TheCorpulent1
SHAZAM!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Messages
- 154,474
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I pray to God you're kidding. That sounds disgusting even to me. Even to me, man.
spidey's always kicking too much ass.
The eternal underdog who has all these incredible powers but still depends on his peter parker intellect is pretty much gone in comics. He's been using brute force to get his way through too many situations and that's one of the reasons why this aspect has filtered over into the films.
spidey just punches his way through all obstacles, it's very crude...
I'd say for the whole Bendis>Lee thing, that's not opinions, that's simply being wrong.More ludicrous opinions.
Actually, I'm probably a lot "smarter" than the lot of you. I've taken two IQ tests in my life, both scoring between 130-140. Take that for what you will, but there it is.
I continue *****ing about it because Stan Lee is worshipped like a God among fanboys. It's silly and ridiculous and it's hurting the industry because it allows him to keep doing whatever he wants to degrade comics.So, it's not your cup of tea. Move the **** on.
Most writers from the 60s were better than he was, even back then. And if they're still writing, they remain better. Most writers from the 80s remain better. Most writers from the 70s remain better.Most writers from the 60's can't write for **** now. Hell, most writers from the 80's can't write for **** now. This is a horrible point to make.
The kind of writer who doesn't have excessive exposition and isn't more stilted than a Goddamn circus parade.Holy crap, what's YOUR idea of a good writer?
.
Most writers from the 60s were better than he was, even back then. And if they're still writing, they remain better. Most writers from the 80s remain better. Most writers from the 70s remain better.
You know what, **** this. ALL WRITERS, EVER, are better than Stan Lee. Yeah, even Rob Liefeld and Chuck Austen. Even whatsisname McKeever. Even the Evil Shadowy Cabal of the Silver Age that everyone on the DC boards hates so much. Even Joe Quesada. Even Bendis. Even the guy who came up with Wonder Man.
The kind of writer who doesn't have excessive exposition and isn't more stilted than a Goddamn circus parade.
Why McKeever?
Didn't he write "Sentinel"?
Didn't he write "Sentinel"?
I continue *****ing about it because Stan Lee is worshipped like a God among fanboys. It's silly and ridiculous and it's hurting the industry because it allows him to keep doing whatever he wants to degrade comics.
Most writers from the 60s were better than he was, even back then. And if they're still writing, they remain better. Most writers from the 80s remain better. Most writers from the 70s remain better.
You know what, **** this. ALL WRITERS, EVER, are better than Stan Lee. Yeah, even Rob Liefeld and Chuck Austen. Even whatsisname McKeever. Even the Evil Shadowy Cabal of the Silver Age that everyone on the DC boards hates so much. Even Joe Quesada. Even Bendis. Even the guy who came up with Wonder Man.
The kind of writer who doesn't have excessive exposition and isn't more stilted than a Goddamn circus parade.
Wow, I'm sorry I was on your side even a little bit.
Outside of movie cameos, what exactly does Stan do to the industry?
I rarely say things like this, but you are truly an idiot.
Sentinel was awesome, you shut your mouth.
I prefer it when characters talk like real people. I guess that's just me.I'd say for the whole Bendis>Lee thing, that's not opinions, that's simply being wrong.
Sorry, I meant Beechen. Some reason, I always mix them up. I think it's the whole double-E thing or something.Why McKeever?
Here's the difference. Unitas WAS among the greats of his time. Lee? Not so much. Again: Eisner, Cole, Kirby, Simon, Ditko, Fox, right offhand.This whole thing is like saying Johnny Unitas wasn't a great quarterback. Are his stats comparable to what we now consider great? No. He was the best of his era, though, and a product of his time. A leader. These all apply to Stan Lee. I like Stan the Man as a nickname more than The Golden Arm. In conclusion, Stan Lee could beat up Johnny Unitas, and probably paid him to throw games late in his career with his jew money.
First of all, those movie cameos are incredibly hurtful to the prospect of getting new readers. Secondly, Who Wants to be a Superhero? was one of the most degrading, disgusting, Godawful exploitations of superhero comics ever. Maybe the worst.Outside of movie cameos, what exactly does Stan do to the industry?
you are so wrong that you should probably kill yourself. have you ever read kirby's 4th world. Nobody knows what the fook was going on in those books. Everything was so poorly definedHere's the difference. Unitas WAS among the greats of his time. Lee? Not so much. Again: Eisner, Cole, Kirby, Simon, Ditko, Fox, right offhand.
That's kind of one of the central mysteries of the plot. It was never revealed because Kirby was never able to do with that story what he wanted to do with it. Tragic. I wish someone would miraculously recover his original notes, complete with pages of original script, and re-do the entire story, the way it was meant to be told.what is the anti-life equation
I'd much rather have spidey more around the human level (strength level five) than taking out hulk strengthed victims. I'm not sure what 8 times one's body weight is (give or take a few multiple for reduction of legs and anthromorphic structure). but i don't think its ten tonnes (or maybe around 15 odd now with all his boosts).Lately in comics he's been using neither. Jobs to Jigsaw and everyone else. Captain America gives him a challenge. JJJ can actually cause him to bleed in a few hits. Looks like an incompetent in New Avengers.
Atleast, we still see him use his intellect occasionally, like how he overrode Stark's Spider-armor suit.
First of all, those movie cameos are incredibly hurtful to the prospect of getting new readers.