The Amazing Spider-Man Which Incarnation of Spider-Man?

[TheSlag]

everyone seems to be giving USM a rough ride but let's be honest here if I wanted to read lee/ditko again I would read lee/ditko. bendis needed to make changes otherwise they may as well have reprinted the 60's comics

I thought the point was to see the greatness that was ASM(lee/ditko) brought to the big screen. Which Raimi's verse did not achieve.

 

[saiyanaida]

Well you can't blame Sony for using Ultimate Spiderman as the source, since apart from the movies, the only spiderman that Sony's target audience recognizes is Ultimate. The original USM ran for 2000 - 2009, it created 133 issues, and a video game that was named the best Spiderman game ever.

 

[DACMAN]

Most of the good centered around Peter himself.

Bendis did Peter perfectly.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well you can't blame Sony for using Ultimate Spiderman as the source, since apart from the movies, the only spiderman that Sony's target audience recognizes is Ultimate. The original USM ran for 2000 - 2009, it created 133 issues, and a video game that was named the best Spiderman game ever.

By who, out of curiosity? I liked the game, but I would say SM2's game is my favorite. USM is similar, but there are aspects of the SM2 game I enjoy more as far as gameplay. The Venom levels in USM suck.

Bendis did Peter perfectly.

Bendis's Peter was very good, and this is where I hope they pull most of the USM elements from. I'd like to see 616 villains and Gwen Stacy as the main girl, but with USM's quips/humor. This is what I am hoping for. I think we'll get USM Aunt May, though.

 

[TheSlag]

I expect the Reboot to concentrate more on aspects of the Ultimate series. For example, more character development, as evidenced by how long they took to develop (and get us to know) Uncle Ben, prior to his death.

More character development.. ALWAYS a good thing.. IF they stay true to the basic aspects of the character.

But, I also expect the stories to stay more true to ASM.

 

[darkseid26]

Yeah. It was the cartoon where...

Spider-man doesn't punch any villains

Constantly uses stock footage

Spider-man yells MARRRRRRRRRRRRRY JAAAAAAAAAAAANE

Doc Ock is nothing but a lackey to Kingpin

Norman Osborn is nothing but a whiny little *****

Where people get sucked into portals

Almost every story is tied to Kingpin

Almost every single action Spidey took needed some explanation. No matter how obvious or mundane, through completely annoying voice-over narration.

Doesn't mention the words die and kill

Where the word Insidious is used instead of Six

Where Spider-man turns into a Spider monster that pukes acid

Where Carnage absorbs people's life forces to revive a mystical demon

Where Electro is the Red Skull's son

Where Morbius is treated like a major villain and had more appearances than some of Spidey's major villians.


Yeah it was the best cartoon all right.....

lol, i just realized all of what you posted is true, can't believe it. still love the show thou

 

[sauronthegreat]

If we talk about a source from which the new films should draw it would be Spectacular Spider-Man in my opinion.
Indisputably the best adaptation of the characters to date. I hope the new team will look up at some aspects of this spectacular show and get an inspiration for a good character development and rich universe of characters and stories, and not just rely on a villain gone bad whose sole purpose is to kidnap MJ in the end.
For instance within 24 amazing episodes and spectacular stories a girl was kidnapped just twice, once because she was Spidey's love and second because it fit perfectly into the story of the episode. In previous films, which were 3, MJ was kidnapped 3 time serving as the climax of the films.. that is a bad storytelling.
I hope the new films will not follow "the all about a girl" path.

 

[Rincewind]

I voted for the SSM incarnation, although I like the Ultimate one as well. Anyway, we will probably get something pretty close to the Ultimate incarnation, so there's that.

 

[Spidey_62]

The best interpretations of Spidey out there have to be either the classic Lee/Ditko vision for the character or The Spectacular Spider-Man. Love the movies as well, but I've grown to like Ultimate less and less over the years.

 

[SpeterMan3]

Well you can't blame Sony for using Ultimate Spiderman as the source, since apart from the movies, the only spiderman that Sony's target audience recognizes is Ultimate. The original USM ran for 2000 - 2009, it created 133 issues, and a video game that was named the best Spiderman game ever.

Just because it ran more recently doesn't necessarily mean that this age group isn't acquainted with the older stuff.

 

[saiyanaida]

Just because it ran more recently doesn't necessarily mean that this age group isn't acquainted with the older stuff.

Actually logic dictates it does

 

[SpeterMan3]

Actually, experience dictates it doesn't.

 

[DACMAN]

Actually Ultimate Spider-Man is awesome. So there.

 

[A&W]

stan lee ditko era and gradually move it towards Pete married to MJ. The ultimate spider-man really worries me. I hate the way the villains were done.

 

[The Joker]

Actually logic dictates it does

No, it doesn't. Stan Lee's stuff was 30 years before my time when I first got into Spider-Man. It's more logical that any new fans of this generation feed off the movies or the SSM cartoon. The hugely popular Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon is based off the Stan Lee era.

 

[©KAW]

Minus the actual representation of the characters:
- Peter little like ASM Peter
- MJ nothing like ASM MJ
- Aunt May being Spidey's biggest fan
Missing characters:
- Gwen Stacy thrown in cameos nothing more
- Capt Stacy thrown in cameo
- Betty (no development)
- Flash (throw away)
- firends to Peter/MJ (non existent)
ALL about ONE Girl (NEVER in ASM)
Villains (ALL personal connections to Peter, ALL knowing his identity)
Villains (Goblin, and Goblin 2, jokes of costumes)
Villain Development (love bitten, poetry reading Ock : Ock goes Good, Ock Da Tentacles Made me Do it, Venom (throw away character by Raimi)

ETC. ETC.

Yep. Totally based on. NOT!!!

If I could, I would email this post to Marc Webb, and tell him to avoid this at all cost, just a few things Raimi got wrong from a much, much longer list.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

Ultimate Spider-Man was more than likely mentioned in interviews as so people would have a point of reference for the teenaged Peter Parker's life in the new film. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[saiyanaida]

Ultimate Spider-Man was more than likely mentioned in interviews as so people would have a point of reference for the teenaged Peter Parker's life in the new film. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's not forget that Sony told the hollywood reporter that Raimi films were based on the 60's spiderman, but the reboot will be based on Ultimate


Also the creator and writer of Ultimate Spiderman was at at a staff meeting they had

 

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by TheSlag
Minus the actual representation of the characters:
- Peter little like ASM Peter
- MJ nothing like ASM MJ
- Aunt May being Spidey's biggest fan
Missing characters:
- Gwen Stacy thrown in cameos nothing more
- Capt Stacy thrown in cameo
- Betty (no development)
- Flash (throw away)
- firends to Peter/MJ (non existent)
ALL about ONE Girl (NEVER in ASM)
Villains (ALL personal connections to Peter, ALL knowing his identity)
Villains (Goblin, and Goblin 2, jokes of costumes)
Villain Development (love bitten, poetry reading Ock : Ock goes Good, Ock Da Tentacles Made me Do it, Venom (throw away character by Raimi)

ETC. ETC.

Yep. Totally based on. NOT!!!

what about batman? does that get a 'pass' despite being totally different

 

[TheSlag]

what about batman? does that get a 'pass' despite being totally different

I am not a Batman fan, not to the point I am with Spider-Man. I enjoy Nolan's versions (TDK moreso that BB, thought BB was actually pretty weak and have said so), as I did not grow up reading Batman like I did Spider-Man.

That said, even with BB I found a more serious/realistic approach to Nolan's Batman than with Raimi's Spider-Man. I found much more fleshed out bielevable characters in Nolan's verse. I found a Director with a vision, a true vision, mabe one that does not match up exaclty to the comics (again, did not read them so do not know), but one who was NOT afraid to tell a serious story involving richly developed characters, that one could vest themselves into.

A director who was NOT afraid to kill off some characters, showing that Yes Virginia.. There is a BIG BAD WOLF at times. That the price one pays for "being a hero" sometimes is the ultimate price for those you love.

And YES, that is Spider-Man's birthright. And it SHOULD have been on the big screen.

IF Raimi/Sony had done that.. a LOT of the other could of been "forgiven".

 

[DACMAN]

No, it doesn't. Stan Lee's stuff was 30 years before my time when I first got into Spider-Man. It's more logical that any new fans of this generation feed off the movies or the SSM cartoon. The hugely popular Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon is based off the Stan Lee era.

Everything Spider-Man related can be traced back to Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. I'd say the show is more based on the Ultimate comics though. The clothing, Peter's personality, a younger Aunt May, Eddie Brock being a childhood friend, Doc Connors being a college professior, (the movie did this AFTER Ultimate although the animated series from the 90's might have done it first.) The tone of the entire show is much more Ultimate Spider-Man than 616 Lee/Ditko. But there are certainly Lee/Ditko things in the show. The villains for one are much more 616 than Ultimate with the exception of Venom, and maybe Kraven.

If you want a true Lee/Ditko cartoon, the 60's Spider-Man cartoon even used the same shots and panels from the comics but just animated them. But if you ask me the 60's cartoon sucked even though it was based on something so amazing.

 

[©KAW]

I am not a Batman fan, not to the point I am with Spider-Man. I enjoy Nolan's versions (TDK moreso that BB, thought BB was actually pretty weak and have said so), as I did not grow up reading Batman like I did Spider-Man.

That said, even with BB I found a more serious/realistic approach to Nolan's Batman than with Raimi's Spider-Man. I found much more fleshed out bielevable characters in Nolan's verse. I found a Director with a vision, a true vision, mabe one that does not match up exaclty to the comics (again, did not read them so do not know), but one who was NOT afraid to tell a serious story involving richly developed characters, that one could vest themselves into.

A director who was NOT afraid to kill off some characters, showing that Yes Virginia.. There is a BIG BAD WOLF at times. That the price one pays for "being a hero" sometimes is the ultimate price for those you love.

And YES, that is Spider-Man's birthright. And it SHOULD have been on the big screen.

IF Raimi/Sony had done that.. a LOT of the other could of been "forgiven".

Actually, David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) had pitch that idea as a potential director for the first Spider-Man film, with the 'Gwen Stacy Story Arc' the night she died. And Sony turned him and the story arc down. What fools. That would have been the start of a very solid Stan Lee and Ditko blueprint, made by a damn good and serious director.

Sam Raimi offered the cute and juvenile Care Bear version with a Power Ranger Green Goblin and Sony ran with it...cheese and all.

 

[DACMAN]

I am not a Batman fan, not to the point I am with Spider-Man. I enjoy Nolan's versions (TDK moreso that BB, thought BB was actually pretty weak and have said so), as I did not grow up reading Batman like I did Spider-Man.

That said, even with BB I found a more serious/realistic approach to Nolan's Batman than with Raimi's Spider-Man. I found much more fleshed out bielevable characters in Nolan's verse. I found a Director with a vision, a true vision, mabe one that does not match up exaclty to the comics (again, did not read them so do not know), but one who was NOT afraid to tell a serious story involving richly developed characters, that one could vest themselves into.

A director who was NOT afraid to kill off some characters, showing that Yes Virginia.. There is a BIG BAD WOLF at times. That the price one pays for "being a hero" sometimes is the ultimate price for those you love.

And YES, that is Spider-Man's birthright. And it SHOULD have been on the big screen.

IF Raimi/Sony had done that.. a LOT of the other could of been "forgiven".

Though I did enjoy the movies, for me there was just too much cheese and not enough character development. Like the fact Robbie has less screen time than Raimi's brother. And everytime Hoffman was on screen it was just to get a quick laugh smothered in cheese. I'd rather all that cheese time given to his brother and a character that wasn't even in the comics be given to JJJ or Robbie to better flesh out their characters.

All three movies had so much nepotism in them from Raimi it pissed me off. His brother helped write the third film, and another brother played a character in all three, while ANOTHER brother and all his kids and nephews and nieces all had camoes. It got really obnoxious.

 

[TheSlag]

Actually, David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) had pitch that idea as a potential director for the first Spider-Man film, with the 'Gwen Stacy Story Arc' the night she died. And Sony turned him and the story arc down. What fools. That would have been the start of a very solid Stan Lee and Ditko blueprint, made by a damn good and serious director.

Sam Raimi offered the cute and juvenile Care Bear version with a Power Ranger Green Goblin and Sony ran with it...cheese and all.

Yes, it's a pity that Fincher did not get the job, I would of loved to have seen that. And as I have said, Sony has a lion's share of the blame in my book along with Raimi.

The problem with Raimi is 1) he did not have the balls to stand up to Sony (til now perhaps? debatable IMO), and tell them to F-Off and let him do his version of Spider-Man. Or better issue is.. did he? and this "Care Bear" versio was the result.

2) just because you do NOT do the Night Gwen Stacy died, does NOT give you permission to bastardize the other characters and storylines.

I am soo tired of the Kiddie Crap.. Care Bears and Smurfs dancing BS.. in Spider-Man, while other *cough*cough* Dark *cough* Knight*cough* gets a real ****ing Director. :

 

[TheSlag]

Though I did enjoy the movies, for me there was just too much cheese and not enough character development. Like the fact Robbie has less screen time than Raimi's brother. And everytime Hoffman was on screen it was just to get a quick laugh smothered in cheese. I'd rather all that cheese time given to his brother and a character that wasn't even in the comics be given to JJJ or Robbie to better flesh out their characters.

All three movies had so much nepotism in them from Raimi it pissed me off. His brother helped write the third film, and another brother played a character in all three, while ANOTHER brother and all his kids and nephews and nieces all had camoes. It got really obnoxious.

I totally agree. And what makes it worse, is when he gives them the cheesiets lines at the MOST CRITICAL TIMEs in the damn movies. "Film's Exxxxxxtra..." at the final battle (although I hated that final battle so much by that point, it was almost a relief).

And throwing JJ into the damn mix along, just turned JJ into a farce of a character. JJ should hate Spider-Man (it would be NICE to have actually fleshed out his character a little to KNOW WHY) but HE SHOULD NOT come off as a Grade A clown. :