Who here besides me thinks this is going to suck?

[Ratcrawler]

I guess there's just something to be said about the original He Man and that is that it was, in fact, original. Sure, it's sole purpose was to market anatomically questionable action figures but considering it pretty much came out of nowhere in the 80s, it demanded attention. But in this new millenium, we had action/adventure/scifi/fantasy cartoons out the wazoo ranging from teenaged superheroes to to superpowered pets. He-Man, didn't really even seem to have a comprehensible backstory. They're the Masters of the Universe but they pretty much sPend all their time f-ing around on Eternia which is...a planet? And they all have dumb powers but rely on a strong guy with a magic sword to save them from a purple skeleton whose just sort of evil for the hell of it.

 

[spida-man]

I think this cartoon is going to rock, i am a fan of the 90's series to, but i think this one has potentia and could possibly be better than the 90's series, and yea the series is still based off of Ultimate spider-Man but at the same time it is based off of the original comics. it's like a mixture. honestly some ppl have such stupid pissy fits everytime something new is being done.

 

[UltimateJustin]

I guess there's just something to be said about the original He Man and that is that it was, in fact, original. Sure, it's sole purpose was to market anatomically questionable action figures but considering it pretty much came out of nowhere in the 80s, it demanded attention. But in this new millenium, we had action/adventure/scifi/fantasy cartoons out the wazoo ranging from teenaged superheroes to to superpowered pets. He-Man, didn't really even seem to have a comprehensible backstory. They're the Masters of the Universe but they pretty much sPend all their time f-ing around on Eternia which is...a planet? And they all have dumb powers but rely on a strong guy with a magic sword to save them from a purple skeleton whose just sort of evil for the hell of it.

The new toys were sexually gratifying though.

 

[Ratcrawler]

Mmmmm...Teela...

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

So basically what you're saying is; you expect the movies and toons to follow and translate the comics to the letter, basically telling the exact same story over and over again...just in different forms of media?

*Smacks head* Ok, let me try and explaining myself in lamens' terms: The Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man 1 is pretty faithful to the comics. The only things that were changed was GG's suit along with not giving Pete webshooters (which in my opinion wouldn't have worked.)

Spider-Man 2- Changes were making Ock sympathetic, not giving him an accent, not giving him a suit (which would've been dumb to see on the movie screen) but overall the movie was faithful to the comics.

Spider-Man 3 - Changes were made to the black suit, changes were made to Venom's suit, Sandman stayed the same but was made more sympathetic and given a backstory and some inner angst that is all because of a run-in with Pete's Uncle, but overall these changes, the movie was once again faithful to the comics.

Like I said, I don't mind few changes to things but like with TDK, the two villains as of now just don't do it for me in the look. Heath has accomplished capturing Joker's whimsy spirit, personality, humor, and violent streak but the look is what gets my goat. Nolan says they wanted to make him as the makeup is deteoriating and always runny to show that even Joker's soul is deteoriating inside him; as if he is sooo far gone.

Great, that's fine if you want to go with some symmetry and symbolism, but still nonetheless why the makeup anyways? That's what always worried me at the end of "BB"---How can you redo The Joker? The plot and story they got for him works but Joker HAS and ALWAYS will be a perma-white serial-killing mass-murdering-thief and anarchist who plays by his own rules and reasons. I would've been A.O.K. with Nolan making him just an albino but he didn't even do that. Now, we get a guy who looks like he designed his own Halloween costume or looks like an emo-Crow-looking clown.

Then, there's Two-Face. He's suppose to be "split right down the middle." One side whole, fleshy, and preserved; the other horribly burnt that it's beyond repair. Now, we get a Two-Face that is burnt on one side but not "split right down the middle." Those two sides of him are suppose to be his yin and yang, his black and white, his id and ego, his Jekyll and Hyde, yet the burns aren't full so it looks like his yin is overpowering his yang. I'm sure Aaron however will capture like Heath his spirit, personality, etc. but still the look will just not do it for me. I'll still enjoy the film overall but those two characters will just not be the same for me.

With that being said, getting back to the subject, I can handle changes but my heart will always be faithful to the comics. I know alot of you will like this show and that's fine, good for you, but me I've made my mind up.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Sounds like it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

[/B][/B]

I think this cartoon is going to rock, i am a fan of the 90's series to, but i think this one has potentia and could possibly be better than the 90's series, and yea the series is till based off of Ultimate Spider-Man but at the same time it is based off of the original comics. it's like a mixture. honestly some ppl have such stupid pissy fits everytime something new is being done.

Actually, it's not really based off of Ultimate Spider-Man that much. There's only a few things in the show that may have aspects from Ultimate Spider-Man, but overall, the show is defenitley mainly based of of the classic Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita Issues.

 

[Dangerous]

I don't like the art direction on this new show, Spidey's head look like a frikin beachball.
I shall however reserve judgment until I have watched a few episodes.

 

[Visionary]

So basically what you're saying is; you expect the movies and toons to follow and translate the comics to the letter, basically telling the exact same story over and over again...just in different forms of media?

Most of the time, Marvel simply doesn't do that. Marvel loves change, fans don't. I just find it hilarious that fanboys of Marvel for years, sometimes decades, hasn't figured this out yet. You don't like it, don't buy or watch it, either way, Marvel ain't changing what they like to do with their characters. Notice that I said "THEIR" characters.

 

[diespinne]

I don't like the art direction on this new show, Spidey's head look like a frikin beachball.
I shall however reserve judgment until I have watched a few episodes.

Nah... but your avatar looks like a beachball!

 

[The Villain]

As long as the writers don't allow Kingpin to grace every episode then I think this series will be fine.

The Kingpin was my only dislike of the 90's eps and that one episode where he threatened Doc Ock to work with him that made me really angry.

Please don't let him be the main enemy of nearly every episode I thank you storywriters.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Most of the time, Marvel simply doesn't do that. Marvel loves change, fans don't. I just find it hilarious that fanboys of Marvel for years, sometimes decades, hasn't figured this out yet. You don't like it, don't buy or watch it, either way, Marvel ain't changing what they like to do with their characters. Notice that I said "THEIR" characters.

I agree completely.

 

[Sarcastic Fan]

As long as the writers don't allow Kingpin to grace every episode then I think this series will be fine.

The Kingpin was my only dislike of the 90's eps and that one episode where he threatened Doc Ock to work with him that made me really angry.

Please don't let him be the main enemy of nearly every episode I thank you storywriters.

No worries for you then, Kingpin is not in the series. Fox has the license for him, Sony does not.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

No worries for you then, Kingpin is not in the series. Fox has the license for him, Sony does not.

Yet Sony used him in the MTV series.

Go figure.

 

[Dangerous]

Nah... but your avatar looks like a beachball!

Ha, that's true!

 

[The Villain]

No worries for you then, Kingpin is not in the series. Fox has the license for him, Sony does not.

I don't totally dislike Kingpin and don't mind if he appears in say one or two eps.

He'll probably turn up at somepoint since I heard Hammerhead is meant to be featured more prominant in the series.

 

[0neDisturbedSOB]

*Smacks head* Ok, let me try and explaining myself in lamens' terms: The Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man 1 is pretty faithful to the comics. The only things that were changed was GG's suit along with not giving Pete webshooters (which in my opinion wouldn't have worked.)

Spider-Man 2- Changes were making Ock sympathetic, not giving him an accent, not giving him a suit (which would've been dumb to see on the movie screen) but overall the movie was faithful to the comics.

Spider-Man 3 - Changes were made to the black suit, changes were made to Venom's suit, Sandman stayed the same but was made more sympathetic and given a backstory and some inner angst that is all because of a run-in with Pete's Uncle, but overall these changes, the movie was once again faithful to the comics.

Like I said, I don't mind few changes to things but like with TDK, the two villains as of now just don't do it for me in the look. Heath has accomplished capturing Joker's whimsy spirit, personality, humor, and violent streak but the look is what gets my goat. Nolan says they wanted to make him as the makeup is deteoriating and always runny to show that even Joker's soul is deteoriating inside him; as if he is sooo far gone.

Great, that's fine if you want to go with some symmetry and symbolism, but still nonetheless why the makeup anyways? That's what always worried me at the end of "BB"---How can you redo The Joker? The plot and story they got for him works but Joker HAS and ALWAYS will be a perma-white serial-killing mass-murdering-thief and anarchist who plays by his own rules and reasons. I would've been A.O.K. with Nolan making him just an albino but he didn't even do that. Now, we get a guy who looks like he designed his own Halloween costume or looks like an emo-Crow-looking clown.

Then, there's Two-Face. He's suppose to be "split right down the middle." One side whole, fleshy, and preserved; the other horribly burnt that it's beyond repair. Now, we get a Two-Face that is burnt on one side but not "split right down the middle." Those two sides of him are suppose to be his yin and yang, his black and white, his id and ego, his Jekyll and Hyde, yet the burns aren't full so it looks like his yin is overpowering his yang. I'm sure Aaron however will capture like Heath his spirit, personality, etc. but still the look will just not do it for me. I'll still enjoy the film overall but those two characters will just not be the same for me.

With that being said, getting back to the subject, I can handle changes but my heart will always be faithful to the comics. I know alot of you will like this show and that's fine, good for you, but me I've made my mind up.

Spider-Man 3 was faithful to the comics?? Did we see the same movie. Last time I checked Harry became the Green Goblin, not this New Goblin bulls**t. I also don't remember Sandman being linked to Ben's murder, and I don't ever recall Venom being killed off by a pumpkin bomb. Oh, and wasn't there something called the Secret Wars that was responsible for the symbiote? In Spider-Man 3 it just happened to rocket to Earth unnoticed by anyone and land right next to Peter Parker who just happens to be a super powered hero.

Hmmmm....using Spider-Man 3 as an example for ANY discussion that has the word "faithful" in it is a poor choice in my opinion.

The Joker in TDK looks f**king fantastic. Having a guy fall into a vat of acid (which would melt your skin not to mention kill you almost instantly) and have him emerge with bleached skin and a permanent smile is absurd. This is 2008 not 1988, people are smarter and they expect more.

 

[Dangerous]

Spider-Man 3 was faithful to the comics?? Did we see the same movie. Last time I checked Harry became the Green Goblin, not this New Goblin bulls**t. I also don't remember Sandman being linked to Ben's murder, and I don't ever recall Venom being killed off by a pumpkin bomb. Oh, and wasn't there something called the Secret Wars that was responsible for the symbiote? In Spider-Man 3 it just happened to rocket to Earth unnoticed by anyone and land right next to Peter Parker who just happens to be a super powered hero.

Hmmmm....using Spider-Man 3 as an example for ANY discussion that has the word "faithful" in it is a poor choice in my opinion.

The Joker in TDK looks f**king fantastic. Having a guy fall into a vat of acid (which would melt your skin not to mention kill you almost instantly) and have him emerge with bleached skin and a permanent smile is absurd. This is 2008 not 1988, people are smarter and they expect more.

^See, now I was with you up until you got onto TDK.

SM3 was a stinky turd, plus the villains back story's were significantly different from their comic counterparts making them inferior. However- the same can be said for Ledger Joker. Don't get me wrong- BB was far superior to any Raimi Spider-Man film and I fully expect TDK to be amazing also, but this does not validate Goyer/Nolan changing the Joker to being none-permawhite. In one crucial aspect it already makes him an inferior Joker to say, Nicholson-Joker. Perhaps overall his performance will be better than Jack's and he will be the best live action version thus seen, but it won't change the fact that a big part of this character interpretation is wrong.

The bleached white skin is one of Mr J's key defining traits.

You say people 'expect more in 2008'? Well that's BS- This is a comicbook movie! It's most enthused audience are those that read Batman comics. These are the people that wanted him to be permawhite. What they 'expect' is for him to have acid bleached skin.

Beyond that- the rest of TDK's audience is regular action movie fans who could not give two s-hits if he gets bleached. Fact remains- TDK Joker would have been FAR superior if he was permawhite. Why is this so?- Because NO ONE would be complaining about him being bleached since that's who the Joker is. As apposed to HALF of Bat-fans at the hype being against his non bleached skin (see poll in Bat Spoilers).

Additionally- your attitude of 'people expect more in 2008' and also bringing real life logic into your argument when talking about a comic (how acid would burn off skin) is in direct contradiction to your standpoint on SM3 suffering due to it being none faithful to the source.

 

[0neDisturbedSOB]

Here's the difference...

Spider-Man's universe is made up of super powered beings. Spider-Man himself is a super powered being so taking liberties with the characters is a lot harder to do than with someone like Batman. Batman is a regular guy in a suit. People *****ed about them putting armor on him, well, he needs the armor. Sure I think what they did with him in the Keaton-Schumacher films was pretty out there, but at least the concept of the suit made sense. A guy with no powers runs around fighting crime...he's going to need protection. What fans had to say was that they were "ruining" Batman by protecting him...blah blah blah. They wanted a movie with a hero running around in spandex because it was "faithful" to the comics. That makes no sense to me.

In Spider-Man's case the biggest liberty they took was switching from web-shooters to organics. Once again geeks (I use that as a term of endearment) were up in arms that this change was not only going to ruin the movie, but was going to ruin the character itself. 5-6 years after the first Spider-Man movie was released, barely anyone even brings it up anymore. Why? Because it made sense in the context of the movie.

People (fans and general audience) are drawn to these movies because they take our beloved characters and add a sense of realism to them...which in turn draws us in because it gives us something to relate to. When asked why he made the decision to switch from web-shooters to organics Raimi said something along the lines of "come on, a kid is going to create a super powered adhesive in his bedroom that a company like 3M hasn't been able to create? It just takes away from the realism of the film" and he was absolutely right. When most fans heard that it's as if they were insulted because now he was taking away from Parker's genius. Excuse me, but at no point during any of these films (except for the Emo parts) did I feel as if Peter's intellect had been tampered with....but people still wanted to complain. These are the same people who lined up countless times to see the movie, bought every edition of the DVD, and regard Spider-Man as one of the best comic book movies of all time. Funny how that works.

Same thing with X-Men. When it was shown that Wolverine's claws were going to pop out from in between his knuckles fans once again jumped up and accused the film makers of tampering with perfection. In an interview Singer defended his decision by once again saying "it doesn't make sense" which he's right. Anatomically it doesn't work for those claws to come out from the back of his hand, they'd have to come out from in between the knuckles in order for a straight blade to be housed in your forearm, but once again fans got "offended" because such a change was surely going to ruin the movie and the character of Wolverine. 7-8 years after the first X-Men was released you don't even hear a think about it....except for those same people carrying on about how much better the in between claws are.

Now you go to the Joker. A sadistic man who dresses up like a clown and is dead set on causing anarchy all over Gotham. Sounds pretty absurd to me, but even still should all logic be thrown out because we're dealing with a "fantasy movie"? Hardly.

Look at how Bruce Wayne became Batman in "Batman Begins" he didn't lock Alfred in the cave and say "make me a suit" instead he used bits and pieces of technology from Wayne Enterprises as the basis of the Bat-suit. Last time I checked this was a MAJOR deviation from the original story....but people didn't seem to mind. Why? because it MADE SENSE. It was FAR more realistic for Bruce to incorporate things already made from Wayne Enterprises into his design for what would become the Bat-suit. Same thing can be said of the car. In the comics doesn't he create every single interpretation of the Batmobile? In "Batman Begins" he takes the Tumbler and modifies it...because it makes sense.

Now you get geeks already complaining about the Joker because he isn't "permawhite" who cares? Does it mean the Joker isn't going to be sick, sadistic, and twisted? Hardly. In my opinion it makes him MORE sick, sadistic, and twisted because he has to sit there and put that on himself...thus adding to the fact that he's a few crayons short of a full box. Much like how serial killer John Wayne Gacey dressed as a clown to gain a child's trust in order to lure them away and kill them....it's the thought process of these people that truly makes them what they are. I look at it like this. "Permawhite" Joker's skin is white all over, so it's like "hey, my skin is white like a clown, might as well play the part." TDK's Joker has to apply the make-up by himself, thus he makes the decision to look like that (except for the chelsea grin which I think is genius). It's in the same vein of Bruce Wayne making the decision to become Batman and continue on doing what he does knowing that at any given time he could be killed. Joker making the decision to turn his face into a disgusting clown is FAR more chilling than a Joker who basically has no choice. Read up on serial killers and mass murders and you'll find that the majority of them killed out of a compulsion, like something was forcing them to do it, but it was their DECISION in how to commit the murders that is really frightening.

The whole "it's a comic book movie!" argument has never made sense to me at all. It's like saying "just because it's a comic book movie we should excuse all of the realism and logic" which is BS. Think about it, if all of those things that fans *****ed about in every comic book movie were taken out in place of things that were 100% faithful to the comics, these movies would not be what they are today. Web-shooters? Claws that come from the back of the hand? Grown men and women running around in yellow/blue spandex? etc, etc.

Saying a movie "would have been" so much better simply because the main villain's skin is bleached white (by acid no less) is pretty absurd. You haven't even seen the movie, or Ledger's performance, yet you're already condemning it because the character's history isn't 100% ripped from the comics. Sounds like a case of judging a book by it's cover if you ask me.

But here's the REALITY of the situation. No matter what you do, or how faithful you are to the comic books people will ALWAYS find something wrong with it. As a film maker you have to take this into account. It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time, so what you do is you try to make the best decisions for the context of your movie. The relaunch of Batman was done because the previous movies had become FAR too absurd, so they grounded it in reality....and people ate it up. So if you're trying to continue that same formula for "The Dark Knight" why would you throw something as ridiculous as "acid bleaching my skin" in there? It makes NO sense, and doesn't have any place in a movie that is trying to be as realistic as possible while still remaining faithful to the source material?

And my argument with Spider-Man 3 wasn't that it wasn't faithful because quite frankly the whole "Secret Wars" thing just wouldn't work in a Spider-Man movie. My biggest complain was that the film maker's lack of enthusiasm for the characters and story was blatant, and when it comes to that point I'd say it's time to hand the reigns off to someone else who actually cares. I could make the same argument with X-Men 3. Too much was attempted simply because it was billed as "the last one" which is crap.

 

[IamProdigy]

I really enjoyed the first season of the 90s Spider-Man series, but when the other seasons got arc titles and when they made him become the Man-Spider, I just wasn't enjoying it(and don't get me started about the different portals, et cetera).

Plus, the 'series' finale wasn't satisfying to me and neither was its follow-up, Spider-Man Unlimited...

and seeing as how Spider-Man 3 wasn't that great of a movie, I have all hope for this new series, especially seeing the red/black Vulture, which to me, looks much cooler and also the way the pace is on the show, I really want this to be a huge hit.

 

[0neDisturbedSOB]

I agree with you. I really liked the 90's Spider-Man until they started doing the whole portal thing too. I'm also one of the few people who enjoyed the MTV Spider-Man show for what it was. Sure the stories weren't groundbreaking, but the animation was top notch and the cast was great.

I have high hopes for "The Spectacular Spider-Man."

 

[IamProdigy]

I have only seen a little of the MTV Spider-Man, or whatever it was really called, but it didn't seem to fit together as a piece...the episodes I did see, the over-looking story of the series just didn't go along nicely like the 90s series actually did, and that's why I also hope this new series, when it has arcs and what not, have them go smoothly throughout the series.

 

[The Villain]

I really enjoyed the first season of the 90s Spider-Man series, but when the other seasons got arc titles and when they made him become the Man-Spider, I just wasn't enjoying it(and don't get me started about the different portals, et cetera).

Plus, the 'series' finale wasn't satisfying to me and neither was its follow-up, Spider-Man Unlimited...

and seeing as how Spider-Man 3 wasn't that great of a movie, I have all hope for this new series, especially seeing the red/black Vulture, which to me, looks much cooler and also the way the pace is on the show, I really want this to be a huge hit.

Agree aswell.

Just WHAT did they do to Electro? This villain could easily have had a great origin ep for series 1. I never liked the Spider Slayer 2 eps story and Electro could have appeared then.

Him being the son of Red Skull was just as worse than having Sandman be Uncle Bens killer.

I did like the Prowler ep but again its always the Bl**dy Kingpin pulling the tricks.

How do you think Mysterio will appear revamped or classic costume?

 

[vinny2]

Agree aswell.

Just WHAT did they do to Electro? This villain could easily have had a great origin ep for series 1. I never liked the Spider Slayer 2 eps story and Electro could have appeared then.

Him being the son of Red Skull was just as worse than having Sandman be Uncle Bens killer.

I did like the Prowler ep but again its always the Bl**dy Kingpin pulling the tricks.

How do you think Mysterio will appear revamped or classic costume?

A little change here and there won't hurt, but I will personally kick Greg Weisman in the shin in Mysterio doesn't have the fishbowl helmet.

 

[Sarcastic Fan]

A little change here and there won't hurt, but I will personally kick Greg Weisman in the shin in Mysterio doesn't have the fishbowl helmet.

Grow up, threatening physical violence over something as petty as this is immature and should be left in Third Grade.