[Gregatron]

Batman LMAO
Batman who was killing criminals or the Batman who wore multicolored batsuits and cruised the universe.

The Batman who killed was dropped early on (after the bugs were worked out, as I said). Rainbow costumes and aliens were WINDOW DRESSING. In all those years, Batman was still BATMAN, and acted like Batman.

 

[roach]

The Batman who killed was dropped early on (after the bugs were worked out, as I said). Rainbow costumes and aliens were WINDOW DRESSING. In all those years, Batman was still BATMAN, and acted like Batman.

But that is the Batman that Kane and Finger created...everything other than that is a change to the character and character change is bad right????

 

[Gregatron]

and when should readers quit reading comics????

When they:

A. Stop loving the characters (if they ever did) by insisting they become something they're not;

B. Stop understanding the unspoken conceits of the genre and start applying absurd mathematical formulas to break comics down into "Marvel-Time", and such;

C. Forget who the target audience for these books is;

D. Become selfish, argumentative trolls who wonder about superheroes' sex lives, and think swearing is "sophisticated.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Sorry, Batman's always been dark and brooding? Does that mean th' happy talkin' Batman of th' 60s with th' bright blue costume was just a fluke?

 

[Herr Logan]

Exactly.

And remember, Sam Raimi gave Peter organic web-shooters in the movies because HE, RAIMI HIMSELF, was not smart enough to build devices like that at age 15.

He didn't say it in those words, did he?

All I know is, all the non-comic fans I've talked to about the organic webshooters have said that it's no more realistic than mechanical ones.
Talk about "relatability," who the hell can relate to shooting super-strong protein strands out of their damn wrists??

The only problem I would have with the mechanical webshooters in a live-action movie is that you would have to show the web-shooters (which don't have to be bulky, but they are noticable) on his wrists, and a utility belt on his waist.
Still, it's just a minor annoyance, and I wouldn't even consider just writing them out completely. For appearance's sake, have him paint the web-shooters and belt red and maybe paint some thin black web-lines on them so they blend in better.
The other option is to do what they do in the comics and cartoons and just not have them shown when he's fully in costume, but effects-wise, he can still shoot webs. That, however, would be blatant cheating, and I'd rather do it with the props just so the anti-source material people won't have one more excuse to complain that it's "unrealistic." Red web-shooters are fine, and they're necessary for a faithful Spider-Man. Are they more important than getting the personality right? No, but then again, they didn't get that right, either, and only people who didn't read the comics or did read and are just shallow and easily influence think they did.

 

[Herr Logan]

PETER: "MJ, I know I just had sex with the Black Cat. But once you showed up and caught me by surprise, I realize now your the one for me. What do you say we get married?
MJ: Ummm....

Hahahahahah!

 

[Gregatron]

But that is the Batman that Kane and Finger created...everything other than that is a change to the character and character change is bad right????

Sigh. Different strokes for different folks (and characters).

Some characters take a little while to perfect. Batman killing was one of the VERY few elements that was changed early on. Other than that, his essential character was established within 6 issues.

Spider-Man, on the other hand, was 99.9% defined in his first appearance. All that was missing then was his location (New York), his job, and members of his supporting cast and rogue's gallery.

 

[Herr Logan]

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Herr Logan is a hot-headed prick, but he's a good friend, too. I've not always been on the same side of the argument as he is, but he's always been cordial and respective of my opinion and those with whom he is debating, so long as their attitudes and responses warrant him to be so. He's a good guy, and I've not seen him be anything but playfully offensive with you. He hasn't been as mean as he can be to you. He often reserves that for those who don't feel the same way as he does. You are actually on the same side of the argument (wanting Spidey back to the way he was), but you're letting a minuscule and irrelevant point turn this thread, which WAS civil, into a flame war.

When people make mistakes, he corrects them. I often do the same, and I am certain that I have had posters on these boards leave responses about me similar to the one you just made about HL. I just didn't see anything in the past few pages of this thread that required this harsh of a response from you, man.

That being said, I'll stand back and let Herr Logan have his way with you, as I'm sure he's probably posted a response while I was typing mine.

I just hate watching people that I consider to be friends tear each other apart.

I...I... I just can't stop blushing! I don't know what to say.


Thanks a lot, Shinlyle.

 

[Gregatron]

Sorry, Batman's always been dark and brooding? Does that mean th' happy talkin' Batman of th' 60s with th' bright blue costume was just a fluke?

Batman didn't become dark and brooding until Frank Miller came along.

Before that, he was a well-adusted, albeit mysterious, swashbuckler devoted to justice.

It's only because he broke his vow in Dark Knight that he became a "psycho". Unfortunately, the mainstream DCU picked up on that (without understanding it).

 

[Gregatron]

He didn't say it in those words, did he?

All I know is, all the non-comic fans I've talked to about the organic webshooters have said that it's no more realistic than mechanical ones.
Talk about "relatability," who the hell can relate to shooting super-strong protein strands out of their damn wrists??

The only problem I would have with the mechanical webshooters in a live-action movie is that you would have to show the web-shooters (which don't have to be bulky, but they are noticable) on his wrists, and a utility belt on his waist.
Still, it's just a minor annoyance, and I wouldn't even consider just writing them out completely. For appearance's sake, have him paint the web-shooters and belt red and maybe paint some thin black web-lines on them so they blend in better.
The other option is to do what they do in the comics and cartoons and just not have them shown when he's fully in costume, but effects-wise, he can still shoot webs. That, however, would be blatant cheating, and I'd rather do it with the props just so the anti-source material people won't have one more excuse to complain that it's "unrealistic." Red web-shooters are fine, and they're necessary for a faithful Spider-Man. Are they more important than getting the personality right? No, but then again, they didn't get that right, either, and only people who didn't read the comics or did read and are just shallow and easily influence think they did.

Excerpt from my essay (link in sig):

And speaking of the organic webs...they don't work. They are stupid. They are a clunky attempt to make an inherently fantastic character more "realistic" (By, amazingly enough, making him even more *unrealistic*!).

Spider-Man's costume, powers, and equipment have remained basically the same for some 40 years. Because they work. Because they are PERFECT. The web-shooters were an ingenious, elegant solution to a problem Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had back in 1962: If they had given Spider-Man organic web-shooters, he would have been perceived as even creepier than he already was (Remember, Lee's publisher, Martin Goodman, predicted that Spider-Man would fail because most people hate spiders and think they're disgusting and frightening.).

The web-shooters also serve a thematic purpose in the origin story in Amazing Fantasy # 15. When the shy-but-brilliant Peter Parker gains super-powers, his buried creativity (and ego) are unleashed. He ultilizes his underappreciated genuis to come up with a stage name, design and create a flashy costume, and build web-shooting devices ALL ON HIS OWN, with no outside help or inspiration. Because that's who Peter Parker is!


Compare that to the Peter Parker of Ultimate Spider-Man, who was given the costume for his wrestling job (he only added the web-pattern and spider symbols), and whose late father invented the web-fluid formula, which Peter perfected.


Compare that to the Peter Parker of the Spider-Man movies, in which the web-shooters are a natural part of his super-powers, in which the name "Spider-Man" comes from an outside source, and in which the Spider-Man costume pops up with NO EXPLANATION whatsoever (We saw Peter's first homemade costume in the wrestling ring, and it was pathetic.). Maybe he got the ornately detailed costume--which cost $100,000 to make in real life--from a costume shop? Yeah, that's it. Sure.


In the 1990s, writer-director James Cameron was attached to the troubled development of the first Spider-Man movie. In a story treatment he wrote, Cameron gave Peter Parker organic web-shooters, using them as a not-so-subtle metaphor for adolescent development (In the treatment, Peter awoke one morning covered in sticky white webbing. That's right. He had a..."web dream". Ahem.).

When director Sam Raimi was attached to the project, he decided to keep this concept in his Spider-Man film. Raimi stated in interviews that it made sense because it would give Peter one more thing to be ashamed about. Huh? In the original origin story, Peter is enamored of his powers, and doesn't at all feel like a freak.

Anyway, more importantly, Raimi chose to keep the organic webs because he, Raimi himself, could not have invented web-shooters and web-fluid when he was Peter Parker's age.

Let me repeat that.

He said that Spider-Man would have organic web-shooters in the movie because he, *Raimi*, could not have invented mechanical web-shooters at age 16.

*Ahem*. As established in the comics, Peter Parker is a scientific genius. He's just stuck in a crappy local high school because of his family's financial situation, and can't become a scientist because he's just too darn busy trying to make ends meet while also being Spider-Man. The guy in the Spider-Man movies ain't Spider-Man! He's just a regular teen who happened to win a science scholarship (and who also whipped up a $100,000 costume with no explanation...).

From an interview with Raimi:

RAIMI: "The main reason was, it was an idea that James Cameron came up with in a treatment. It was just a subtle riff on Stan Lee's original concept anyways, whether he shoots web mechanically or organic. Finally, in a nutshell, the strength of the movie was always going to be for us, as it was in Stan Lee's comics, was Peter Parker is one of us. It's what made Spider-Man a unique story, a unique superhero. He's a kid like us. We soar with him when he becomes this hero. So, we decided to do everything we could to keep that concept alive and real and potent to the audience. We wanted him to be someone we really identified with, so that when it came time to talk about the story aspect where he could create the web-shooters and have the technological ability to create such a mechanical device in his little Queens bedroom and have the ability of a chemical engineer to the degree that he could create this incredible substance that doesn't really exist in our world, we felt that Cameron's idea would be better for the movie. I'm not saying for the comics. I love Stan Lee's idea, but for the movie, to make him a real person, to stick to that theme and stick with it through the course of the picture, we felt that was a change we had to make."


The classic Peter Parker of the comic books may be the "Everyman's Super-Hero", but he's also larger than life at the same time. He is US (the everyman who has to deal with work, school, and girls), and he is also BETTER than us in many ways (his intelligence, his moral drive, his compassion). This unique dichotomy gives us both a hero we can see ourselves in AND look up to at the same time.


Anyway, in Spider-Man 2, at least, Peter's intellect is given more focus. Yet, how come he can talk about the highly technical details of a cold-fusion reactor with Dr. Otto Octavius (which no normal college student would be able to comprehend), yet NOT be "smart enough" to build mechanical web-shooters? Sheesh.

It's called "suspension of disbelief", people!

 

[roach]

Sigh. Different strokes for different folks (and characters).

Some characters take a little while to perfect. Batman killing was one of the VERY few elements that was changed early on. Other than that, his essential character was established within 6 issues.

Spider-Man, on the other hand, was 99.9% defined in his first appearance. All that was missing then was his location (New York), his job, and members of his supporting cast and rogue's gallery.

that is quite hypocritical of you. Change is good for one character but not for another.

In the first 6 issues he wasnt a detective

 

[The Infernal]

Peter Parker's supporting cast consists of the people in his life: friends, family, co-workers.

Spider-Man has no supporting cast. He is a loner, and prefers it that way.

Yes, but Peter's supporting cast depending on the particular title or time can be few. I mean Flash only 'just' got out of his coma, I haven't seen Betty Brant in a bit, JJJ doesn't turn up as much as he does. I think they tried introducing Peter's workmates as supporting cast but we have't seen much of them either or his neighbours. I remember seeing them quite a bit when Liz Osborne was taking care of Flash, now she's gone too. It's just that for a while now it's simply been MJ and Aunt May.

As for his role as Spider-man I'd have to say that's innacurate. Though he has been a loner for quite some time in the way he operates and even with the NA he finds the time to do his own thing, but he has had supporting cast before. For instance Black Cat and on lesser occasions (which are way more frequent now he's a NA), team-ups with other heroes. Though there are certain heroes he's known for being more friendly with such as Johnny Storm and Dare Devil.

Though you view him that I way I just think of him differently. He may have been a loner in some respects but he still has to grow up.

 

[roach]

Excerpt from my essay (link in sig):

And speaking of the organic webs...they don't work. They are stupid. They are a clunky attempt to make an inherently fantastic character more "realistic" (By, amazingly enough, making him even more *unrealistic*!).

Spider-Man's costume, powers, and equipment have remained basically the same for some 40 years. Because they work. Because they are PERFECT. The web-shooters were an ingenious, elegant solution to a problem Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had back in 1962: If they had given Spider-Man organic web-shooters, he would have been perceived as even creepier than he already was (Remember, Lee's publisher, Martin Goodman, predicted that Spider-Man would fail because most people hate spiders and think they're disgusting and frightening.).

The web-shooters also serve a thematic purpose in the origin story in Amazing Fantasy # 15. When the shy-but-brilliant Peter Parker gains super-powers, his buried creativity (and ego) are unleashed. He ultilizes his underappreciated genuis to come up with a stage name, design and create a flashy costume, and build web-shooting devices ALL ON HIS OWN, with no outside help or inspiration. Because that's who Peter Parker is!


Compare that to the Peter Parker of Ultimate Spider-Man, who was given the costume for his wrestling job (he only added the web-pattern and spider symbols), and whose late father invented the web-fluid formula, which Peter perfected.


Compare that to the Peter Parker of the Spider-Man movies, in which the web-shooters are a natural part of his super-powers, in which the name "Spider-Man" comes from an outside source, and in which the Spider-Man costume pops up with NO EXPLANATION whatsoever (We saw Peter's first homemade costume in the wrestling ring, and it was pathetic.). Maybe he got the ornately detailed costume--which cost $100,000 to make in real life--from a costume shop? Yeah, that's it. Sure.


In the 1990s, writer-director James Cameron was attached to the troubled development of the first Spider-Man movie. In a story treatment he wrote, Cameron gave Peter Parker organic web-shooters, using them as a not-so-subtle metaphor for adolescent development (In the treatment, Peter awoke one morning covered in sticky white webbing. That's right. He had a..."web dream". Ahem.).

When director Sam Raimi was attached to the project, he decided to keep this concept in his Spider-Man film. Raimi stated in interviews that it made sense because it would give Peter one more thing to be ashamed about. Huh? In the original origin story, Peter is enamored of his powers, and doesn't at all feel like a freak.

Anyway, more importantly, Raimi chose to keep the organic webs because he, Raimi himself, could not have invented web-shooters and web-fluid when he was Peter Parker's age.

Let me repeat that.

He said that Spider-Man would have organic web-shooters in the movie because he, *Raimi*, could not have invented mechanical web-shooters at age 16.

*Ahem*. As established in the comics, Peter Parker is a scientific genius. He's just stuck in a crappy local high school because of his family's financial situation, and can't become a scientist because he's just too darn busy trying to make ends meet while also being Spider-Man. The guy in the Spider-Man movies ain't Spider-Man! He's just a regular teen who happened to win a science scholarship (and who also whipped up a $100,000 costume with no explanation...).

From an interview with Raimi:

RAIMI: "The main reason was, it was an idea that James Cameron came up with in a treatment. It was just a subtle riff on Stan Lee's original concept anyways, whether he shoots web mechanically or organic. Finally, in a nutshell, the strength of the movie was always going to be for us, as it was in Stan Lee's comics, was Peter Parker is one of us. It's what made Spider-Man a unique story, a unique superhero. He's a kid like us. We soar with him when he becomes this hero. So, we decided to do everything we could to keep that concept alive and real and potent to the audience. We wanted him to be someone we really identified with, so that when it came time to talk about the story aspect where he could create the web-shooters and have the technological ability to create such a mechanical device in his little Queens bedroom and have the ability of a chemical engineer to the degree that he could create this incredible substance that doesn't really exist in our world, we felt that Cameron's idea would be better for the movie. I'm not saying for the comics. I love Stan Lee's idea, but for the movie, to make him a real person, to stick to that theme and stick with it through the course of the picture, we felt that was a change we had to make."


The classic Peter Parker of the comic books may be the "Everyman's Super-Hero", but he's also larger than life at the same time. He is US (the everyman who has to deal with work, school, and girls), and he is also BETTER than us in many ways (his intelligence, his moral drive, his compassion). This unique dichotomy gives us both a hero we can see ourselves in AND look up to at the same time.


Anyway, in Spider-Man 2, at least, Peter's intellect is given more focus. Yet, how come he can talk about the highly technical details of a cold-fusion reactor with Dr. Otto Octavius (which no normal college student would be able to comprehend), yet NOT be "smart enough" to build mechanical web-shooters? Sheesh.

It's called "suspension of disbelief", people!

ah ha so it is your way or no way. Your vision of Spider-man is correct and everyone elses is wrong

 

[Gregatron]

that is quite hypocritical of you. Change is good for one character but not for another.

In the first 6 issues he wasnt a detective

Fine-tuning is not "changing". It's "finding the character", finding what WORKS for the character.


And the character was introduced in DETECTIVE COMICS, and solved mysteries.


I grow wear of those who exist only to prove me wrong because they do not understand.

 

[Gregatron]

ah ha so it is your way or no way. Your vision of Spider-man is correct and everyone elses is wrong

No. Stan and Steve and Co.'s version is correct, because it was there first. It was what was created, and what earned popularity. Anything that is NOT that character (and I don't mean differences like high school vs. college) is a waste of material. It is not Spider-Man.

There is alway room for "interpretation". But "interpretation" does not mean "pissing on it and making it yours, and yours alone".

 

[roach]

Fine-tuning is not "changing". It's "finding the character", finding what WORKS for the character.


And the character was introduced in DETECTIVE COMICS, and solved mysteries.


I grow wear of those who exist only to prove me wrong because they do not understand.

Oh I do understand. You are self centered and believe that only your vision of Spiderman should exist. You'd rather that we'd still be reading about a teenage Spiderman as if it was Archie comics.
Im sorry but your views are wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

 

[Gregatron]

Oh I do understand. You are self centered and believe that only your vision of Spiderman should exist. You'd rather that we'd still be reading about a teenage Spiderman as if it was Archie comics.
Im sorry but your views are wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Sigh.

Who is "Spiderman"? Some banker in a two-piece suit?


I want Spider-Man to be the mythic, universally-appealing, all-ages-type character that he once was. I want him to outlast my lifespan. I take offense when selfish fanboys whine about how he must grow and change along with them. I weep for the future generations who will never understand what made Spider-Man successful.

Is that selfish?


"ohmyghod LOL! I just wanna sea a guy in spandex named Frank spiderman beat bad guys into s*** and then go home a f*** his smokin' hot wife and then get it on with his hot old Auntie Em and his back-to-life uncle! And I want 10 different covers! And I just want to but it cuz Brain Mike Bendis' name is on thee metal-laced cover! And I want too tilt the mirror on all those crappy old stories and look way Kewl to all my fanboy pals!!! LMAOAMRER!!!! ;>>;>!!!"


I grow weary and hungry. We may continue the proceedings of this kangaroo court another time.

 

[roach]

Sigh.

Who is "Spiderman"? Some banker in a two-piece suit?


I want Spider-Man to be the mythic, universally-appealing, all-ages-type character that he once was. I want him to outlast my lifespan. I take offense when selfish fanboys whine about how he must grow and change along with them. I weep for the future generations who will never understand what made Spider-Man successful.

What was your first issue of Spider-man????

 

[Herr Logan]

Amen, mein Herr.


In terms of the movies, it seems as long as the characters have the same names as their comic book inspirations, but everything else is changed, then that's somehow "okay".


As I've said in the past, Spider-Man used to be the most well-defined character in comics, in terms of his morality, intellect, personality, etc.

Now, he's become fractured into so many versions, and has become so generic, that he's a total stranger to me.

Amen to you, too, Greg. I couldn't agree more.

As I said before about Spider-Man appealing to people on different levels, I got into him because I thought his powers were awesome and he was funny. However, I didn't fully appreciate him until I bought the Essential TPBs and saw just how brilliantly Stan Lee wrote him and Steve Ditko plotted these stories. Yes, there's silliness, but screw that! They couldn't do straight-forward crime fiction because of the Comics Code Authority, so they used childish concepts and made something that only an adult can fully appreciate. Stan Lee wasn't writing from the point of view of a teenager (although he started writing for Marvel when he was in his late teens), he was somewhere around 40 years old, and as I said before, he's a very intelligent and witty man. That's why Spider-Man, despite his occasional immaturity, was already more mature than the average person his age. That's why I'd be fine with keeping him young, since he was beyond his years in his personality from the beginning.

 

[Herr Logan]

It all comes down to this:

Either Spider-Man is infinite or finite.


If he is infinite, then the initial conception of the character should last forever. He should remain eternally frozen in time (only topical reference will change), with nothing but that glorious core concept carrying him along, and only the illusion of change spicing things up from time to time. Readers go along with him for a few years, then grow up and move on to more "adult" entertainment (unless they can still enjoy the material without forgetting the conceits of the character and the genre). New readers then come aboard and experience the character just as the older readers left him. Spider-Man thus remains an immortal, eternal symbol of youth and vitality, one which generation after generation can enjoy.


If he is finite, on the other hand, then he will age and change and grow. He will learn life lessons. He will have major changes in his life. He will develop, and get married, and have kids, and eventually die. For, if he is indeed finite, if he is indeed truly "one of us", if he is someone who "must grow and change", then we must acknowledge the fact that there will be an end to his adventures in the future, as he ages and changes and dies.

This is pretty absolute, and I prefer a little more room to maneuver in comic book heroes, but you make some good points.

I also think your overall assertion in this thread that Spider-Man is supposed to be about the journey from teenhood to adulthood is a little subjective, too. That was certainly a major theme back in the day, and I personally enjoyed it. Still, to demand that it be the main focus of the saga doesn't leave a lot of freedom.

Again, I agree with you overall, I would just avoid the absolutes and polarized options.

In my opinion, those who insist, nay, demand that he (and other characters) be finite, those who demand he age and change, those who think writing for kids means "dumbing down" (juvenile fiction need not be childish or dumbed down, y'know), those who demand that fictional SUPERHEROES age and change and swear and have sex and kill, are living vicariously through comic books. They are trying to turn a product written in layers for all ages to enjoy into a product that will appeal to them, and only them, perhaps so that they will seem "sophisticated" to their peers, who would ordinarily laugh at them for reading "kiddie books". So they worship "professionals" who exhibit such "sophistication ("sophistication", which is, in fact, very immature and grotesque).

I think you just put your finger on something that is definitely one of the main dynamics behind all the bull$hit that has happened in modern mainstream comics so far. This is another great piece of insight into the forces behind the decline of Marvel Comics, right up there with what you said about "cathartic realism" a while back.

 

[Herr Logan]

"Those who forget history..."


Anyway, change can be dangerous. Bad changes can stick forever. Spider-Man should alway be about the journey to adulthood/responsibility.

The nature of the comic medium sorta demands that, if longevity is to be maintained, then things go back to the status quo all the time, with only the ILLUSION that the hero learned a big, important lesson in his latest story.

You read 'Superman on the Couch,' didn't you?