|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 3:08:16 GMT
He belongs interacting with other Marvel heroes instead of pretending he's off in his own world. I know that FOX and Sony fans have a pathological hatred of all other Marvel characters, but you have to get over yourselves. I hate the tone of the movies not the Marvel characters. Netflix gets it right. I want Spiderman in a serious movie not a comedy The tone of the movies is in line with plenty of the comics, running the full gamut of human emotions as opposed to 1-note brooders. The movies just aren't ashamed of their origins the way Sony was with Spidey and Fox is with X-men. The Netflix shows have plenty of their own failings, like how they always run out of plot pretty fast.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 3:08:42 GMT
The only true Spider-man is the issues by the original creative team. Origin to #39. Once Ditko left it became something else. Yeah, it became better. Ditko's way wasn't sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 3:09:50 GMT
He belongs interacting with other Marvel heroes instead of pretending he's off in his own world. Ditko reportedly was not happy with the crossovers they did in his run. He said it was a "short term gain for a long term loss." And Ditko is an objectivist nut who didn't think Peter should ever grow up. He wanted him to stay a teen forever and never progress.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 3:14:53 GMT
And Ditko is an objectivist nut who didn't think Peter should ever grow up. He wanted him to stay a teen forever and never progress. No-he wanted him to grow. His Blue Beetle was obviously crafted as an older Peter Parker. What he didnt want is that Peter be stuck in angst mode and constant failure status. That was Lee's dialogue, not Ditko's view. And sorry, but Ditko created the character--his costume, his persona, even plotted many of the stories as Lee admitted, so he is as important to Spider-man as Doyle is to Sherlock Holmes. He is also responsible for all the iconic villains. How many did Romita make?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 3:19:30 GMT
And Ditko is an objectivist nut who didn't think Peter should ever grow up. He wanted him to stay a teen forever and never progress. No-he wanted him to grow. His Blue Beetle was obviously crafted as an older Peter Parker. So he changed his mind later. And Stan Lee didn't write him in that mode all the time either, so this is baloney. Spidey outgrew him, because Ditko's way wasn't sustainable. Leave it to him, Spidey would've ended up like Mr A. [qupte]He is also responsible for all the iconic villains. How many did Romita make?[/quote] He's responsible for designing their appearances, but a lot of them didn't get decent memorable characterization until after Ditko was gone too. He didn't want the Goblin to be Norman Osborn, for one thing. And his portrayal's of Flash Thompson and Jonah Jameson were ridiculously 1-Dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 3:25:31 GMT
He didn't want the Goblin to be Norman Osborn, for one thing. And his portrayal's of Flash Thompson and Jonah Jameson were ridiculously 1-Dimensional. [/quote] **Wrong. He said it was always planned that Osborn would be the Green Goblin. What he did not plan was Peter befriending Harry or that Gwen would become so friendly.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 3:27:57 GMT
He's responsible for designing their appearances, but a lot of them didn't get decent memorable characterization until after Ditko was gone too. You mean things like Doc Ock having a cup of coffee in the Parker's kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 2, 2017 7:00:29 GMT
An All-Powerful God doesn't have weaknesses, let alone any absolutely crippling ones. Therefore, Superman isn't god. Not even close. per usual your conclusions do not flow from your premises and contradict the movie. Where does it state that Lex does believe that Supes is a "all powerful god" meaning without weaknesses? Nowhere, that's where. In fact he knew Supes can be destroyed, thus the workings of his plan.
To give your ramblings the coup the grace they deserve:
It's spelled out in the dialogue, stupid. One of the best pieces in recent CBM history (by Snider).
You see again how badly thought through and misinformed your defamations are. Hope that works out for you in real life. Better keep to turd, nipple and penis dialogue, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 2, 2017 7:07:36 GMT
There aren't any plot holes. The film is solid as a rock, and from what I hear the director's cut is even more amazing and badass. The second Lex discovered Kryptonite, his whole argument about Superman and God goes out the window. I wish you would finally learn what a plot hole is. A fallacious argument by a (maniac, obsessed) character does not constitute a plot hole. Neither does your misconception. Apart from this your argument is false. But just for fun and sake of debunking you, set out Lex's argument about God and how why Kryptonite negates it.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 13:34:52 GMT
He didn't want the Goblin to be Norman Osborn, for one thing. And his portrayal's of Flash Thompson and Jonah Jameson were ridiculously 1-Dimensional. **Wrong. He said it was always planned that Osborn would be the Green Goblin. What he did not plan was Peter befriending Harry or that Gwen would become so friendly. [/quote] No, he wanted the Goblin to either be a real Goblin or some random guy. Him being Osborn was one of the reasons he left.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 13:36:45 GMT
He's responsible for designing their appearances, but a lot of them didn't get decent memorable characterization until after Ditko was gone too. You mean things like Doc Ock having a cup of coffee in the Parker's kitchen. Minor insignificance.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 13:39:15 GMT
The second Lex discovered Kryptonite, his whole argument about Superman and God goes out the window. I wish you would finally learn what a plot hole is. A fallacious argument by a (maniac, obsessed) character does not constitute a plot hole. Neither does your misconception. Apart from this your argument is false. But just for fun and sake of debunking you, set out Lex's argument about God and how why Kryptonite negates it. He despised Superman because he didn't believe that God could be all good and all powerful, for some silly reason involving his dad beating him. Since people see Superman as a God he couldn't stand that because it messed up his nihilistic views, but as soon as he discovered Kryptonite he KNEW Superman couldn't be all powerful, at which point he should've just stopped thinking of him as a God. But for whatever reason, he doesn't and still wants to kill him for...some reason. No, saying Lex is an obsessed maniac does nothing anything to rectify this. By contrast, asking the avatar of a planet how he could possibly reproduce with a woman if he's just the avatar of a living planet's power (the penis question) is actually reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 15:26:50 GMT
No, he wanted the Goblin to either be a real Goblin or some random guy. Him being Osborn was one of the reasons he left. [/quote] Nope. He wrote an essay on it a while ago. They had already chosen a random guy for a criminal boss. He didnt want to repeat that scenario. And as Ditko pointed out, he had introduced Osborne via Jameson and in the background of scenes. His reasons for leaving had to do with pay and creative recognition. Though he has a cryptic way of discussing things--he was specific about the Osborne claims as being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 15:29:12 GMT
There was nothing in Romita's characterization of the villains that stood out. In fact, a few of Ditko's villains were sidelined until Andru.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 2, 2017 16:12:42 GMT
You keep bringing up a numerical typo, but you ignore the big plot hole in BvS that brings the whole movie down? There aren't any plot holes. The film is solid as a rock, and from what I hear the director's cut is even more amazing and badass. Ha Ha. You have got to be kidding. No one out there REALLY believes BvS is better than SM"HC. It is not possible. BvS is garbage. It cannot be rated higher than a 5/10 and that is if you really liked it. SM:HC was actually a very fun and well done movie. Nothing about BvS is solid as a rock. Anyone who says this is just a blind fanboy with absolutely terrible taste in movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 16:25:40 GMT
[He wrote an essay on it a while ago. So revisionist history.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 16:26:35 GMT
There was nothing in Romita's characterization of the villains that stood out. In fact, a few of Ditko's villains were sidelined until Andru. Romita cared more about Peter's characterization as opposed to making the villains the stars of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 2, 2017 16:42:53 GMT
Why? It was Lee who claimed he left because of the Osborn thing. But Lee has been inconsistent in his recollections. Lee and Ditko were not working together in the last year or so. Ditko was plotting it himself--Lee admitted this in the 1980s. And all Romita did with Spider-man was follow Lee's dictation. Peter hardly changed at all through Romita's time. Was more of a romance comic. Ditko had a Noir approach.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 2, 2017 16:46:50 GMT
There aren't any plot holes. The film is solid as a rock, and from what I hear the director's cut is even more amazing and badass. Ha Ha. You have got to be kidding. No one out there REALLY believes BvS is better than SM"HC. It is not possible. BvS is garbage. It cannot be rated higher than a 5/10 and that is if you really liked it. SM:HC was actually a very fun and well done movie. Nothing about BvS is solid as a rock. Anyone who says this is just a blind fanboy with absolutely terrible taste in movies. Translation:
imdb2.freeforums.net/post/386707/thread
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 2, 2017 17:13:25 GMT
[quote timestamp="1509640973" author=" Primemovermithrax Pejorative" source="/post/1032686/threadWhy? It was Lee who claimed he left because of the Osborn thing.[/quote] Probably trying to protect Ditko's reputation so his objectivist leanings didn't get in trouble in the industry.
|
|