World The Ultimate Spider-Man Animated Series Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Lord]

1990's show was better in terms of characterization, writing, and voice acting IMHO.

Than Ultimate? Yes. Compared to Spectacular? Hell no

 

[Green Goblin]

90's Spidey was still pretty dope

 

[TheVileOne]

Than Ultimate? Yes. Compared to Spectacular? Hell no

I disagree.

 

[TheVileOne]

when the creators/defenders say "this is a show for kids, get over it." does that mean Batman TAS Superman TAs, Justice league, Spider-man TAS, X-men TAS, Spectacular Spider-man, and Avengers EMH were not meant for kids? cuz i was like 5 when i watched batman and i loved it

I'm sure plenty of five year olds love this show, so what's the problem?

 

[Spiderine]

1990's show was better in terms of characterization, writing, and voice acting IMHO.

Really? That's interesting. I'd like to know why you think the characterization of Peter, his vast supporting cast that SSM featured as well as the development of his villains were to being far superior on TAS. And I was a huge fan of that show as well back in those days by the way so I don't mean to disrespect it in any way. I see numerous distinctions amongst all three versions. US being the worst in IMO.

 

[bigdaddy313]

TheVileOne is just bitter against Spectacular Spider-Man cause everyone always compares it to USM to show how rubbish USM is, so it's easy for him to say the 90's Spider-Man is better in characterization.

Which is funny cause the last time I checked Greg Weisman is a king when it comes to characterization, which is one of the reasons why that show is mainly considered the best Spider-Man show period.

And another reason why Greg Weisman always gathers a cult following, he is basically Joss Whedon of animation.

 

[Spiderine]

TheVileOne is just bitter against Spectacular Spider-Man cause everyone always compares it to USM to show how rubbish USM is, so it's easy for him to say the 90's Spider-Man is better in characterization.

Which is funny cause the last time I checked Greg Weisman is a king when it comes to characterization, which is one of the reasons why that show is mainly considered the best Spider-Man show period.

And another reason why Greg Weisman always gathers a cult following, he is basically Joss Whedon of animation.

I'm sure if and when he responds he will give his reasons. But I have never witnessed a Spiderman animated show that came before SSM that gave us an in depth look into Peter's personal high school life and the numerous relationships that nurtured his development. And a library of actual characters from the comics. I felt like each episode of SSM I was actually growing along side Peter and seeing him deal with mature conflicts in his young life.

 

[bigdaddy313]

I'm sure if and when he responds he will give his reasons. But I have never witnessed a Spiderman animated show that came before SSM that gave us an in depth look into Peter's personal high school life and the numerous relationships that nurtured his development. And a library of actual characters from the comics. I felt like each episode of SSM I was actually growing along side Peter and seeing him deal with mature conflicts in his young life.

Well to be fair to a little extent Spider-Man in the 90s hard great characterization and personal conflicts from Mary Jane to Felicia Hardy to eddy Brock and even JJ.

But yeah SS is more modernized and achieves a greater level of story telling with their characters and main stories through out the series.

 

[Spiderine]

Well to be fair to a little extent Spider-Man in the 90s hard great characterization and personal conflicts from Mary Jane to Felicia Hardy to eddy Brock and even JJ.

But yeah SS is more modernized and achieves a greater level of story telling with their characters and main stories through out the series.

Oh absolutely......I give TAS all the credit in the world for achieving those things first. It's why it was a masterful show in it's own right. SSM took all those qualities to a whole other level and expanded on it. That's all I was saying. Loved TAS and still do.

 

[bigdaddy313]

Oh absolutely......I give TAS all the credit in the world for achieving those things first. It's why it was a masterful show in it's own right. SSM took all those qualities to a whole other level and expanded on it. That's all I was saying. Loved TAS and still do.

Halla lol besides I don't know why I am in this tread anyways, I am not watching the show only they ones written by Bryan Michael Bendis.

 

[Green Goblin]

Just to remind you all you are arguing over which children's cartoon is better. The target audience for these shows is children and kids seem to like it and that is what matters even if it is not hard to get kids to like it. While the show may not be remembered in the way spectacular or the animated series will be as it impressed us lot at the end of the day this is a children's cartoon show.

 

[bigdaddy313]

Just to remind you all you are arguing over which children's cartoon is better. The target audience for these shows is children and kids seem to like it and that is what matters even if it is not hard to get kids to like it. While the show may not be remembered in the way spectacular or the animated series will be as it impressed us lot at the end of the day this is a children's cartoon show.

Hense the problem I feel that the shows of today are insulting to kids intelligence wether its for kids or not and Marvel cartoons have grown over the years to be more than just a kids cartoon.

If the X-Men can get me into comics and it was way more intelligent than this, which kid in this day and age can't have the same thing, are kids dumber this days or what?

We have heard many times before it's a kids cartoon we know, that's the only argument people have to justify it's stupidity.

Arrogant people still feel that way for comics you know.

 

[Green Goblin]

Hense the problem I feel that the shows of today are insulting to kids intelligence wether its for kids or not and Marvel cartoons have grown over the years to be more than just a kids cartoon.

If the X-Men can get me into comics and it was way more intelligent than this, which kid in this day and age can't have the same thing, are kids dumber this days or what?

We have heard many times before it's a kids cartoon we know, that's the only argument people have to justify it's stupidity.

Arrogant people still feel that way for comics you know.

All children's cartoons are simple. This cartoon is simple and kids will like anything pretty much.

 

[russttrombone]

Just to remind you all you are arguing over which children's cartoon is better. The target audience for these shows is children and kids seem to like it and that is what matters even if it is not hard to get kids to like it. While the show may not be remembered in the way spectacular or the animated series will be as it impressed us lot at the end of the day this is a children's cartoon show.

i suppose

 

[Lord]

One Piece is a Japanese manga turned anime that is largelly targeted at kids, yet has a level of imagination and storytelling that far surpasses most of what they put on TV or cinema these days. When i was a kid i liked some depth in my cartoons and i was never a big fan of shows that just gave you the villains and heroes without any introduction and what actually got me away from superhero cartoons at the time was the fact i really disliked to see constant crossovers with heroes i didn't know or cared about.

Kids are simple, sure, but even as a kids show Spectacular was better at introducing the characters and the universe.

 

[Green Goblin]

I just think people here are a little harsh on it for the reason that I have stated.

For the record I don't like it either but I didn't care when spectacular got canceled as I don't really watch cartoons.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'm sorry, but Spectacular Spider-Man is a show that can easily appeal to both adults and kids. The argument that "its just a kids show" is so lazy and unthoughtful.

 

[bigdaddy313]

Yes we can be harsh unfortunately but it's due to the fact that Marvel can do better, we have seen it and with the new power that the finally have with a more stable network and budgeting, it's a very huge miss opportunity.

Marvel was great the way it was, all what they needed was the two things I mentioned finish, done, finito, end of story.

 

[TheVileOne]

Really? That's interesting. I'd like to know why you think the characterization of Peter, his vast supporting cast that SSM featured as well as the development of his villains were to being far superior on TAS. And I was a huge fan of that show as well back in those days by the way so I don't mean to disrespect it in any way. I see numerous distinctions amongst all three versions. US being the worst in IMO.

The 90's series had a vast supporting cast and well-developed villains. In fact, even Doctor Octopus had a great back story where he used to be Peter Parker's teacher and still had a measure of respect and sympathy for Peter. There were story arcs that lasted multiple seasons. There were crossovers with other cartoon shows and Spider-man interacted with basically the entire Marvel Universe.

A lot of things were set up that became important later. Felicia Hardy was a minor supporting character and love interest before she eventually became the Black Cat. The Black Cat's origins were also tied in together with Captain America who was brought into the series later. I also preferred the designs and look of the 90's show over Spectacular. Personally I hated the art style and character designs for that show. I thought it looked ridiculous.

I prefer a college-aged, slightly more mature Peter Parker which is what the 90's series did. Voice acting was great. Hank Azaria was a great Eddie Brock. And I'm sorry but we saw multiple characters have interesting fulfilling character arcs that never came to pass in Spectacular.

Yes we can be harsh unfortunately but it's due to the fact that Marvel can do better, we have seen it and with the new power that the finally have with a more stable network and budgeting, it's a very huge miss opportunity.

Marvel was great the way it was, all what they needed was the two things I mentioned finish, done, finito, end of story.

Marvel is great now. You are not the one to decide what is needed.

 

[bigdaddy313]

Marvel is great now. You are not the one to decide what is needed.

And you are I wonder?

I can decide what is needed, after all I got great suggestions. And no, Marvel is not great now, it's mediocre at this point.

It can be great in your eyes and I don't care what you think to be hornets this days cause after all you are too loyal to Marvel and Jeph Loab.

We as Marvel fans are more of a family to the brand and if something is wrong we will say it, it shows our true passion for the company.

It's like if my brother does something wrong I will tell him and we can solve it together because I love him, that's family.

So don't come here and tell me what I can and cannot decide, it's all our opinions in forums, if you can't understand that, then what are we doing here?

 

[Lord]

The 90's series had a vast supporting cast and well-developed villains. In fact, even Doctor Octopus had a great back story where he used to be Peter Parker's teacher and still had a measure of respect and sympathy for Peter. There were story arcs that lasted multiple seasons. There were crossovers with other cartoon shows and Spider-man interacted with basically the entire Marvel Universe.

So did Spectacular, it actually did it better and played with expectations, as shown with the Green Goblin storyline, instead of doing season long storylines of a certain element spectacular had a lot more going on with various storylines that would reappear when they had to. And i don't see how Dock Ock knowing and respecting Peter is nothing new to a villain, can make for interesting interactions but it's not that much of a deal.

Crossovers doesn't mean good, in fact they just take the focus out of the characters from the Spidey franchise, once in a while there's no problem but too much is too much.

A lot of things were set up that became important later. Felicia Hardy was a minor supporting character and love interest before she eventually became the Black Cat. The Black Cat's origins were also tied in together with Captain America who was brought into the series later.

Spectacular did that too. Venom, Green Goblin, Molten Man, etc.

I also preferred the designs and look of the 90's show over Spectacular. Personally I hated the art style and character designs for that show. I thought it looked ridiculous.

No offense but 90s Marvel Cartoons art style was aweful and painfully generic. Spectacular has a distinct and unique style. I'dd rather have something stylistic and interesting than something generic that ages quickly.

I prefer a college-aged, slightly more mature Peter Parker which is what the 90's series did. Voice acting was great. Hank Azaria was a great Eddie Brock. And I'm sorry but we saw multiple characters have interesting fulfilling character arcs that never came to pass in Spectacular.

i can agree with your first statement, it's about preferences, but not what you said about fullfilling character arcs coming to pass in Spectacular Spider-Man, if anything the show was about characters and interactions, it's only a shame it ended before it got a proper conclusion

 

[Green Goblin]

I'm sorry, but Spectacular Spider-Man is a show that can easily appeal to both adults and kids. The argument that "its just a kids show" is so lazy and unthoughtful.

But it doesn't though. 90% of the people who watch these shows are kids, possibly even 95%.

 

[bigdaddy313]

But it doesn't though. 90% of the people who watch these shows are kids, possibly even 95%.

Well actually, adults watch comic book cartoons more than the 5 to 10% you gave them, why do you think DC animation took the chance of making PG-13 animated movies, for those percentages? I don't think so.

But lets say you are right about the 90 to 95% then if that's the case whats the point of putting it to kids level of story telling when kids did not complain?

The problem is, this is what Jeph Loab thinks is best for kids when past shows have shown that it is not.

Star Wars The Clone Wars is a perfect example of a TV-PG show that appealed to all ages while lasting for five seasons. If it wasn't for Disney's acquisition of the company you would have seen another season.

But the awesome news is that the new show Star Wars Rebels is having the same ratings and using the same team with the inclusion of Greg Weisman coming to Disney XD.

And Marvel is best in that same category as a TV-PG rating show which happens to be like DC animation.

 

[Green Goblin]

I would like to see more animated films from Marvel. DC are whooping their asses at that.

 

[TheVileOne]

So did Spectacular, it actually did it better and played with expectations, as shown with the Green Goblin storyline, instead of doing season long storylines of a certain element spectacular had a lot more going on with various storylines that would reappear when they had to. And i don't see how Dock Ock knowing and respecting Peter is nothing new to a villain, can make for interesting interactions but it's not that much of a deal.

So what? If this is all about long-running story arcs which people say they want out of these shows, then the 90's show had it. It had various storylines that would reappear when they had to as well. Doctor Octopus having a personal relationship with Peter in that show made it a more compelling relationship.

Crossovers doesn't mean good, in fact they just take the focus out of the characters from the Spidey franchise, once in a while there's no problem but too much is too much.

I don't think it was too much. Seeing Spider-Man interacting with the X-Men was awesome. Tension between Spider-Man and mutants was interesting since Spider-Man was mutating at the time. The crossovers were all mostly supporting characters. The show also helped reintroduce the modern interpretation of Blade which got the ball rolling on that movie franchise. I still saw the focus as being on Spider-Man with the crossovers.

Spectacular did that too. Venom, Green Goblin, Molten Man, etc.

OK, so what? My point is what I liked about the 90's series and the other guy's post and suggestion that it didn't have these things when it did.

No offense but 90s Marvel Cartoons art style was aweful and painfully generic. Spectacular has a distinct and unique style. I'dd rather have something stylistic and interesting than something generic that ages quickly.

I still prefer the designs of the 90's show since they still look like superhero shows.

i can agree with your first statement, it's about preferences, but not what you said about fullfilling character arcs coming to pass in Spectacular Spider-Man, if anything the show was about characters and interactions, it's only a shame it ended before it got a proper conclusion

So was the 90's show. There were lots of great characters and interactions. Many characters changed and evolved over time in the show which is what I was pointing out. And I believe they did so in more fulfilling ways in the 90's series.