My Thoughts on the Series

[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 ******ed" 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

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-Head408]

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]

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

LOL! t:

 

[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.