Vendel
Banned
So you don't see the difference between someone pretending to be Thor while the real Thor is away and someone calling themselves Thor while the real Thor is still around? No difference at all?
What Comics Are You Reading?
- Thread starter X-SOLDIER
- Start date
So you don't see the difference between someone pretending to be Thor while the real Thor is away and someone calling themselves Thor while the real Thor is still around? No difference at all?
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Again: We don't know what the plot details are yet. You can't justify one on the basis of plot while condemning the other in the absence of the same potential justification. Wait for the details to come along and then protest if they're egregious.
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
His name is, "Thor Odinson" so it's kind of a super masculine name/title. I'm very curious how it'll be handled, but I'm looking forward to it.
Also, as far as mutants being outcasts, I always thought it was the idea that they could be anyone and the eventuality is that mutants will gradually completely replace humans, which feels threatening even without their super powers. I think of it as a Neanderthal & Homo erectus type scenario. It's still technically an extinction to some degree. The other supers are either helpful aliens, or still human, and they aren't just going to eventually phase out humanity. Humans don't like feeling like they're obsolete models slowly falling out of production, thus the distrust of the members of Homo superior is different than that of Inhumans or other supers.
X
Also, as far as mutants being outcasts, I always thought it was the idea that they could be anyone and the eventuality is that mutants will gradually completely replace humans, which feels threatening even without their super powers. I think of it as a Neanderthal & Homo erectus type scenario. It's still technically an extinction to some degree. The other supers are either helpful aliens, or still human, and they aren't just going to eventually phase out humanity. Humans don't like feeling like they're obsolete models slowly falling out of production, thus the distrust of the members of Homo superior is different than that of Inhumans or other supers.
X
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
For that to hold up logically, though, the origins of most of the superheroes would need to be public knowledge. Perhaps they are, but I doubt it.
Certainly most people wouldn't see an appreciable difference between Mutants and Inhumans.
Hell, I barely see an appreciable difference and I've been reading Marvel my whole life. The Inhumans are technically mutant Kree, and the Terrigen Mists were capable of restoring the powers of Earth's Mutants who had lost their powers after M Day (albeit exaggerated and potentially lethal to their user).
Certainly most people wouldn't see an appreciable difference between Mutants and Inhumans.
Hell, I barely see an appreciable difference and I've been reading Marvel my whole life. The Inhumans are technically mutant Kree, and the Terrigen Mists were capable of restoring the powers of Earth's Mutants who had lost their powers after M Day (albeit exaggerated and potentially lethal to their user).
Tennyo
Higher Further Faster
Vendel
Banned
Except your point was that there was no difference between what Marvel is announcing now and what happened with Eric Masterson back in the day. When there is clearly one very big difference. The presence of Thor.
So now that we have established that suddenly we can't make any judgements (like saying it's the exact thing that happened with Eric Masterson) because the story hasn't come out yet?
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Except that's not what I said at all. You're free to go back and look at my post for yourself:
"In fairness, Eric Masterson (later known as 'Thunderstrike') was Thor for two years in the early 90s. This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character."
http://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=589859&postcount=70
You even quoted it.
The closest thing I've said to what you're attributing to me is what I said after you started making a stink in refutation of my point ("This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character").
When you began trying to counter that point, I said "I don't see the difference." Which obviously wasn't meant to mean that this is the exact same story retold. I'm quite sure they're not reprinting "Thor" #432-459, and I'm quite certain Eric Masterson wasn't a woman -- so, no, this isn't the exact same thing.
I'm also sure it couldn't be more obvious that what I was talking about when I said "I don't see the difference" is that it doesn't make a difference to the topic at hand, i.e. the notion of a different character having Thor's name and starring in his book ("This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character"). It has happened before. Period. The plot details explain it. They don't explain it away.
My posts do not contain either of your claims -- i.e. that I said that there is "no difference between what Marvel is announcing now and what happened with Eric Masterson" and "it's the exact thing that happened with Eric Masterson."
You won't find either of those things in my posts.
You'll find me saying that I don't see a difference in what people are getting bent out of shape over -- "Marvel christening and marketing a different character as 'Thor,' and having that character star in the book entitled 'Thor.'" It happened before and yet that's what people are getting bent out of shape over now.
You are literally the first I have seen to make it about Thor Odinson "standing in the room at the time" rather than about the name itself. You'll also notice that it was the name itself being discussed before you posted rather than Thor "standing in the room at the time."
I'm not the one making judgments about the story with it not having come out yet, and I certainly haven't said that this is the exact same story being repeated. I don't appreciate the distortion of what I plainly said. If you want to make a stink over the name thing because the original Thor is still around, do so. That's a different topic, and, yes, it sounds odd. I would hope you would wait things out and see what kind of sense it makes in the context of the story, but you can get offended by whatever you want.
"In fairness, Eric Masterson (later known as 'Thunderstrike') was Thor for two years in the early 90s. This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character."
http://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=589859&postcount=70
You even quoted it.
The closest thing I've said to what you're attributing to me is what I said after you started making a stink in refutation of my point ("This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character").
When you began trying to counter that point, I said "I don't see the difference." Which obviously wasn't meant to mean that this is the exact same story retold. I'm quite sure they're not reprinting "Thor" #432-459, and I'm quite certain Eric Masterson wasn't a woman -- so, no, this isn't the exact same thing.
I'm also sure it couldn't be more obvious that what I was talking about when I said "I don't see the difference" is that it doesn't make a difference to the topic at hand, i.e. the notion of a different character having Thor's name and starring in his book ("This isn't the first time they've given his name to another character"). It has happened before. Period. The plot details explain it. They don't explain it away.
My posts do not contain either of your claims -- i.e. that I said that there is "no difference between what Marvel is announcing now and what happened with Eric Masterson" and "it's the exact thing that happened with Eric Masterson."
You won't find either of those things in my posts.
You'll find me saying that I don't see a difference in what people are getting bent out of shape over -- "Marvel christening and marketing a different character as 'Thor,' and having that character star in the book entitled 'Thor.'" It happened before and yet that's what people are getting bent out of shape over now.
You are literally the first I have seen to make it about Thor Odinson "standing in the room at the time" rather than about the name itself. You'll also notice that it was the name itself being discussed before you posted rather than Thor "standing in the room at the time."
I'm not the one making judgments about the story with it not having come out yet, and I certainly haven't said that this is the exact same story being repeated. I don't appreciate the distortion of what I plainly said. If you want to make a stink over the name thing because the original Thor is still around, do so. That's a different topic, and, yes, it sounds odd. I would hope you would wait things out and see what kind of sense it makes in the context of the story, but you can get offended by whatever you want.
Last edited:
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
So, has anyone else read "New Avengers" #21? Just wow. I don't know if there are words for this. I really don't.
Hickman and Marvel have taken a step never before taken. Go read it.
Hickman and Marvel have taken a step never before taken. Go read it.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Really, people, if you read only one issue of any comic this year, it needs to be "New Avengers" #21. =P Get out there for fuck's sake!
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
I did what had to be done. =P
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Yes, to the first. Probably no to the second. XD
Really, one should at least start with #17 and the "New Avengers" Annual from a month or two ago.
I mean, you could probably read it and would understand why it's such a momentous issue, but it is the culmination of plot threads going back to the first issue, and #17 in particular.
Still, you get points for at least trying, unlike the rest of these philistines.
Really, one should at least start with #17 and the "New Avengers" Annual from a month or two ago.
I mean, you could probably read it and would understand why it's such a momentous issue, but it is the culmination of plot threads going back to the first issue, and #17 in particular.
Still, you get points for at least trying, unlike the rest of these philistines.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
I have looked into "X-Force" and it's good, yes. =P The stuff with Marrow is fucked up.
"New Avengers," though, has ramifications for the entire line and has ventured into uncharted territory.
"New Avengers," though, has ramifications for the entire line and has ventured into uncharted territory.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
My review of "Thanos: The Infinity Revelation":
----
At long last, it is here -- my most anticipated comic release of the year. So, how is it?
This is easily the trippiest Starlin's ever been, and that's saying something. I see now why the reviews have said so little about the story. Not only is picking a good place to start difficult, but, paradoxically, there's very little to be said about what turns out to be a minimalist plot, despite one truly amazing battle sequence.
It echoes several plot beats of "Marvel: The End," written by Starlin ten years ago, and seems to also have a little flavor of the current happenings in Jonathan Hickman's "New Avengers." Whether either of those are actually related to the plot here is left ambiguous, as, again, there isn't much plot to discuss.
Fans of Starlin's past "Infinity" works looking for a star-spanning tale in the same vein may find that "The Infinity Revelation" comes up short for them. As a character study of Adam Warlock and Thanos in particular, however, it's a gold mine. An Infinity Well, if you'll pardon the bad pun.
This is Thanos at his most introspective -- undoubtedly, the most introspective he has ever been. If Thanos's musings are taken, as they should be, as an outlet for Starlin himself, then there is a lot being pondered here, going a touch beyond just these two characters, though there is much said about them.
I agree with other reviewers' appraisals that there is meta-commentary at work here, but I don't think it's much in the way of Starlin marking his territory. At most he may be saying, "If you're going to try ruining my hallmark character, at least have your story make some attempt at carrying an internal consistency and logic with regard to the past."
I do think he felt it necessary to explain some of the inconsistencies in Thanos's personality and behavior that the choices of other writers and editors have introduced -- which both the impetus for and the resolution to this story should serve to address in their entirety -- but I don't think he was being territorial. Much in the same way that comic book universes tend to gradually be restored to a comfortable equilibrium following promotions, promises and warnings that Things Will Never Be the Same, so too did Thanos's characterization find its way back to Starlin's vision here before he himself created an excuse for other writers -- and editorial mandate -- to have their way with him.
The majority of Starlin's commentary, it seems, is for the comics industry at the Big Two (Marvel and DC) and their fandoms.
Near the story's end, the Marvel Universe's embodiments of time and space, Infinity and Eternity, serve as voices for the reader as they question what all this sound and fury has been about -- they question its very necessity, as the plot and details filling the universe come almost precisely back to where they began.
The question Starlin is asking here is obvious: Is there any point in the big Earth-shaking, world-shattering events we see recycled at Marvel and DC? There is a status quo that is inevitably restored, and even when universal reboots are emplaced across a publisher's whole line (e.g. DC's "New 52"), those sensibilities remain and it becomes questionable how much a reboot really matters.
Starlin isn't necessarily passing judgment, as he unavoidably implicates himself here as well, but he is asking readers to think about the question.
He also seems to ask those readers who are in favor of a Marvel reboot whether they really want it. The few changes implemented during "The Infinity Revelation" qualify as a soft reboot of sorts -- applying to its main characters only -- calling to mind the changes wrought in years past by DC's "Flashpoint" and "Crisis On Infinite Earths."
We are being asked "Are you okay with this?" Again, the question is posed without judgment, but it is certainly being asked.
While on that subject, though it seems the "universal transmutation" foretold by the Living Tribunal in Starlin's recent "Thanos Annual" is addressed here, there remain dangling threads from that story of foreshadowing with regard to the universe's health -- such as the notion of time running out in just a few months, which obviously ties into the upcoming "Time Runs Out" event in the pages of the Avengers comics. In fact, it is very much implied in "The Infinity Revelation" that the few changes seen here are but the first in a series of greater changes to come, the nature and ramifications of which are beyond even the Living Tribunal's ability to anticipate.
All of which dovetails nicely into events in Hickman's "New Avengers," where the multiverse is breaking down and the lifeless form of the Living Tribunal has been found on Earth's moon. This story seems to take place prior to that development, set sometime between "Avengers Assemble," which began in early 2012, and "Infinity" from late 2013.
More universal transmutation yet awaits. Bet on that.
This latest metatextual tale from Jim Starlin is going to have its fair share of those who hate it for its deliberate lack of blatant importance (or those few changes it does leave behind), those who think it is brilliant commentary on the comics industry, and those who find it rather ineffectual all around yet nothing egregious.
Truly, whether you love it will come down to two things:
A) How much you appreciate the art. It is beautiful, by the way -- top props to Starlin's penciling, Andy Smith's inks, Joe Carmagna's lettering, and the colors of Frank D'Armata and Rachelle Rosenberg. Those colors in particular justify the book's existence, and this is possibly Starlin's greatest work with a pencil.
B) How much you appreciate the meta-commentaries Starlin is making. Love for the characters alone won't make you love this story. It is undeniably Thanos being Thanos and Adam Warlock being Adam Warlock, as true to both as any story has ever been, but it may not be a story you actually wanted.
For those of you in this camp, Thanos's own words on the penultimate page of the story may be intended: "I refuse to insanely question that which is. I accept what I am."
I find myself with mixed feelings about it, but very much in appreciation of its commentary and ironing out of the inconsistencies in Thanos's characterization. But then Thanos is my favorite Marvel character and recent poor portrayals of him have greatly frustrated me.
Much as I wish I could, I am unable to say that I recommend "Thanos: The Infinity Revelation" to every comic book fan, nor even every Starlin, Thanos or Adam Warlock fan. You yourself know best whether the words up to now provoke interest or displeasure for you. Some of those on the fence about giving this graphic novel a try may be better off remaining on the fence.
----
----
At long last, it is here -- my most anticipated comic release of the year. So, how is it?
This is easily the trippiest Starlin's ever been, and that's saying something. I see now why the reviews have said so little about the story. Not only is picking a good place to start difficult, but, paradoxically, there's very little to be said about what turns out to be a minimalist plot, despite one truly amazing battle sequence.
It echoes several plot beats of "Marvel: The End," written by Starlin ten years ago, and seems to also have a little flavor of the current happenings in Jonathan Hickman's "New Avengers." Whether either of those are actually related to the plot here is left ambiguous, as, again, there isn't much plot to discuss.
Fans of Starlin's past "Infinity" works looking for a star-spanning tale in the same vein may find that "The Infinity Revelation" comes up short for them. As a character study of Adam Warlock and Thanos in particular, however, it's a gold mine. An Infinity Well, if you'll pardon the bad pun.
This is Thanos at his most introspective -- undoubtedly, the most introspective he has ever been. If Thanos's musings are taken, as they should be, as an outlet for Starlin himself, then there is a lot being pondered here, going a touch beyond just these two characters, though there is much said about them.
I agree with other reviewers' appraisals that there is meta-commentary at work here, but I don't think it's much in the way of Starlin marking his territory. At most he may be saying, "If you're going to try ruining my hallmark character, at least have your story make some attempt at carrying an internal consistency and logic with regard to the past."
I do think he felt it necessary to explain some of the inconsistencies in Thanos's personality and behavior that the choices of other writers and editors have introduced -- which both the impetus for and the resolution to this story should serve to address in their entirety -- but I don't think he was being territorial. Much in the same way that comic book universes tend to gradually be restored to a comfortable equilibrium following promotions, promises and warnings that Things Will Never Be the Same, so too did Thanos's characterization find its way back to Starlin's vision here before he himself created an excuse for other writers -- and editorial mandate -- to have their way with him.
The majority of Starlin's commentary, it seems, is for the comics industry at the Big Two (Marvel and DC) and their fandoms.
Near the story's end, the Marvel Universe's embodiments of time and space, Infinity and Eternity, serve as voices for the reader as they question what all this sound and fury has been about -- they question its very necessity, as the plot and details filling the universe come almost precisely back to where they began.
The question Starlin is asking here is obvious: Is there any point in the big Earth-shaking, world-shattering events we see recycled at Marvel and DC? There is a status quo that is inevitably restored, and even when universal reboots are emplaced across a publisher's whole line (e.g. DC's "New 52"), those sensibilities remain and it becomes questionable how much a reboot really matters.
Starlin isn't necessarily passing judgment, as he unavoidably implicates himself here as well, but he is asking readers to think about the question.
He also seems to ask those readers who are in favor of a Marvel reboot whether they really want it. The few changes implemented during "The Infinity Revelation" qualify as a soft reboot of sorts -- applying to its main characters only -- calling to mind the changes wrought in years past by DC's "Flashpoint" and "Crisis On Infinite Earths."
We are being asked "Are you okay with this?" Again, the question is posed without judgment, but it is certainly being asked.
While on that subject, though it seems the "universal transmutation" foretold by the Living Tribunal in Starlin's recent "Thanos Annual" is addressed here, there remain dangling threads from that story of foreshadowing with regard to the universe's health -- such as the notion of time running out in just a few months, which obviously ties into the upcoming "Time Runs Out" event in the pages of the Avengers comics. In fact, it is very much implied in "The Infinity Revelation" that the few changes seen here are but the first in a series of greater changes to come, the nature and ramifications of which are beyond even the Living Tribunal's ability to anticipate.
All of which dovetails nicely into events in Hickman's "New Avengers," where the multiverse is breaking down and the lifeless form of the Living Tribunal has been found on Earth's moon. This story seems to take place prior to that development, set sometime between "Avengers Assemble," which began in early 2012, and "Infinity" from late 2013.
More universal transmutation yet awaits. Bet on that.
This latest metatextual tale from Jim Starlin is going to have its fair share of those who hate it for its deliberate lack of blatant importance (or those few changes it does leave behind), those who think it is brilliant commentary on the comics industry, and those who find it rather ineffectual all around yet nothing egregious.
Truly, whether you love it will come down to two things:
A) How much you appreciate the art. It is beautiful, by the way -- top props to Starlin's penciling, Andy Smith's inks, Joe Carmagna's lettering, and the colors of Frank D'Armata and Rachelle Rosenberg. Those colors in particular justify the book's existence, and this is possibly Starlin's greatest work with a pencil.
B) How much you appreciate the meta-commentaries Starlin is making. Love for the characters alone won't make you love this story. It is undeniably Thanos being Thanos and Adam Warlock being Adam Warlock, as true to both as any story has ever been, but it may not be a story you actually wanted.
For those of you in this camp, Thanos's own words on the penultimate page of the story may be intended: "I refuse to insanely question that which is. I accept what I am."
I find myself with mixed feelings about it, but very much in appreciation of its commentary and ironing out of the inconsistencies in Thanos's characterization. But then Thanos is my favorite Marvel character and recent poor portrayals of him have greatly frustrated me.
Much as I wish I could, I am unable to say that I recommend "Thanos: The Infinity Revelation" to every comic book fan, nor even every Starlin, Thanos or Adam Warlock fan. You yourself know best whether the words up to now provoke interest or displeasure for you. Some of those on the fence about giving this graphic novel a try may be better off remaining on the fence.
----
Last edited:
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
"New Avengers" continues to blow my fucking mind. It could give high-dollar escorts lessons.
Jonathan Hickman may be the best thing to happen to comics since I started reading them. This title probably isn't for everyone, but it's going to go down as one of the defining runs in Marvel's history, I guarantee.
Jonathan Hickman may be the best thing to happen to comics since I started reading them. This title probably isn't for everyone, but it's going to go down as one of the defining runs in Marvel's history, I guarantee.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
I really do want to read "The Multiversity," but given how long it's taken for this thing to get published, I'm kind of inclined to wait for the eight (it's still eight, right?) issues to finish and then read it all in one go.
Because, seriously, we're talking about a miniseries that's been "coming soon" since February of 2009 and had numerous release targets over the years. That we've finally seen the first issue published is incredible. =P
In other news, Dan Slott's Spider-Man series is still terrible, with Black Cat still being paraded as a (completely unbelievable) criminal mastermind out to kill Spidey and whoever else. And Silk is such a fucking MaryJane Sue it's not even funny.
In other other news, Jonathan Hickman continues to do amazing things in the Avengers titles (I'm now following both his "Avengers" and "New Avengers" series), which really should be the only titles anyone's paying attention to right now.
The X-books are doing okay stuff, I guess (well, no, not really; "Magneto" is good at least), but the only things interesting about them are that Miles Morales is showing up in "All-New X-Men" for a few issues and that Magneto is trying to kill the Red Skull -- but we know he won't succeed since the "AXIS" event is coming.
And I really can't say just how much I don't care about "AXIS." We've got Hickman doing this amazing stuff with the collapse of the multiverse in the Avengers titles, which builds up into the "Time Runs Out" event for next year, but in the meantime, we have to deal with this nonsense about heroes and villains getting inverted, so that we can have Carnage running around trying to be a hero and failing miserably at it.
When I first heard about "AXIS," I thought it sounded badass as fuck. You've got Magneto facing off against the ultimate Nazi, the Red Skull, who is now in possession of the deceased Charles Xavier's brain and powers; you've got Loki doing what Lokis do; you've got Sabretooth, the Hobgoblin and Carnage; apparently Apocalypse shows up at some point, with this being the final planned use of the character in fulfillment of Remender's plotting going back to the beginning of "Uncanny X-Force" four years ago; and there's Dr. Doom in there too, probably playing some douchey role that's vaguely villainous but serves the greater good.
And then they drop this bombshell on us about heroes' and villains' moral alignments being inverted halfway through this story -- which probably means Dr. Doom will stay the same, quite honestly, since he rides that line in everything he does. Bad guys like Carnage and Sabretooth, on the other hand, are going to suddenly get a conscience and a desire to make up for their past villainy.
Heroes like Luke Cage will become dishonest, Iron Man will revert to being the full-of-shit cocky fucker he used to be, and ... where did the plot with Magneto taking on Red Onslaught and his concentration camp for Mutants and Inhumans go? Ugh, what a clusterfuck of nonsense it sounds like this is going to be.
I might be wrong. It could be amazing. It did sound amazing at first. I'm just not sold in the slightest on this inversion idea, and generally don't like the sound of mind control/mind-altering stories.
Because, seriously, we're talking about a miniseries that's been "coming soon" since February of 2009 and had numerous release targets over the years. That we've finally seen the first issue published is incredible. =P
In other news, Dan Slott's Spider-Man series is still terrible, with Black Cat still being paraded as a (completely unbelievable) criminal mastermind out to kill Spidey and whoever else. And Silk is such a fucking Mary
In other other news, Jonathan Hickman continues to do amazing things in the Avengers titles (I'm now following both his "Avengers" and "New Avengers" series), which really should be the only titles anyone's paying attention to right now.
The X-books are doing okay stuff, I guess (well, no, not really; "Magneto" is good at least), but the only things interesting about them are that Miles Morales is showing up in "All-New X-Men" for a few issues and that Magneto is trying to kill the Red Skull -- but we know he won't succeed since the "AXIS" event is coming.
And I really can't say just how much I don't care about "AXIS." We've got Hickman doing this amazing stuff with the collapse of the multiverse in the Avengers titles, which builds up into the "Time Runs Out" event for next year, but in the meantime, we have to deal with this nonsense about heroes and villains getting inverted, so that we can have Carnage running around trying to be a hero and failing miserably at it.
When I first heard about "AXIS," I thought it sounded badass as fuck. You've got Magneto facing off against the ultimate Nazi, the Red Skull, who is now in possession of the deceased Charles Xavier's brain and powers; you've got Loki doing what Lokis do; you've got Sabretooth, the Hobgoblin and Carnage; apparently Apocalypse shows up at some point, with this being the final planned use of the character in fulfillment of Remender's plotting going back to the beginning of "Uncanny X-Force" four years ago; and there's Dr. Doom in there too, probably playing some douchey role that's vaguely villainous but serves the greater good.
And then they drop this bombshell on us about heroes' and villains' moral alignments being inverted halfway through this story -- which probably means Dr. Doom will stay the same, quite honestly, since he rides that line in everything he does. Bad guys like Carnage and Sabretooth, on the other hand, are going to suddenly get a conscience and a desire to make up for their past villainy.
Heroes like Luke Cage will become dishonest, Iron Man will revert to being the full-of-shit cocky fucker he used to be, and ... where did the plot with Magneto taking on Red Onslaught and his concentration camp for Mutants and Inhumans go? Ugh, what a clusterfuck of nonsense it sounds like this is going to be.
I might be wrong. It could be amazing. It did sound amazing at first. I'm just not sold in the slightest on this inversion idea, and generally don't like the sound of mind control/mind-altering stories.
Last edited:
Tennyo
Higher Further Faster
Amazing Spider-Man #6 made me laugh, though.
The bits of Spider-Verse that have been released so far are kind of cool as well with the exception of some of the stuff from the Gwen Stacy issue.
Also, I am excited for Amazing Spider-Man #7 because
Jameson blocking the camera shot was so ridiculous it's kind of funny
The bits of Spider-Verse that have been released so far are kind of cool as well with the exception of some of the stuff from the Gwen Stacy issue.
Also, I am excited for Amazing Spider-Man #7 because
Spidey meets Kamala
Drax
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Benoist; Captain Highwind
Have they gotten to Ben and Kaine yet?
Also, the ultimate spider-man cartoon did some cool things with spider-verse.
I swear this show gives me mixed feelings every time. Props for finally putting Cloak and Dagger in a cartoon though.
Also, the ultimate spider-man cartoon did some cool things with spider-verse.
Mostly a true to the source material Miles Morales adaptation. But 2099 didn't get enough screen time and they completely bombed Spider-Girl by ignoring everything Tom DeFalco did and just made a gender swap of Peter.
I swear this show gives me mixed feelings every time. Props for finally putting Cloak and Dagger in a cartoon though.
Tennyo
Higher Further Faster
The Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon gives me mixed feelings as well. I used to wonder why people hated it so much. I mean, it's just a silly little kid's show, why the butt-hurt? But then I actually watched Spectacular Spider-Man and it's like, yeah that show was way better. 
I like the art style of Ultimate better, but Spectacular had superb writing.
I like the art style of Ultimate better, but Spectacular had superb writing.
Drax
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Benoist; Captain Highwind
Spider-Man shows are notorious for having one really strong thing going for them, but being held back by tiny things.
The 90's show did some pretty ambitious stuff, like adapt as much of the 90s comics as it could (first time Venom and Carnage were ever animated,) but the unnatural dialogue and heavy reusing of animation (just because the 60s did it doesn't mean you should follow suit guys) really makes it hard to go back and rewatch it. Plus the censorship was butchering it, especially since they were bringing in Morbius, Carnage, Blade, vampires, etc.
Being animated by TMS was sweet though, and they did have a few really superbly-animated episodes in there (Night of the Lizard, Alien Costume Part 1, Enter the Green Goblin, Hydroman, Turning Point). Chris Barnes will always be the default Spider-Man voice in my head when I read the comics.
Spectacular was the closest that they got to comic book Spider-Man, and the script was well done. The quips were sincerely funny ("premature gloatalation," "I got the thing on the thing," take a drink whenever Silver Sable gets hit in the face by an opening car door in that one episode.) Peter being voiced by Revolver Ocelot was also neat.
Some of the plot decisions were weird though, and the animation did get cheaper with each episode. I didn't care for Kraven being a Cat-Man, Montana as Shocker was meh, I really wanted the actual black Spidey suit, and while Tombstone should be a mob boss, it was clear Kingpin was being embargo'd by Fox. He would have had more impact in Tombstone's place. Venom as a peer was eh, okay, but I didn't care for the young-sounding voice actor.
After a while the censorship was starting to show, like how they were replacing bullets with tiny mace-ball projectiles. So much for Kraven's Last Hunt?
I will always be curious what they would have done with the rest of the show though if it continued. They brought Miles Warren into the second half of the last season, and they were already establishing a Cletus Kassady/Dr. Kafka subplot. Hobgoblin would have also been in the next season and Roderick Kingsley was a character on the show.
Ultimate Spider-Man does have the better animation, but even for a kids show I think the plots are pretty bland. Or the writing is. Spider-Man defaults to this "explain the plot in generic funny quips" way too much. The only interesting thing is when they bring in the guest characters or try to pitch other series and put Spider-Man in the background.
TBH all the Man of Action shows are doing the same thing, and they seem to have the monopoly on all Marvel shows and won't let the comic book writers have any freedom in the scripts. I can't sit through their Avengers or Hulk show. They're all really bland. I don't know if I would have watched these as a kid.
I mean, I'm good with them though, if they would let the more mature shows run concurrent, but I guess Disney's good diverting the rest of their audiences to the movies.
The 90's show did some pretty ambitious stuff, like adapt as much of the 90s comics as it could (first time Venom and Carnage were ever animated,) but the unnatural dialogue and heavy reusing of animation (just because the 60s did it doesn't mean you should follow suit guys) really makes it hard to go back and rewatch it. Plus the censorship was butchering it, especially since they were bringing in Morbius, Carnage, Blade, vampires, etc.
Being animated by TMS was sweet though, and they did have a few really superbly-animated episodes in there (Night of the Lizard, Alien Costume Part 1, Enter the Green Goblin, Hydroman, Turning Point). Chris Barnes will always be the default Spider-Man voice in my head when I read the comics.
Spectacular was the closest that they got to comic book Spider-Man, and the script was well done. The quips were sincerely funny ("premature gloatalation," "I got the thing on the thing," take a drink whenever Silver Sable gets hit in the face by an opening car door in that one episode.) Peter being voiced by Revolver Ocelot was also neat.
Some of the plot decisions were weird though, and the animation did get cheaper with each episode. I didn't care for Kraven being a Cat-Man, Montana as Shocker was meh, I really wanted the actual black Spidey suit, and while Tombstone should be a mob boss, it was clear Kingpin was being embargo'd by Fox. He would have had more impact in Tombstone's place. Venom as a peer was eh, okay, but I didn't care for the young-sounding voice actor.
After a while the censorship was starting to show, like how they were replacing bullets with tiny mace-ball projectiles. So much for Kraven's Last Hunt?
I will always be curious what they would have done with the rest of the show though if it continued. They brought Miles Warren into the second half of the last season, and they were already establishing a Cletus Kassady/Dr. Kafka subplot. Hobgoblin would have also been in the next season and Roderick Kingsley was a character on the show.
Ultimate Spider-Man does have the better animation, but even for a kids show I think the plots are pretty bland. Or the writing is. Spider-Man defaults to this "explain the plot in generic funny quips" way too much. The only interesting thing is when they bring in the guest characters or try to pitch other series and put Spider-Man in the background.
TBH all the Man of Action shows are doing the same thing, and they seem to have the monopoly on all Marvel shows and won't let the comic book writers have any freedom in the scripts. I can't sit through their Avengers or Hulk show. They're all really bland. I don't know if I would have watched these as a kid.
I mean, I'm good with them though, if they would let the more mature shows run concurrent, but I guess Disney's good diverting the rest of their audiences to the movies.
Last edited:
Tennyo
Higher Further Faster
This this this. He is the Spider-Man by which I judge all other Spider-Men. sorrynotsorry
Speaking of, though, one of the Spider-Man cartoons made an appearance in Amazing Spider-Man #7 as part of Edge of Spiderverse, and, well...
I hope you guys weren't too attached to the Amazing Friends because they totally got slaughtered by Morlun...
...with their dog left howling in sadness...
...I didn't even really like that show much and that still broke me.
...with their dog left howling in sadness...
...I didn't even really like that show much and that still broke me.
I mean all I really wanted was a Spider-Man/Kamala team-up. I felt a little horrified by the rest.
And Edge of Spider-Verse #4 was messed up. It's like the writers gave themselves a challenge to see who could be the most batshit insane...
Last edited:
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Given that "Spider-Verse" is a dimensions-spanning event, I was glad to see AMS #7 acknowledge the collapsing multiverse crisis going on in Hickman's Avengers books. It's about time the rest of the Marvel books got with the program.