Comics What Do You Perfer, Spider-man Or Ultimate Spider-man?

[Upset Spideyfan]

In all fairness, we'll compare the first 100 issues of 616 Spidey to the first hundred of Ultimate Spidey.

616 by a landslide.

That sort of contest is like trying to watch a white guy rap. Very, very sad.

 

[storyteller]

I've have read about 88% of the spiderman titles ever released. 616 spiderman has had the advantage of being in many titles with many different writers through many different ages.

I feel that ultimate spiderman has so far been far better then 70% of those issues in its simple 100 issue life. Especially now i think ultimate spiderman is better written and has better art. It hasnt been forced to wipe the bottom of the barrel.


I believe that if marvel expanded is ultimate marvel universe and Started another ultimate spiderman comic series. The company could very well retire the 616 world in a decade. If the marvel series was a computer hard drive. Writers cant bear to wipe a good portion of crud out of their 616 hard drive and now its almost full. The ultimate universe is right now in control(No one is invincible and magic is still a wonderment)

 

[MyPokerShirt]

I'm sorry I've made you angry but thats just my opinion. I'm not bashing 616 by any means, I just perfer Ultimate Spider-Man. I collect 616 to Spider-Man India. I never said ''I love bendis'' I just said I perfer Ultimate version.

ok so i exaggerrated the anger. shh.lol.

its just u sed ultimate was more funny! as if ultimate spider-man was a real guy that honestly had a better sense of humour. its really just bendis. -- which means u'd prefer funnier writing on 616 spidey, which is a fair enuff point its just i think u shuda maybe phrased it better. theyre not real people! blame the writers!

 

[MyPokerShirt]

^storteller i dont agree. ultimate has peaked in sales. the 616 books are back on the up and such a comitment would lose marvel an army of fans. it'lll never happen. its like kicking every spidey fans inner child in the nads. the reaction would be awful.

 

[Fathermithras]

"In all fairness, we'll compare the first 100 issues of 616 Spidey to the first hundred of Ultimate Spidey.

616 by a landslide."

Unfortunatley, I'd disagree this statement. I love Spidey and All Stan's old stuff, but it's very very very simplistic and characters, mostly the villians, are ridiculously one sided in character. The only characters written well were Pete in the beginning, and maybe a few supporting characters. Though I'd have to say once JR SR got on, the stories became phenomenal. I'd have to tie it thus far, because of the way the characters work. People simply defend old spidey because they grew up with it. I've read probably... 90 percent of spidey's stuff, and alot of it is just plain ratcrap. It's been around so long they ran out of ideas.

"Ugh, I know. I can't believe they did that. I mean really, they were so happy together and it made a great story but now Peter's always like "there is nothing but darkness" about his life."

this is what I like actually. He's fifteen and horrible, terrible stuff has happened to him, and his old gf was a complete idiot about it. He went into depression, dumped her for constantly being a dip****, and only dated a girl who could actually survive his lifestyle, who was alot like him. The character dynamics are what get me.

 

[Fathermithras]

"ts just u sed ultimate was more funny! as if ultimate spider-man was a real guy that honestly had a better sense of humour. its really just bendis. -- which means u'd prefer funnier writing on 616 spidey, which is a fair enuff point its just i think u shuda maybe phrased it better. theyre not real people! blame the writers!"

.....
Are you kidding? ALL versions are the writing. What the comic is, is entirely the writing. If one is funnier, than that's the comic that's funnier.

 

[The Joker]

Unfortunatley, I'd disagree this statement. I love Spidey and All Stan's old stuff, but it's very very very simplistic and characters, mostly the villians, are ridiculously one sided in character. The only characters written well were Pete in the beginning, and maybe a few supporting characters.

Fortunately, I disagree with this statement.

You think Stan Lee's stuff is simplistic?? *Wow* Bendis' stuff is Stan Lee's stuff and turned into even more simplistic stuff, with characters who take about 5 panels just to say one thing:

Peter: "So..."
MJ: "So...."
Peter: "That's it??"
MJ: "That's it"
Peter: "We're over??"
MJ: "We're over"

*Another 3-4 panels of sad, woeful looks on Peter and MJ*

Oh the excitement. Bendis is a TPB ****e. He fills his pages with crap to make up the trades. He'd dedicate a whole page just for Spidey leaping off a roof or punching some thug. On Bendis' best day, his stuff cannot even compare to Stan's stuff on his worst day. Ultimate Spider-Man is feeding off the 616 stuff. All Bendis does is take it and put his own little spin on it. Sometimes he makes it worse than the 616 stuff [Carnage a mindless blob of goo, Rhino a midget in a robot suit, Harry a ******edly mute Hobgoblin].

As someone else said, 616 may be having a bad patch right now, but compare over 40 years of 616 stuff on multiple titles, to the 95 issues of USM, and 616 is the clear winner. Because none of USM's stuff is hugely original, and that series has had more than it's fair share of crappy arcs in it's less than 100 issue run.

 

[D-day]

I never collected any Spider-man titles until Ultimate came out. I then started collecting the 616 Spider-man so I could see how different it was. I'm gonna have to say that I prefer Ultimate Spidey at the moment. Especially with the Disassembled, The Other and the unmasking in Civil War story lines in the 616 books.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I'll always prefer the Ultimate Goblin to the original. I like the idea of Harry being the Hobgoblin and the mutant gobbie is much more freaky then a rubber mask. Also I hope they stick to that in the movies. I don't want Harry wearing the same outfit as Norman did.

I do prefer the 616 Rhino but I prefer the Ultimate Rhino's look. I also prefer 616 Carnage.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Fortunately, I disagree with this statement.

You think Stan Lee's stuff is simplistic?? *Wow* Bendis' stuff is Stan Lee's stuff and turned into even more simplistic stuff, with characters who take about 5 panels just to say one thing:

Peter: "So..."
MJ: "So...."
Peter: "That's it??"
MJ: "That's it"
Peter: "We're over??"
MJ: "We're over"

*Another 3-4 panels of sad, woeful looks on Peter and MJ*

Oh the excitement. Bendis is a TPB ****e. He fills his pages with crap to make up the trades. He'd dedicate a whole page just for Spidey leaping off a roof or punching some thug. On Bendis' best day, his stuff cannot even compare to Stan's stuff on his worst day. Ultimate Spider-Man is feeding off the 616 stuff. All Bendis does is take it and put his own little spin on it. Sometimes he makes it worse than the 616 stuff [Carnage a mindless blob of goo, Rhino a midget in a robot suit, Harry a ******edly mute Hobgoblin].

As someone else said, 616 may be having a bad patch right now, but compare over 40 years of 616 stuff on multiple titles, to the 95 issues of USM, and 616 is the clear winner. Because none of USM's stuff is hugely original, and that series has had more than it's fair share of crappy arcs in it's less than 100 issue run.

Lets be fair here. Bendis is NOT the only writer in current comics that writes for trade paper backs. A LOT of writers do. It's the trend.

And he does NOT write dialogue like that.

And in Stan Lee's day, if they had Trades...you bet your ass he'd be writing for the trade paper back too.

I agree to a certain extent with Fathermithras. Some of those early Spider-Man stories were very simplistic, and there is nothing wrong with that. It was a comic book back in th 60's...it was GOING to be simplistic. It was cheesy and corny, just like most of Stan Lee's stuff was, haha.

Though I think comparing the Spider-Man stories from the 60's and the early 70's with a new Spider-Man series that started in, I think, the year 2000 is a pretty far stretch. The times have drastically changed in the world and in the comic book industry. I really don't think there is much room for a comparison of the titles.

It's just asking which you prefer, heh. Not which one's first 100 issues was better than the other. Of course the original is going to be better because it's what paved the way for the Ultimate series to even be created!

 

[The Joker]

Lets be fair here. Bendis is NOT the only writer in current comics that writes for trade paper backs.

Maybe so, but we're comparing a hack like Bendis to the great Stan Lee. Stan was not a TPB ****e. Stan put about 10 panels of solid dialogue and action on each page of his comic books.

And he does NOT write dialogue like that.

Oh yes he does.

And in Stan Lee's day, if they had Trades...you bet your ass he'd be writing for the trade paper back too.

In your opinion. Stan is a man of quality, not quantity.

I agree to a certain extent with Fathermithras. Some of those early Spider-Man stories were very simplistic, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Simplistic how?? Was Spider-Man supposed to be involved in complex political plots or something??

He had his many obstacles in his private life, like Aunt May and her health, his school problems, his work problems, money problems, his girlfriend problems. Then he had his Spidey problems, with villains like Ock,GG,Mysterio,Electro etc, had constant problems with the public due to Jameson, not to mention being framed several times.

It was a comic book back in th 60's...it was GOING to be simplistic. It was cheesy and corny, just like most of Stan Lee's stuff was, haha.

Stan Lee's stuff is far more fresh and original than Bendis' stuff. Bendis is feeding off someone else's ideas.

Though I think comparing the Spider-Man stories from the 60's and the early 70's with a new Spider-Man series that started in, I think, the year 2000 is a pretty far stretch. The times have drastically changed in the world and in the comic book industry. I really don't think there is much room for a comparison of the titles.

There's something we agree on.

But Stan, on his first 100 issues of ASM, churned out timeless classics, stories of pure gold, and created characters that are timeless. I don't think Stan wrote a bad story during that period.

The same cannot be said of Bendis on USM.

It's just asking which you prefer, heh.

Well that's a broad question. Which do I prefer at the moment?? USM. Which do I prefer overall??? 616 Spider-Man.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Maybe so, but we're comparing a hack like Bendis to the great Stan Lee. Stan was not a TPB ****e. Stan put about 10 panels of solid dialogue and action on each page of his comic books.

Oh yes he does.

In your opinion. Stan is a man of quality, not quantity.

Simplistic how?? Was Spider-Man supposed to be involved in complex political plots or something??

He had his many obstacles in his private life, like Aunt May and her health, his school problems, his work problems, money problems, his girlfriend problems. Then he had his Spidey problems, with villains like Ock,GG,Mysterio,Electro etc, had constant problems with the public due to Jameson, not to mention being framed several times.

Stan Lee's stuff is far more fresh and original than Bendis' stuff. Bendis is feeding off someone else's ideas.

There's something we agree on.

But Stan, on his first 100 issues of ASM, churned out timeless classics, stories of pure gold, and created characters that are timeless. I don't think Stan wrote a bad story during that period.

The same cannot be said of Bendis on USM.

Well that's a broad question. Which do I prefer at the moment?? USM. Which do I prefer overall??? 616 Spider-Man.

Well, you are comparing Bendis and Stan Lee, I was not, haha. It's comparing apples and oranges, they have two completely different writing styles.

And, no, he doesn't write like that. People blow things out of proportion.

I didn't say Spider-Man was supposed to be involved in anything complex. The stories were simplistic. Guy gets powers, uses them for evil, and Spider-Man stops them. And in between Peter Parker tried balancing schoolwork and meeting girls. As I said, there was nothing wrong with that. And that it was probably SUPPOSED to be simplistic. Keeping it simple is the best way to go. I wasn't criticizing it, only agreeing with Fathermithras.

He's only taking ideas for his Ultimate Spider-Man. He DOES write other comic books, as you well know. And he's taking those ideas and turning them into something else. If he were blatantly ripping them off Norman Osborn wouldn't be a giant Goblin monster and Peter would have still been bitten by a radioactive spider as opposed to a genetically created spider in a lab. I thought that it was pretty well known that Ultimate Spider-Man was a reboot of Spider-Man for a new generation. I didn't recall seeing Bendis or anyone else saying that what was going on was original or ground breaking.

And every issue Stan Lee didn WAS NOT pure gold, haha. He created Spider-Man with Steve Ditko and many, many of the other classic Marvel characters, and for that he's definitely one of the Godfathers and true pioneers of the comic book industry, but every story he did WAS NOT gold.

And nobody said what Bendis has done is gold either. Every writer has a good and bad story. You're not going to hit a homerun with everybody all the time.

And trust me, if the Internet community existed back in the 60's you bet your ass that Stan Lee would have eventually got criticized to hell and back. There wasn't that immediate feedback like the comic book industry has now. So, in ways there are more advantages and disadvantages for comic creators than there was 45 odd years ago.

Nobody is saying Stan Lee is bad and Bendis is great. I think Fathermithras was simply being fair instead of praising every little thing that Stan Lee does.

 

[The Joker]

Well, you are comparing Bendis and Stan Lee, I was not, haha.

No, Fathermitras brought Stan into this. I was merely addressing it.

And, no, he doesn't write like that. People blow things out of proportion.

He does write like that. Everyone knows it. He really tries to make them sound like goofy teenagers.

I didn't say Spider-Man was supposed to be involved in anything complex. The stories were simplistic. Guy gets powers, uses them for evil, and Spider-Man stops them.

Hmmm that sounds like USM too. Gee what a surprise.

And in between Peter Parker tried balancing schoolwork and meeting girls. As I said, there was nothing wrong with that. And that it was probably SUPPOSED to be simplistic. Keeping it simple is the best way to go. I wasn't criticizing it, only agreeing with Fathermithras.

There is nothing more complex about USM, than there is with Stan's Spidey.

He's only taking ideas for his Ultimate Spider-Man. He DOES write other comic books, as you well know. And he's taking those ideas and turning them into something else. If he were blatantly ripping them off Norman Osborn wouldn't be a giant Goblin monster and Peter would have still been bitten by a radioactive spider as opposed to a genetically created spider in a lab.

I know. That's what I said. He takes someone elses idea, and tweaks it a bit. In some cases he makes it worse than the original counterpart.

I thought that it was pretty well known that Ultimate Spider-Man was a reboot of Spider-Man for a new generation. I didn't recall seeing Bendis or anyone else saying that what was going on was original or ground breaking.

They'd be laughed out of town if they did

And every issue Stan Lee didn WAS NOT pure gold, haha.

Maybe not to you.

He created Spider-Man with Steve Ditko and many, many of the other classic Marvel characters, and for that he's definitely one of the Godfathers and true pioneers of the comic book industry, but every story he did WAS NOT gold.

Again, not to you.

And nobody said what Bendis has done is gold either. Every writer has a good and bad story. You're not going to hit a homerun with everybody all the time.

As I said, Stan didn't do a bad story during his run. Can anyone name a bad story that Stan did??

And trust me, if the Internet community existed back in the 60's you bet your ass that Stan Lee would have eventually got criticized to hell and back. There wasn't that immediate feedback like the comic book industry has now. So, in ways there are more advantages and disadvantages for comic creators than there was 45 odd years ago.

That's pure speculation on your part. Like Stan turning into a TPB ****e. Your own unfounded theorey.

If Stan's stuff was regarded as bad, we'd see these opinions now. His stuff is still reviewed and commented on you know.

Nobody is saying Stan Lee is bad and Bendis is great.

I don't care if they say that. I'd just like to see the insane rationalization behind such a statement if they did.

I think Fathermithras was simply being fair instead of praising every little think that Stan Lee does.

The only beef I had with his remarks was the implication that Stan's stuff was simplistic with one sided characters, while USM is something far greater with richer stories and more well rounded characters.

 

[SpideyInATree]

No, Fathermitras brought Stan into this. I was merely addressing it.

He does write like that. Everyone knows it. He really tries to make them sound like goofy teenagers.

Hmmm that sounds like USM too. Gee what a surprise.

There is nothing more complex about USM, than there is with Stan's Spidey.

I know. That's what I said. He takes someone elses idea, and tweaks it a bit. In some cases he makes it worse than the original counterpart.

They'd be laughed out of town if they did

Maybe not to you.

Again, not to you.

As I said, Stan didn't do a bad story during his run. Can anyone name a bad story that Stan did??

That's pure speculation on your part. Like Stan turning into a TPB ****e. Your own unfounded theorey.

If Stan's stuff was regarded as bad, we'd see these opinions now. His stuff is still reviewed and commented on you know.

I don't care if they say that. I'd just like to see the insane rationalization behind such a statement if they did.

The only beef I had with his remarks was the implication that Stan's stuff was simplistic with one sided characters, while USM is something far greater with richer stories and more well rounded characters.

Well, he commented on someone elses post about Stan Lee so I guess you could technically say he didn't, someone else did.

Well, how about this? You find an issue Bendis has written where there is a dialogue that you posted in the post you made a few posts up, giving an example of Bendis dialogue, and I'll happily agree with you. Until then...people blow it out of proportion because he does things differently.

I didn't say that Ultimate Spider-Man was more complex than the early Amazing Spider-Man issues. If you read Fathermithras post he says that earlier in the series that it was simplistic. And when Romita Sr. came on things really picked up. I believe that Romita Sr took over around # 36 or so? I'm not completely sure.

Yeah, he takes the ideas in ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. And as I said, he writes OTHER comic books too.

I can name one really bad story that he did off the top of my head, # 100 with the six arms. My God that was a bad story, haha.

And, yes, it's pure speculation on my part, what else would it be? It's speculation on your part to say that that's not how it would have been. The comic business has trends. There were trends in the 60's, in the 70's, in the 80's, and on and on and on. Many writers write for trade paper backs these days because they're POPULAR. People buy them instead of the single comics sometimes.

And MANY writers get criticized A LOT on Internet message boards. And if they existed in the 60's you don't think Stan Lee would have gotten his balls busted by some people?

And he wasn't implying that. That's not what I got out of his post. He was just saying that he likes the way Ultimate Spider-Man is written and how Peter Parker is handled. He just said that the very early Spidey stories were simplistic and picked up steam after Romita Sr. hit the book.

Not every comic book fan, or Spider-Man fan for that matter, is going to think that everything Stan Lee does is absolutely amazing and gold. As you said to me, Maybe YOU think all his stories are pure gold. But I don't. A very creative and brilliant guy. He did write a lot of great stories...but he also wrote duds as well...just like any writer would.

 

[The Joker]

Well, he commented on someone elses post about Stan Lee so I guess you could technically say he didn't, someone else did.

Really?? If that's the case then my bad.

Well, how about this? You find an issue Bendis has written where there is a dialogue that you posted in the post you made a few posts up, giving an example of Bendis dialogue, and I'll happily agree with you. Until then...people blow it out of proportion because he does things differently.

I'll scan a pic later So many to choose from

I didn't say that Ultimate Spider-Man was more complex than the early Amazing Spider-Man issues.

I know YOU didn't.

If you read Fathermithras post he says that earlier in the series that it was simplistic. And when Romita Sr. came on things really picked up. I believe that Romita Sr took over around # 36 or so? I'm not completely sure.

That is still an invalid opinion IMO. Stan had plenty of complications in Spidey's life before Romita Sr came aboard.

And Romita Sr joined ASM in issue 39, the Goblin and Spidey unmasked issue. A classic.

Yeah, he takes the ideas in ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. And as I said, he writes OTHER comic books too.

And?? Stan wrote the FF, Hulk, and other heros. What's your point??

I can name one really bad story that he did off the top of my head, # 100 with the six arms. My God that was a bad story, haha.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I've never seen any complaints about that one.

And I thought you supported bizarre changes with Spidey

And, yes, it's pure speculation on my part, what else would it be? It's speculation on your part to say that that's not how it would have been.

Like I said, Stan's stuff still get's reviewed and commented on these days. You ever see anyone on any message boards or other sites bad mouthing his writing on Spidey??

And MANY writers get criticized A LOT on Internet message boards.

True.

But in the last couple of years we've had major reason to criticize.

And if they existed in the 60's you don't think Stan Lee would have gotten his balls busted by some people?

I'm sure he would. Though nowhere near as much as today's writers do.

Spidey is Stan's character. He created him. He can take Spidey where ever he wants. And he kept Spidey exciting and true to character over his 100+ issues on ASM. Likewise with the villains.

And he wasn't implying that. That's not what I got out of his post. He was just saying that he likes the way Ultimate Spider-Man is written and how Peter Parker is handled. He just said that the very early Spidey stories were simplistic and picked up steam after Romita Sr. hit the book.

Well again, I don't see it. What has USM's Peter done that 616 Peter hasn't, other than have the whole world and his mother know his identity in less than a year of being Spider-Man??

Not every comic book fan, or Spider-Man fan for that matter, is going to think that everything Stan Lee does is absolutely amazing and gold.

No, but it's definitely a general consensus.

As you said to me, Maybe YOU think all his stories are pure gold. But I don't. A very creative and brilliant guy. He did write a lot of great stories...but he also wrote duds as well...just like any writer would.

As I said, different strokes for different folks.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Really?? If that's the case then my bad.



I'll scan a pic later So many to choose from



I know YOU didn't.



That is still an invalid opinion IMO. Stan had plenty of complications in Spidey's life before Romita Sr came aboard.

And Romita Sr joined ASM in issue 39, the Goblin and Spidey unmasked issue. A classic.



And?? Stan wrote the FF, Hulk, and other heros. What's your point??



Different strokes for different folks I guess. I've never seen any complaints about that one.

And I thought you supported bizarre changes with Spidey



Like I said, Stan's stuff still get's reviewed and commented on these days. You ever see anyone on any message boards or other sites bad mouthing his writing on Spidey??



True.

But in the last couple of years we've had major reason to criticize.



I'm sure he would. Though nowhere near as much as today's writers do.

Spidey is Stan's character. He created him. He can take Spidey where ever he wants. And he kept Spidey exciting and true to character over his 100+ issues on ASM. Likewise with the villains.



Well again, I don't see it. What has USM's Peter done that 616 Peter hasn't, other than have the whole world and his mother know his identity in less than a year of being Spider-Man??



No, but it's definitely a general consensus.



As I said, different strokes for different folks.

Eh. I don't like that "invalid opinion" comment. Who are you to say that his opinion is invalid. It's what he sees and what he likes. And I happened to agree with him on his point.

Yes, different strokes for different folks. You seem to HATE Bendis and Ultimate Spider-Man, haha. And I enjoy Bendis' work on Ultimate Spider-Man.

Just because he said "simplistic", which in all honesty is a word I wouldn't have used, doesn't mean he's saying they're "not good". As I said, the best Spider-Man stories are the ones that were simple and to the point. But I'm not sure, maybe he did mean they weren't good. And if that's the case I WON'T agree with him anymore.

But my view is that most of those early issues, with Steve Ditko, were simple...straight...and to the point. It was a new character. He was dynamic and different than everything that was coming out during the times. In fact, it was the entire Marvel universe, really. But Spider-Man stands out because he was the down to earth superhero. He was someone everybody could identify with. Not saying the stories were bad but it was just simple stuff.

And about the time Romita Sr. came on board things really picked up, with Norman Osborn learning Spider-Man's identity and then it was a very long plot thread later whether Norman remembered or didn't remember. A little more complex storytelling than earlier in the series.

As I said, merely agreeing with the statement. Myself, and MAYBE Fathermithras, didn't say one of blatantly better than the other. Or Bendis was better than Stan. I didn't get that out of his post either. Just saying that everything Stan did wasn't gold.

And his old stories get reviewed and get great praise because he CREATED it, as you said. Bendis didn't create Spider-Man. He's just rehashing ideas for a new generation. I didn't recall Bendis saying that what he was doing on Ultimate Spider-Man was better than Stan's stuff. Or that it was going to change the world or anything, haha.

And does Bendis get praise for his Powers book, a book that he created on his own? Yes, very much so.

But to say that everything Stan did and does is gold. Well, that's you're opinion and stance. I do not share that same view. However, people get criticized here for enjoying EVERYTHING Marvel. But isn't praising every little thing Stan does on the same level?

 

[Doc Destruction]

Damn, why isn't there an option for Spider-Man up until 1990?

 

[The Joker]

Eh. I don't like that "invalid opinion" comment. Who are you to say that his opinion is invalid. It's what he sees and what he likes. And I happened to agree with him on his point.

I find it invalid because there really is nothing simplistic about Stan's Spider-Man, that is not found in USM. What is so much more complex about USM??

Yes, different strokes for different folks. You seem to HATE Bendis and Ultimate Spider-Man, haha. And I enjoy Bendis' work on Ultimate Spider-Man.

I don't hate Bendis or USM. USM is the only title of Bendis' I read. It has hits and misses in it's stories. Not great, but not terrible. It's a good title.

Just because he said "simplistic", which in all honesty is a word I wouldn't have used, doesn't mean he's saying they're "not good".

He said he found most of the characters "ridiculously one sided". That doesn't say good to me.

And about the time Romita Sr. came on board things really picked up, with Norman Osborn learning Spider-Man's identity and then it was a very long plot thread later whether Norman remembered or didn't remember. A little more complex storytelling than earlier in the series.

Again, I don't agree with that. Before Goblin unmasked we had stuff like the Crime Master, the whole Big Man/Fred Foswell debacle, Betty's brother being murdered and her blaming Spider-Man, the Sinister Six, the Master Planner arc etc.

Things were quite interesting before that.

As I said, merely agreeing with the statement. Myself, and MAYBE Fathermithras, didn't say one of blatantly better than the other. Or Bendis was better than Stan. I didn't get that out of his post either. Just saying that everything Stan did wasn't gold.

As I said, his remarks implied Bendis' stuff is far better written and the characters are more well rounded than Stan's were. Which is ridiculous since all these characters are based off Stan's characters.

And his old stories get reviewed and get great praise because he CREATED it, as you said.

Are you trying to say people will not criticize Stan's work, even if they don't like it, simply because he created Spidey??

Bendis didn't create Spider-Man. He's just rehashing ideas for a new generation. I didn't recall Bendis saying that what he was doing on Ultimate Spider-Man was better than Stan's stuff. Or that it was going to change the world or anything, haha.

Nobody said he did say that.....

And does Bendis get praise for his Powers book, a book that he created on his own? Yes, very much so.

Good for him.

Never read it though.

But to say that everything Stan did and does is gold. Well, that's you're opinion and stance. I do not share that same view. However, people get criticized here for enjoying EVERYTHING Marvel. But isn't praising every little thing Stan does on the same level?

Everything Stan wrote in ASM is considered classic. Well written, rich with wit,humour,drama,and action.

You disliked his six arm Spidey story right?? It lasted like what, two issues or so?? Can you say why you disliked it, and yet why you defend stuff like his new costume, the stingers and totem stuff etc??

Btw, just out of curiosity, what's with the constant "haha"?? Is it a nervous laugh or something??

 

[JackSkellington]

Right now, without a doubt, it's Ultimate Spider-Man for me.

 

[Happenstance]

Overall I prefer 616 Spider-Man but currently its Ultimate Spider-Man easily

 

[Kool-Aid]

its like kicking every spidey fans inner child in the nads.

Why do so many people on the Spidey boards make analogys where something bad happens to the nad, sack, balls ect ect...

 

[Dyeathrose]

Well, how about this? You find an issue Bendis has written where there is a dialogue that you posted in the post you made a few posts up, giving an example of Bendis dialogue, and I'll happily agree with you. Until then...people blow it out of proportion because he does things differently.

I know this yours and Doc Ock's debate, but I do want to add that the analogy made about Bendis' writing isn't that far off from how he does tend to write Ultimate Spider-man, which at times feels more like fluff to keep the book boosted up in the number of pages. I remember reading through what limited issues I do have, and wonder why there were really so many one-word bubbles or wordless pannels that I felt didn't need to be there. (Or I'm just tainted by my long-winded writers, because there's always that )

No matter how high I do put Stan Lee on the writer's totem pole, I know that comparing to the here and now, his choice of dialogue does seem cheesy, but really, for me it's the same as how things are written now. When you pick up any comic, generally you can tell vaguely what point in time your in. I remember flipping through one of Gambit's limited series and seeing a reference to the Backstreet Boys, and kind of had to think a moment. Stan's dialogue has the same slang and references that Bendis uses now.

Which, when trying to compare USM to the 616, no matter how much I disagree with what's going on now, 616 beats it out, and not even with anything to do with the writing. There wouldn't be a USM to draw on were it not for most of the Silver Age comics, which was the basis for what they started with.

 

[War Party]

Currently Ultimate Spider-Man

 

[MyPokerShirt]

"ts just u sed ultimate was more funny! as if ultimate spider-man was a real guy that honestly had a better sense of humour. its really just bendis. -- which means u'd prefer funnier writing on 616 spidey, which is a fair enuff point its just i think u shuda maybe phrased it better. theyre not real people! blame the writers!"

.....
Are you kidding? ALL versions are the writing. What the comic is, is entirely the writing. If one is funnier, than that's the comic that's funnier.

no, u misunderstand. he's asking which spider-man is better -- as in the characters. ultimate spider-mans sense of humour is supposed to be the same as 616 spider-man's sesne of humour. in fact it is, only bendis is writing better jokes than any core writers have done in ages. theyre not real people so if a worse writer came to the ultimate books and bendis went to 616 then he'd find 616 spidey funnier. get me? hmm im thinking u probs dont. and quote the proper way next time or its hard to understand what you're on about.

 

[MyPokerShirt]

"ts just u sed ultimate was more funny! as if ultimate spider-man was a real guy that honestly had a better sense of humour. its really just bendis. -- which means u'd prefer funnier writing on 616 spidey, which is a fair enuff point its just i think u shuda maybe phrased it better. theyre not real people! blame the writers!"

.....
Are you kidding? ALL versions are the writing. What the comic is, is entirely the writing. If one is funnier, than that's the comic that's funnier.

yeah reading what u sed again you're really not making much sense. in fact i think ur backing up what i sed, u just dont realise it. he phrased it as if ultimate spider-man and 616 spider-man were two distinct people with two distinct personalities and sense of humour. i think they have the same sense of humour and he shoulda sed that bendis' writing is funnier and we need more funny writing on the core 616 books to make them compete with ultimate again. spideys personality is supposed to be the funny-guy no matter the writer but just HOW FUNNY totally depends on the who and where of the now. ahem, im rambling... it seems like such a small point now, but i get easily offended with people liking a relaunched book like this.

soon bendis will havta come up with totally new characters and plotlines to make the book float. i mean, he's already up to the clone saga. i wonder how popular ultimate will be then, cos remember not all the ultimate lines have had as much success as spider-man..

And further more retellings of storylines have the ability to look at fan reaction and hindsight. if bendis does "the other" he'd improve on it, cos he has hindsight. wait til he does something original and innovative. we all know how controversial bendis can be (avengers dissasembled, house of M). wait til he brings that to ultimate.