Spectacular Spider-man Vs. Batman TAS

[Anno_Domini]

This is more of a response to Anno, but might as well. Creating your own villains is not a good measure of creativity. The MTV show also made up a majority of the villains, but all of them ended up being lame. Does that make it a more creative show than TSSM?

When they are just coming out of the first movie when Peter JUST became Spider-Man, then yes, it does make sense that MTV created new characters. You expect Spidey to deal with his entire rogue gallery once he just started? This isn't the comics. The series was as slow-paced as the films and if that wasn't the case, we would've seen Spidey dealing with more villains than just Doc Ock in S-M 2.

And really, aside from Harley and arguably Renee, did any of them ended up making ANY impact beyond the show? Were guys like Red Claw, the Sewer King, Roland Daggett, Boss Biggis, or Nostromos really that "interesting"? Even the better one-shots like Baby Doll and Calendar Girl were just that, one-shots.

I already mentioned how a lot of the new characters didn't make such an impact as Harley did, but it's impressive nonetheless that even Harley made an impact. That's pretty amazing that even one character was developed outside of the series.

The crew didn't want to create new characters in order to challenge themselves and use the Spider-Man universe to its fullest extents. Last time I check, challenging and pushing yourself to do your best is NOT a bad thing, and setting limits for yourself actually pushes creativity to it's highest.

I'm not dogging against TSSM for them using Spidey's gallery of enemies, but I don't think anyone can say it was stupid for B:TAS's creators to create new enemies. I mean, it's something we see a lot where films take creative control with their characters, and it was pretty impressive that they did likewise with B:TAS. Plus, TSSM was very "up in the air" with a second season, so no wonder they didn't think of someone new.

And also...they did have some control with changing up Shocker's real name, and then with the New Enforcers. Just saying

And, once again, the whole "SSM hasn't influenced comics like B:TAS did" is stupid, since, once again, it took years for the latter to actually influence the comic world. Once more, let's wait and see a few years.

It only took two years for Harley to be showcased in a comic...she first appeared in '92, and then she showed up outside of the series in '94.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Yes, it definitely is. Creating anything that's new is a sign of creativity.

Creativity not only lies in creating something from scratch, but also how to use pre-existing material and do something fresh and new from it.

Yes, it definitely does in that regard. Even though the show was based on the Spider-Man movie continuity it showed more creativity there.

Except that all the "new" villains were just unnecessary rehashes. Talon was just Black Cat with a different skin color and love interest. Turbo Jet was a high-tech Prowler. Pterodax very easily could have been replaced by the Wild Pack. Shikata was basically Silver Sable...who was ALSO in the show.

Again, if you're going to be lazy about creating new villains...why not just use the originals in the first place?

But since you mentioned impact, it's nothing short of amazing that two characters created solely in a cartoon show made it as major characters in the DC comic book universe.

I never denied that they wasn't amazing. But hardly unique either. And one debuted right before B:TAS even premiered, so that wouldn't really count as a result of impact, wouldn't it?

Something SSM didn't even come within an inch of achieving.

Yet.

How are you so sure it won't.

But that's not the only influences BTAS had on the comics.

True. Which actually gives TSSM plenty of opportunity to influence the comics beyond just new characters.

And a major pat on the back to them for having their creativity recognized. Something they also have over SSM.

Again, can you see into the future? TSSM was just cancelled LAST YEAR.

That's fine if they wanted to play it safe and just cherry pick all the stories from the comics and just put them on screen. But on the creativity scale they fail.

Yep. They were completely safe in substituting Herman Schultz for Montana in taking the Shocker role, or making Tombstone into an intimidating and major crime lord instead of the joke he is, or starting out with a more villainous Silver Sable that was related to Silvermane, or even making Black Cat's father the killer of Uncle Ben, which also successfully ended the short, flirty relationship between Spidey and Cat, nevermind that people *****ed and *****ed about them to no end.

Oh no it didn't. Renee Montoya was introduced in the comics in 1992, the very year of BTAS' debut. I have the very comic. Batman #475, a Ventriloquist and Scarface issue.

Which, again, had nothing to do with impact or influence itself. Just like, ironically, Aqualad in Young Justice.

Mr. Freeze's origin was redefined, even the movies took notice and did it.

Which, again, took time.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

When they are just coming out of the first movie when Peter JUST became Spider-Man, then yes, it does make sense that MTV created new characters. You expect Spidey to deal with his entire rogue gallery once he just started? This isn't the comics. The series was as slow-paced as the films and if that wasn't the case, we would've seen Spidey dealing with more villains than just Doc Ock in S-M 2.

I wasn't necessarily criticizing the show for creating them. Just the fact that creating a bunch of "new" villains doesn't automatically make you better or more creative.

I already mentioned how a lot of the new characters didn't make such an impact as Harley did, but it's impressive nonetheless that even Harley made an impact. That's pretty amazing that even one character was developed outside of the series.

Again, I'm not saying that's not impressive. But she's not the only one really.

I'm not dogging against TSSM for them using Spidey's gallery of enemies, but I don't think anyone can say it was stupid for B:TAS's creators to create new enemies. I mean, it's something we see a lot where films take creative control with their characters, and it was pretty impressive that they did likewise with B:TAS. Plus, TSSM was very "up in the air" with a second season, so no wonder they didn't think of someone new.

Again, I don't mind new villains. But again, new, original villains=/=creativity.

And also...they did have some control with changing up Shocker's real name, and then with the New Enforcers. Just saying

Which proves my point that TSSM also took creative risks with pre-established characters.

 

[The Joker]

Creativity not only lies in creating something from scratch, but also how to use pre-existing material and do something fresh and new from it.

Not true. Harley Quinn was created from scratch. Nothing from the source material was used to create her. Dini made her up all on his own.

Creativity can be re-shaping existing characters, doing something new and different with them. But it can also be coming up with whole new concepts and characters.

It's a two way street.

Except that all the "new" villains were just unnecessary rehashes. Talon was just Black Cat with a different skin color and love interest. Turbo Jet was a high-tech Prowler. Pterodax very easily could have been replaced by the Wild Pack. Shikata was basically Silver Sable...who was ALSO in the show.

Again, if you're going to be lazy about creating new villains...why not just use the originals in the first place?

I think you misunderstood which show I was referring to. BTAS' unique villains and characters like Kyodai Kin, Phantasm, Gray Ghost etc.

There was no rip off villains there.

I never denied that they wasn't amazing. But hardly unique either.

Unique enough to warrant massive popularity and attention from the powers that be at DC.

And one debuted right before B:TAS even premiered, so that wouldn't really count as a result of impact, wouldn't it?

Of course it would if the character was taken from the show.

Yet.

How are you so sure it won't.

What are they going to take from that show that's not been in the comics? Are they going to turn Shocker into one of the Enforcers? Are they going to downgrade Doc Ock so he needs a glorified battery to power his tentacles?

True. Which actually gives TSSM plenty of opportunity to influence the comics beyond just new characters.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, can you see into the future? TSSM was just cancelled LAST YEAR.

And again what do you think they are going to take from that show and put into the current comics that you would consider an improvement?

Yep. They were completely safe in substituting Herman Schultz for Montana in taking the Shocker role

That is playing it safe. They're just substituting one petty criminal who got vibro shock weaponry for another petty criminal.

or making Tombstone into an intimidating and major crime lord instead of the joke he is

Joke? Read your comic book lore. Tombstone was one of Kingpin's top men. He also ran with Hammerhead and Chameleon in their own criminal organization.

or starting out with a more villainous Silver Sable that was related to Silvermane

Both minor characters in Spidey's universe.

or even making Black Cat's father the killer of Uncle Ben, which also successfully ended the short, flirty relationship between Spidey and Cat, nevermind that peopled *****ed and *****ed about them to no end.

Yes, because that flirty empty relationship was so impactful wasn't it.

Which, again, had nothing to do with impact or influence itself. Just like, ironically, Aqualad in Young Justice.

It had everything to do with impact. Why would they introduce such a character from the show as a major figure unless they loved her?

Think about what you're saying before you answer that.

Which, again, took time.

Very short time.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I wasn't necessarily criticizing the show for creating them. Just the fact that creating a bunch of "new" villains doesn't automatically make you better or more creative.

Again, I'm not saying that's not impressive. But she's not the only one really.

Again, I don't mind new villains. But again, new, original villains=/=creativity.

Which proves my point that TSSM also took creative risks with pre-established characters.

I haven't said B:TAS is better because they took some creativity and made new villains, but to say it's stupid or boring is just bashing the show for just a dumb little complaint. Those characters gave B:TAS fresh air, and they weren't stupid or ignorant additions; they fit nice into their respected stories. And with the Spidey MTV series, needless to say I didn't enjoy it, but those new villains did give them some help into creating at least one season to try to continue what the film started without having to pile on every single already-known villain.

And besides Harley, I don't know other villains that was shown in comics, so my bad with that little knowledge, lol.

And also, I'm not saying TSSM didn't have creativity as well, they sure did, but still, no one should say B:TAS was "wrong" to have that kind of creative control. To ONLY stick with original material, however, is a bit lackluster because new things can always be created or worked on, and most of the times, it's necessary. BUT, TSSM never did make any additions that would be for the better in comics. Now, I am not much of a comic reader myself, but what I do know is that TSSM didn't create anything new or exciting that would be better outside of the series. They didn't do anything to improve really any of the characters, but B:TAS did and they've been acknowledged many times for it.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Not true. Harley Quinn was created from scratch. Nothing from the source material was used to create her. Dini made her up all on his own.

Never argued that Harley was un-original. She wasn't.

Fun fact: According to Dini, she was inspired by some of the henchwomen the Joker had in the 60's Adam West show, specifically Venus, as well as actress Arleen Sorkin herself.

Creativity can be re-shaping existing characters, doing something new and different with them. But it can also be coming up with whole new concepts and characters.

It's a two way street.

I know that. Re-read my post again. That's exactly what I stated.

I think you misunderstood which show I was referring to. BTAS' unique villains like Kyodai Kin, Phantasm, Gray Ghost etc.

There was no rip off villains there.

You were saying that the MTV villains were more "creative", while I argued that they were cheap knock-offs of actual Spidey characters. No misunderstanding.

And Gray Ghost wasn't a villain.

Unique enough to warrant massive popularity and attention from the powers that be at DC.

Again, she's a noticeable case. But not the only one.

Of course it would if the character was taken from the show.

Except that there was no way to prove that the comic writer could have thought the character was interesting enough to be inspired into putting her in the comic. She was little more than an extra in the early episodes, and wasn't characterized until several episodes later. And it was in the comics where she was characterized into a very popular character.

What are they going to take from that show that's not been in the comics?

Several. For starters, using characters and elements from the 60's that SSM extensively used (which I noticed weren't featured in the current comics again until well after the show's release) such as the Big Man, Captain George Stacy (surprisingly forgotten for so long), and the Enforcers, or more obscure like Sha Shan Nguyen. Also, upgrading the Enforcers with tech, having Montana become the Shocker, having Tombstone as a major crime lord, have Mysterio starting to use the Homunculi, and others.

The fact that one of the only things you could think of was Ock's battery pack weakness shows you're not thinking big enough.

That is playing it safe. They're just substituting one petty criminal who got vibro shock weaponry for another petty criminal.

The fact that plenty of other people were throwing fits of anger over that little change shows that it wasn't a small change.

Joke? Read your comic book lore. Tombstone was one of Kingpin's top men. He also ran with Hammerhead and Chameleon in their own criminal organization.

Being one of the top men or being in a shared crime organization does not equal being one of New York's biggest crime lords. What was the last we saw of comics Tombstone? He was punked by a Mary Sue like Carlie Cooper. A joke.

Both minor characters in Spidey's universe.

Which, again, created a huge uproar by fans. And it's strange that you dismiss them as minor, considering most of the memorable B:TAS were minor.

Yes, because that flirty empty relationship was so impactful wasn't it.

It's not just about that, but the fact that that the killer's identity was changed and linked to Black Cat caused controversy, and so did the end of their empty flirtation, a move that set the Black Cat/Spidey chemistry apart from the Catwoman/Batman one.

It had everything to do with impact. Why would they introduce such a character from the show as a major figure unless they loved her?

Impact from a show that hasn't even come out yet? From a character that wasn't defined much beyond a name and design at the time? A show that was set to premiere on a time where comic book-based shows were shrugged off?

Very short time.

Much longer than the period TSSM was cancelled.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

I haven't said B:TAS is better because they took some creativity and made new villains, but to say it's stupid or boring is just bashing the show for just a dumb little complaint. Those characters gave B:TAS fresh air, and they weren't stupid or ignorant additions; they fit nice into their respected stories.

Where was I bashing B:TAS for it? I just said that several of the villains weren't really that impressive. It's nice that they tried, it really is, but I don't see why each and every one of them is declared a "brilliant" villain just because they came from B:TAS.

And also, I'm not saying TSSM didn't have creativity as well, they sure did, but still, no one should say B:TAS was "wrong" to have that kind of creative control.

I'm NOT saying B:TAS was "wrong" in doing so. I never said that. Just that creating villains doesn't necessarily make one show superior over the other.

To ONLY stick with original material, however, is a bit lackluster because new things can always be created or worked on, and most of the times, it's necessary. BUT, TSSM never did make any additions that would be for the better in comics. Now, I am not much of a comic reader myself, but what I do know is that TSSM didn't create anything new or exciting that would be better outside of the series. They didn't do anything to improve really any of the characters, but B:TAS did and they've been acknowledged many times for it.

So....

turning a petty thug like Tombstone into a legitimate badass and major character is NOT an improvement?

giving Electro a costume a new design that avoids the silliness of the old one while paying homage to it, as well as a more sympathetic and interesting origin is NOT an improvement? Or for that matter, Vulture as well?

turning the Enforcers into actual, relevant threats NOT an improvement?

making the character of Eddie Brock into a consistent, actually well-written, and dangerous villain NOT an improvement?

actually having Gwen Stacy BE a consistent character that we sympathize with, rather than a spoiled brat that suddenly gets turned into a nice girl NOT an improvement?

have Sandman be a more human criminal that only cares about his money, not hurting others, WITHOUT un-doing it by stupid retcons is NOT am improvement?

I have plenty more, BTW, but you get the idea.

 

[The Joker]

I know that. Re-read my post again. That's exactly what I stated.

It sounded like you were saying creativity was always both, it could never be a case of one or the other.

You were saying that the MTV villains were more "creative", while I argued that they were cheap knock-offs of actual Spidey characters. No misunderstanding.

No, I wasn't. I said it was more creative for coming up with new villains. Something SSM never tried.

And Gray Ghost wasn't a villain.

Never said he was.

Again, she's a noticeable case. But not the only one.

Whether she's the only one or not is irrelevant. The case in point here is it's one of many elements BTAS has over SSM.

Except that there was no way to prove that the comic writer could have thought the character was interesting enough to be inspired into putting her in the comic.

Yeah, you're right, they chose her because she looked so visually interesting

She was little more than an extra in the early episodes, and wasn't characterized until several episodes later. And it was in the comics where she was characterized into a very popular character.

Wrong again, my friend. By the 13th episode of the show she had a whole episode dedicated to her: http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/pov/

She was a major character by the time 1993 came around. Her and Bullock were the forefront officers getting almost as much page time as Jim Gordon.

Check out Knightfall, for example which debuted in 1993.

Several. For starters, using characters and elements from the 60's that SSM extensively used (which I noticed weren't featured in the current comics again until well after the show's release) such as the Big Man, Captain George Stacy (surprisingly forgotten for so long), and the Enforcers, or more obscure like Sha Shan Nguyen. Also, upgrading the Enforcers with tech, having Montana become the Shocker, having Tombstone as a major crime lord, have Mysterio starting to use the Homunculi, and others.

There's is so much wrong with your suggestions. Where to start?

1. George Stacy is dead. Gone. Bye bye. How are they going to use him again?
2. Using the Big Man and the Enforcers is just bringing back villains out of limbo. How on earth could that be attributed to SSM? They didn't create them. But FYI the Enforcers have been used in the last few years several times. Look up their comic book history and you'll see.
3. Why would anyone want Montana to become Shocker when we have a perfectly good Shocker in Herman Schultz? I know Spider-Man's rogues gallery is painfully unoriginal with their villains (the various Goblins, symbiote characters, several Vultures, even three different Doc Ocks etc).
4. Tombstone is already a big player in the underworld. Making him a crime lord is not a dramatic upgrade.

The fact that one of the only things you could think of was Ock's battery pack weakness shows you're not thinking big enough.

No, I'm thinking practically.

The fact that plenty of other people were throwing fits of anger over that little change shows that it wasn't a small change.

People were throwing fits that Herman was replaced because he's the fan favorite. That's all it was. From a story perspective it's not different at all.

Being one of the top men or being in a shared crime organization does not equal being one of New York's biggest crime lords.

Yeah, it does. He's a big player in the underworld.

What was the last we saw of comics Tombstone? He was punked by a Mary Sue like Carlie Cooper. A joke.

Yeah, and the last time we saw Scorpion was when he was being Venom lite. That doesn't automatically erase his great history in the comics prior to this. Or do you allow one bad story to taint a character's entire history because if so then Spider-Man should be dead to you by now

Which, again, created a huge uproar by fans. And it's strange that you dismiss them as minor, considering most of the memorable B:TAS were minor.

What uproar? Can you show me some examples of this huge outrage? If it's as big as you claim it should be easy to find.

It's not just about that, but the fact that that the killer's identity was changed and linked to Black Cat caused controversy, and so did the end of their empty flirtation, a move that set the Black Cat/Spidey chemistry apart from the Catwoman/Batman one.

The killer's identity being changed didn't make a blind bit of difference because it had no effect on Spidey's origin. Making the Joker the killer of Batman's parents, or Sandman the killer of Uncle Ben, that completely re-writes the relationship between the characters.

The empty flirtatious banter being halted between Spidey and Black Cat? A big fat nothing.

Impact from a show that hasn't even come out yet? From a character that wasn't defined much beyond a name and design at the time? A show that was set to premiere on a time where comic book-based shows were shrugged off?

Yes, yes, and double yes. The concept and characterization of the character was obviously appealing enough to have her transcend into the comics, where her status only grew from there at a rapid rate.

Much longer than the period TSSM was cancelled.

Oh no it didn't. Freeze's origin got a revamp the very next year.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

No, I wasn't. I said it was more creative for coming up with new villains. Something SSM never tried.

But, like I mentioned, can they honestly be declared "creative" and "new" villains if they were knock-offs from the original ones?

Never said he was.

You listed him alongside other villains and mentioned that those were villains.

Yeah, you're right, they chose her because she looked so visually interesting

Wrong again, my friend. By the 13th episode of the show she had a whole episode dedicated to her: http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/pov/

The issue premiered in March, 1992. The episode in question didn't came around until September.

There's is so much wrong with your suggestions. Where to start?

1. George Stacy is dead. Gone. Bye bye. How are they going to use him again?
2. Using the Big Man and the Enforcers is just bringing back villains out of limbo. How on earth could that be attributed to SSM? They didn't create them. But FYI the Enforcers have been used in the last few years several times. Look up their comic book history and you'll see.

These characters and their influence were mostly ignored for DECADES after they occurred, and have only come back to be notable recently.

4. Tombstone is already a big player in the underworld. Making him a crime lord is not a dramatic upgrade.

Tombstone had flirtations with being a crime lord, but never could achieve them, and was never at the level of Kingpin, Silvermane, the Hood, or Mr. Negative. He actually was a major crime lord in SSM.

People were throwing fits that Herman was replaced because he's the fan favorite. That's all it was. From a story perspective it's not different at all.

Herman's the ONLY one so far. And the guy's a cypher. Not very notable as a character, more by his equipment. By him being an Enforcer, it steamlined and simplified things, much like B:TAS did with guys like their Clayface.

Yeah, and the last time we saw Scorpion was when he was being Venom lite.

He's back to being Scorpion again.

That doesn't automatically erase his great history in the comics prior to this. Or do you allow one bad story to taint a character's entire history because if so then Spider-Man should be dead to you by now

He's been a thug for quite a while now. Much earlier than Sinister Twelve, actually.

The killer's identity being changed didn't make a blind bit of difference because it had no effect on Spidey's origin. Making the Joker the killer of Batman's parents, or Sandman the killer of Uncle Ben, that completely re-writes the relationship between the characters.

The fact that they were messing with the killer in the first place IS risky. That's part of a vital element in Spidey's backstory. They were smart about it, so that's why they didn't get as much flak as Joker or Sandman, you know, also "creative" choices.

Yes, yes, and double yes. The concept and characterization of the character was obviously appealing enough to have her transcend into the comics, where her status only grew from there at a rapid rate.

Again, the issue debuted in March. Montoya didn't actually became a full-fledged character until September.

 

[The Joker]

But, like I mentioned, can they honestly be declared "creative" and "new" villains if they were knock-offs from the original ones?

Yes absolutely. They were unique enough to be differentiated by those other characters. Talon and Turbo Jet in particular.

You listed him alongside other villains and mentioned that those were villains.

I said characters and villains.

The issue premiered in March, 1992. The episode in question didn't came around until September.

So what? DC obviously read the concepts and characterizations planned for the character. Maybe they even saw some preview footage of her. BTAS was in the works since 1990.

They wouldn't have chosen this Police officer character to put into regular continuity unless there was something that stood out about her and they saw potential in her as a character.

These characters and their influence were mostly ignored for DECADES after they occurred, and have only come back to be notable recently.

No, they have not. Again read the comic books, man. They have made appearances in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and this decade.

Not to mention these characters were never a massive presence in the Spider-Man universe to begin with anyway.

As for Captain Stacy's "influence", his death has been referenced many times over the decades. Being a die hard Doc Ock fan I can even prove it if you want with some scans.

Tombstone had flirtations with being a crime lord, but never could achieve them, and was never at the level of Kingpin, Silvermane, the Hood, or Mr. Negative. He actually was a major crime lord in SSM.

It wasn't any major upgrade either. He didn't do anything in SSM that was radically different to what he did in the comics. Involved in organized crime? Check. Rubbing elbows with other high profile villains? Check.

The only difference was this Tombstone wore a suit and the public was ignorant to his status. He was a Kingpin replacement.

Herman's the ONLY one so far. And the guy's a cypher. Not very notable as a character, more by his equipment.

Shocker has been a staple villain since Stan Lee's day. he is very much a notable character. He's been in the cartoons, video games, and has a long history with Spidey and has even defeated Spidey on several occasions: http://spiderfan.org/characters/shocker.html

By him being an Enforcer, it steamlined and simplified things, much like B:TAS did with guys like their Clayface.

It didn't simplify anything. It just substituted one petty criminal for another. Clayface in BTAS was an amalgam of the first two Clayfaces (there's five in total). They only thing they took from the first Clayface, Basil Karlo, was the actor aspect, and gave it to Matt Hagen. Hagen himself was a shape shifter. Karlo was just a normal guy who wore a Clayface mask.

He's back to being Scorpion again.

Only recently. For the last 6 years he was venom.

He's been a thug for quite a while now. Much earlier than Sinister Twelve, actually.

No, he has not. Being a contract man for hire has always been a schtick of his.

The fact that they were messing with the killer in the first place IS risky. That's part of a vital element in Spidey's backstory.

They made the killer a no name character. It wasn't a high profile character like Sandman in Spider-Man 3 where it would totally alter Spidey's character dynamic with someone.

There was no risk involved in making it Joe nobody we never met or cared about.

Again, the issue debuted in March. Montoya didn't actually became a full-fledged character until September.

I don't know how many times I can hammer the same point home to you about this. Can you offer me any reasonable suggestion as to why they would take a Police officer character of all things from BTAS and introduce her into the regular continuity unless they were impressed by this character and the potential for her?

She was hardly put in there for visual purposes. They had obviously read the character concepts and possibly seen footage of her, too.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Where was I bashing B:TAS for it? I just said that several of the villains weren't really that impressive. It's nice that they tried, it really is, but I don't see why each and every one of them is declared a "brilliant" villain just because they came from B:TAS.

I'm NOT saying B:TAS was "wrong" in doing so. I never said that. Just that creating villains doesn't necessarily make one show superior over the other.

I apologize if you thought I was referring to you, but I was referring to posters in general that I have read with them calling that kind of creative control "stupid" or "boring" because they could've used Batman's actual enemies of that time. I wasn't directly making those comments to you, lol.

So....

turning a petty thug like Tombstone into a legitimate badass and major character is NOT an improvement?

Because they had to use someone else besides Kingpin? I believe TSSM's guys wanted to use Kingpin for the longest, but they had to use someone else. Sure, what they did with Tombstone was awesome, but still, if they couldn't use Kingpin or Tombstone, they would've had that portrayal for someone else, and it'll go on and on, but it's not something you'll see as a change in comics, imo.

giving Electro a costume a new design that avoids the silliness of the old one while paying homage to it, as well as a more sympathetic and interesting origin is NOT an improvement? Or for that matter, Vulture as well?

First...Vulture already had that red/black costume, so it's understandable that they chose that version of the costume rather than having another villain with a green ensemble. And also, Electro's costume was changed for modern times and to make some sense on why he doesn't just kill people instantly, something I don't think comics would answer, as well as Bane's mask is different in The Dark Knight Returns, but again, that doesn't mean we will see those changes in comic form as Electro and Bane are known for those specific looks. Is Electro's new suit such as drastic as background or development? No, not really. Plus, Electro did show off references of his starfish mask in TSSM as well.

turning the Enforcers into actual, relevant threats NOT an improvement?

The New Enforcers was a nice touch, but isn't there already a New Enforcers in comics I believe as well as a good guy name Ricochet. That's something you just can't change to make Fancy Dan, Montana and Ox become. Plus, I didn't like the change of Montana being Shocker from the start...that just felt like they didn't want to take time out to introduce another character to become Shocker. BUT, I would say, later down the line, they could definitely make Montana become the new Shocker(that's if the Enforcers don't die or anything, lol).

making the character of Eddie Brock into a consistent, actually well-written, and dangerous villain NOT an improvement?

I don't know how he is written otherwise, but it was definitely better than Spider-Man 3. But there wasn't real consistency with Eddie until he became Venom, imo, over the reasons why he was upset before the symbiote got to him. Plus, Venom was always dangerous, so I don't see how that is some kind of improvement.

actually having Gwen Stacy BE a consistent character that we sympathize with, rather than a spoiled brat that suddenly gets turned into a nice girl NOT an improvement?

No, but instead they made her randomly put on contacts for a dance and keep her glasses off afterwards...so a party suddenly and finally got her into thinking of contacts? That's kinda stupid if you ask me and was only trying to get back into the comics lore by doing that.

have Sandman be a more human criminal that only cares about his money, not hurting others, WITHOUT un-doing it by stupid retcons is NOT am improvement?

If there was a season three, Sandman would just go back to being a villain though, so it would definitely feel like a retcon. No way they would keep Sandman as a good guy. Plus, TSSM didn't really make such a change/improvement because Spider-Man 3 tried that route as well.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

So what? DC obviously read the concepts and characterizations planned for the character. Maybe they even saw some preview footage of her. BTAS was in the works since 1990.

They wouldn't have chosen this Police officer character to put into regular continuity unless there was something that stood out about her and they saw potential in her as a character.

Unless they also wanted to promote the show by including her in the comics? Just like Reptile and the Super Hero Squad? I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, but there is no evidence that the writers chose her SPECIFICALLY because they liked her? You have proof of that?

It wasn't any major upgrade either. He didn't do anything in SSM that was radically different to what he did in the comics. Involved in organized crime? Check. Rubbing elbows with other high profile villains? Check.

With that logic, Bullseye and Typhoid Mary are also major crime lords that rival the Kingpin.

The only difference was this Tombstone wore a suit and the public was ignorant to his status. He was a Kingpin replacement. [/quote]

In a sense, you're right, he IS a Kingpin replacement. Which is still an improvement over the glorified hitman he was in the comics.

Shocker has been a staple villain since Stan Lee's day. he is very much a notable character. He's been in the cartoons, video games, and has a long history with Spidey and has even defeated Spidey on several occasions: http://spiderfan.org/characters/shocker.html

What can you tell me about his character, though. His personality traits? What makes him a unique character beyond his powers? His motivations? Even the loser Ultimate version of him had a more unique personality.

No, he has not. Being a contract man for hire has always been a schtick of his.

If this is true, then wouldn't making him into an actual crime lords that HIRES contract men be a big change to him?

The New Enforcers was a nice touch, but isn't there already a New Enforcers in comics I believe as well as a good guy name Ricochet. That's something you just can't change to make Fancy Dan, Montana and Ox become. Plus, I didn't like the change of Montana being Shocker from the start...that just felt like they didn't want to take time out to introduce another character to become Shocker. BUT, I would say, later down the line, they could definitely make Montana become the new Shocker(that's if the Enforcers don't die or anything, lol).

Why would they waste their time introducing a B-list cypher like Herman Schultz when they could make more use of an already-defined character? Especially when this leads to the Enforcers getting upgrades?

I don't know how he is written otherwise, but it was definitely better than Spider-Man 3. But there wasn't real consistency with Eddie until he became Venom, imo, over the reasons why he was upset before the symbiote got to him. Plus, Venom was always dangerous, so I don't see how that is some kind of improvement.

Eddie had a stupid reason to hate Spider-Man in the first place. Then he becomes a threat for like, a few issues before he is revamped as an anti-hero that we're supposed to root for, never mind that he's killed innocent people. Not to mention that Eddie never actually did anything with his knowledge of Spidey's identity.

If there was a season three, Sandman would just go back to being a villain though, so it would definitely feel like a retcon. No way they would keep Sandman as a good guy. Plus, TSSM didn't really make such a change/improvement because Spider-Man 3 tried that route as well.

How do you know this would have happened?

 

[spider13]

btas creating villains is not the biggest reason tssm is better. The biggest reason is because tssm retold classic story arcs from the 60's and 70's in a different and creative way. Which make them remakes, Which means the entire show is one giant remake a good one in fact.

Almost all the voice actors voiced some one in sd and or are voice someone in eot. Greg Weisman also was allowed because of the successes of the show came in and write a few issues of the amazing spider man.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Why would they waste their time introducing a B-list cypher like Herman Schultz when they could make more use of an already-defined character? Especially when this leads to the Enforcers getting upgrades?

But yet they kept other B-list villains? I just think it was a dumb move to not include Schultz, imo. They keep Rhino and they keep Vulture, but they decide to make Montana the new Shocker(which is like how the Ultimate comics made Vulture some other dude). Just not my cup of tea.

Eddie had a stupid reason to hate Spider-Man in the first place. Then he becomes a threat for like, a few issues before he is revamped as an anti-hero that we're supposed to root for, never mind that he's killed innocent people. Not to mention that Eddie never actually did anything with his knowledge of Spidey's identity.

Eddie was still non-consistent in TSSM. Plus, Eddie/Venom did about the same kind of stalking in S:TAS as much as he did with TSSM. Granted, S:TAS's Venom didn't go to a newspaper and make a statement of Peter being Spider-Man, but he still played massive head games.

How do you know this would have happened?

To want to have five seasons and Sandman becoming a good guy in the second, you think they would've kept Sandman a good guy for the next three seasons? He only had a problem with hurting people, but he still wanted to steal what he could, and that doesn't equal him just turning the leaf and being a good guy forever. So to do such a thing would make that ending be somewhat ridiculous just to have a nice moment of a villain working with Spidey.

btas creating villains is not the biggest reason tssm is better. The biggest reason is because tssm retold classic story arcs from the 60's and 70's in a different and creative way. Which make them remakes, Which means the entire show is one giant remake a good one in fact.

Via wikipedia:

The show also featured numerous adaptations of various Batman comics stories over the years to when the show was produced. The following episodes were adaptations:

"The Cape and Cowl Conspiracy" was an adaptation of "The Cape and Cowl Death Trap!" from Detective Comics #450 of August 1975, written by Elliot S. Maggin.

"The Strange Secret of Bruce Wayne" was based on the comic stories "The Dead Yet Live" and "I Am the Batman!" from Detective Comics #471 and #472, of August/September 1977 by Steve Englehart.

"Dreams in Darkness" takes its cues from a graphic novel titled The Last Arkham.

"Moon of the Wolf" is based on the comic story of the same name by writer Len Wein with art by Neal Adams, from Batman #255, April 1974.

"If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?" is a loose adaptation of "The Riddler!" from Detective Comics #140, October 1948.

"Off Balance" is a direct adaptation of "Batman: Into the Den of the Death-Dealers" of Detective Comics #411, May 1971 by Dennis O'Neil famous for the first appearance of character Talia Al Ghul.

Also a direct adaptation is the two-part episode "The Demon's Quest", based on "Daughter of the Demon" from Batman #232, June 1971, and "The Demon Lives Again" Batman #244, September 1972, also by Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams. Famous for introducing one of Batman's deadlier foes; Ra's Al Ghul, father of Talia.

The episode "The Laughing Fish" was based on three Batman comics, blended together; "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" from Batman #251 September 1973 by Dennis O'Neil with art by Neal Adams, followed by "The Laughing Fish" and "Sign of the Joker!" from Detective Comics #475 and #476, of February/March 1978, both by writer Steve Englehart with art by Marshall Rogers. During a spotlight podcast from Comic-Con 2007, Paul Dini explained that the reason why the episode combined those stories was because the show's creators could not adapt them separately, because their content and thematic elements would not have been cleared by the censors.

Part 1 of "Robin's Reckoning" takes its cues from Detective Comics #38 of June 1940.

"A Bullet for Bullock" is based on the comic of the same name from Detective Comics #651, October 1992, by Chuck Dixon.

The feature film, Mask of the Phantasm is also an adaptation. The film's flashbacks were inspired by Batman: Year One, whereas the character of Andrea Beaumont (aka The Phantasm) and the storyline itself were modified from the Mike Barr-penned story Batman: Year Two, which ran in Detective Comics #575-578 in the late 1980s; the villain in the comics was named The Reaper.

The episode "Almost Got 'Im" where Two-Face's strategy (strapping down Batman to a giant coin and flipping the coin in the air) was taken from the comics, where both Batman and Robin were tied to a giant penny that was catapulted onto spikes.

The episode "Appointment in Crime Alley" is based on "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley" from Detective Comics #457 (March 1976) by Dennis O'Neil and Dick Giordano,.

The episode "Sideshow" is loosely based on "A Vow From the Grave" by Dennis O'Neil. This episode adapted the comic book story with the inclusion of a separate Killer Croc story.

"Joker's Millions" from The New Batman Adventures based on Detective Comics #180 in February 1952.

Almost all the voice actors voiced some one in sd and or are voice someone in eot. Greg Weisman also was allowed because of the successes of the show came in and write a few issues of the amazing spider man.

Yah, it's not like Paul Dini wrote anything afterwards

 

[spider13]

Via wikipedia:

what the hell does that mean.

 

[Anno_Domini]

You said TSSM retold stories and arcs, but every super hero series does that. It's not something different that TSSM did.

 

[spider13]

No thats not what I'm saying I'm saying it took these arcs and retold them much like batman under the rood hood took that story arc and retold it. they didn't borrow from the arc the retold the arc in a new way for a younger audience and the old.

 

[OmarBatGeek]

Just because something makes a huge impact doesn't mean it's automatically better than everything that comes after it.

You seem to have trouble understanding this, Anno. It's just like what I was saying about AC1 not necessarily being a great game just because it spawned a bunch of great sequels.

 

[Anno_Domini]

No thats not what I'm saying I'm saying it took these arcs and retold them much like batman under the rood hood took that story arc and retold it. they didn't borrow from the arc the retold the arc in a new way for a younger audience and the old.

No...TSSM didn't do what B:UTRH did. TSSM borrowed elements and created their own. The same what every other series did. Did we even watch the same TSSM?

Just because something makes a huge impact doesn't mean it's automatically better than everything that comes after it.

So you expect TSSM to be better than a show such as B:TAS that has garnered more accolades and influenced more than any other animated series? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. When something MAKES an impact moreso than anything else before or after, then yes, it is automatically better. If that's the case then, hell, you probably think a band is better than Led Zeppelin?

You seem to have trouble understanding this, Anno. It's just like what I was saying about AC1 not necessarily being a great game just because it spawned a bunch of great sequels.

To not call AC1 a great game just makes me shake my head in disappointment in you already.

 

[spider13]

dude you haven't red the master planner story arc or the six arms sage because if you did you would know that both of these story arcs where done almost like a animated movie so.

And you already said that ac1 is not a great game its a good game.

 

[OmarBatGeek]

No...TSSM didn't do what B:UTRH did. TSSM borrowed elements and created their own. The same what every other series did. Did we even watch the same TSSM?

Oh? And what elements are those, exactly? Just list off a few, to help me out.

So you expect TSSM to be better than a show such as B:TAS that has garnered more accolades and influenced more than any other animated series? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. When something MAKES an impact moreso than anything else before or after, then yes, it is automatically better. If that's the case then, hell, you probably think a band is better than Led Zeppelin?

Did I say that? Because I don't recall saying that... Of course TSSM isn't automatically better because it's newer! I was simply pointing out that just because TAS was ground breaking AT THE TIME doesn't automatically make it better, either.

To not call AC1 a great game just makes me shake my head in disappointment in you already.

AC1 was repetetive and boring, in my opinion. *shrug* Certainly wasn't great, and I'm not the only one who will tell you that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

dude you haven't red the master planner story arc or the six arms sage because if you did you we know that both of these story arcs where done almost like a animated movie so.

Master Planner -

Following Spider-Man's defeat of the Sinister Six, Octopus assembled another group of costumed underlings and established an undersea base. Calling himself the Master Planner, he embarked on a series of thefts of experimental substances - seeking to further expand his mastery of the atomic sciences. His goal: to develop a radiation ray with which he could rule the world. But his plan was fated to entwine with Spider-Man's: when [Aunt] May fell sick, Peter provided her with a blood transfusion - not realizing the radioactivity in his plasma would kill her. The only substance capable of saving her was the experimental ISO-36. Peter managed to obtain enough money to fund the operation, but the Master Planner's forces hijacked the shipment for their own deadly research. Spider-Man tracked down the Master Planner to his underwater hideout and confronted his foe, revealed to be Doc Ock. After the base was destroyed, Doctor Octopus escaped once more.

so...not quite the Master Planner arc we saw in TSSM.

Batman: Under the Hood -

A flashback to Batman's early years (post Dick Grayson's retirement as Robin) shows a young Jason Todd attempting to steal the wheels off of the Batmobile. Following this, he becomes the new Robin. From there, it features the gangster Black Mask, who controls most of Gotham City's criminal underworld. His assistant details the recent foiled criminal activities by a persona known only as the Red Hood. Promptly, the Red Hood appears and destroys the top floor of Black Mask's fortress with a long-range explosive. After this, Black Mask teams up with other supervillains to combat Red Hood. When Batman arrives, the pair defeat Black Mask's hired hit-villains, but the Red Hood's deadly tactics leave Batman and Red Hood to end on bad terms. After the fight, more flashbacks on the part of Alfred Pennyworth ensue. Post-scene, Alfred receives a package with a lock of green hair and a note from Jason asking for Batman to meet him. In the next scene, Black Mask calls a meeting of all his top associates and murders them under the eye of Red Hood. Once this deed is completed, Black Mask and Red Hood engage in combat, ending with Batman arriving just in time to see Red Hood stabbed in the heart with his own knife. When Black Mask removes Red Hood's helm, he sees that it is not Jason Todd, to which Batman recoils loudly enough to be detected by Black Mask. The two talk for a moment, then Batman traps Black Mask and flees to the point Jason wished to meet him at. Jason has kidnapped the Joker and administers a savage beating, only to be frustrated by the villain's maniacal laughter. When Jason tells the Joker that he sees through the latter's crazy act, the Joker for once falls grimly silent. Then enters Batman. The following fight is brief, and is interrupted by a bomb being dropped on Blüdhaven, where Dick Grayson now fights crime as Nightwing. Then, Jason reveals the place where he has hidden the Joker. He tosses a gun to Batman and takes one for himself. Using the Joker as a human shield, Jason points his gun at the Joker's head and tells Batman that he must either kill Jason, or let Jason kill the Joker on a count of three. At the last half-second, Batman drops the gun and throws a batarang at Jason's shoulder. The Joker then triggers the explosives wired throughout the building. The scene then cuts to Jason's miraculous resurrection. Following this, he is institutionalized, escapes, and turns to living on the streets. Ra's al Ghul, with the help of his daughter, Talia, kidnaps Jason and holds him in care for a year. Ra's then tells his daughter that he is going to send Jason away. Then he takes the short trip to his Lazarus Pit. Talia, angered, pushes Jason into the pit as well, unleashing and empowering a new, stronger, more violent creature. Talia then smuggles him out of the estate and gives him a bag containing money, a computer and memories of Batman, the Joker, and Red Hood. Jason attempts to reconnect with Batman, but his former mentor fights and defeats him. He proceeds to reveal the empire he has built for himself as he decides to don an old mantle of the Joker: the Red Hood.

sounds EXACTLY like Batman: Under the Red Hood. Only a few modifications to modernize it for a film, but still much more comic accurate than what TSSM did with the Master Planner.

And...the six-arm saga wasn't even in TSSM.

Again, I ask...did we even watch the same TSSM?

And you already said that ac1 is not a great game its a good game.

Great game with the story and everything added together. It's only "good" because of the repetitiveness of the assassin tasks and gameplay.

Did I say that? Because I don't recall saying that... Of course TSSM isn't automatically better because it's newer! I was simply pointing out that just because TAS was ground breaking AT THE TIME doesn't automatically make it better, either.

So are you defending this because you think TSSM is better or what?

Because, again, it's not....look at the facts of what B:TAS has done and look what TSSM did. TSSM has done nothing really besides getting more Spidey fans.

AC1 was repetetive and boring, in my opinion. *shrug* Certainly wasn't great, and I'm not the only one who will tell you that.

Oh, it's okay; I know better.

 

[spider13]

Thats the creative change I'm talking about pretty much is what you said with changes to better the story I've read the master planner story arc and really like it but I like the cartoon episodes better.

Have gwen be there that was a great add bit of story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Okay...then CHANGES doesn't mean they just re-tell the exact story. They only borrowed elements, as always.

 

[spider13]

Are you telling me that you look the book more then the episodes.