Page 36 of 59 FirstFirst ... 2632333435363738394046 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 873
  1. #526
    Spectacular Member FeliciaSpidey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregpersons View Post
    Wow, what a gross post. Which one is the second rate copy?

    Either way it's wrong.

    Raimi Peter and Miles >> MCU Peter

    That's just your opinion.
    Peter Parker is the original Spider-Man, THE Spider-Man, the reason that makes Spider-Man such popular. Every other Spider-Man is based on him.
    So he's always the better choice.
    And this is Peter's movie, saying Miles should take Peter's place is disgusting.

  2. #527
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaSpidey View Post
    And this is Peter's movie, saying Miles should take Peter's place is disgusting.
    Peter Parker was originally created to embody a particular archetype. The poor working-class scholarship boy who did everything on his own and became a major superhero without a butler, a fortress, a batcave, a sidekick nor was he a sidekick to anyone. That archetype is fundamentally rooted in the '60s. As time passes, everything that once defined and made Peter unique as a teenage hero has changed. New York has become too expensive, so any white guy living on his Uncle's pension and small inheritance and his Aunt who is too old to work, on a freelance shutterbug's salary moreover, is basically an anachronism.

    Sam Raimi's movies largely took that approach since his movies mashed different perods of New York history on top (an elevated train in manhattan...yeah, not since the '50s), no internet (seriously nobody uses the net once in the trilogy even if the late '90s was the cyber cafe and post-dotcom bubble era, the period those stories are ostensibly set in).

    If you keep updating Peter time and time again in his origin to a new setting and period and so reimagine everything that defined him, you are essentially not doing the original character anymore. MCU Spider-Man is a kid who gets stuff handed down to him, toils in the shadow of an established hero, and is both a sidekick and has a sidekick. His story resembles Miles Morales in that sense. Also a kid who got the web-shooters and outfit and motif handed down, is a legacy character to a pre-established hero, and has a sidekick who was hijacked for the MCU with brazen shamelessness. He is functionally a whiteboy Miles. Miles Morales has a supportive family environment and background you know probably because Peter's original "loner teen" aesthetic while highly sympathetic at one point is now, unfairly I might add, now tags him as "creep" and so on.

    Bendis created Miles Morales as basically an update of Peter's original archetype to the 21st Century. As Bendis pointed out if you are doing a kid from a poor background who is getting ahead on scholarship and so on, there's a solid chance that kid won't be white anymore. Miles Morales is here to stay. He is the teenage Spider-Man of the current generation in a way the original Peter Parker can never really be again. So I don't think people are wrong to insist that Miles take Peter's place. Besides there are loads of ways to bring Raimi-Peter or an Adult Peter and his story into the MCU. You have Spider-Verse, you have the Quantum Realm, you have Infinity Stones, in the words of the Beyonder, Nothing we dream of is impossible to achieve.

  3. #528
    Anyone. Anywhere.Anytime. Arsenal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,266

    Default

    Peter’s loner teen aesthetic wasn’t that sympathetic since he wasn’t exactly nice to most people not named May in the early days.

  4. #529
    Genesis of A Nemesis KOSLOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Peter Parker was originally created to embody a particular archetype. The poor working-class scholarship boy who did everything on his own and became a major superhero without a butler, a fortress, a batcave, a sidekick nor was he a sidekick to anyone. That archetype is fundamentally rooted in the '60s. As time passes, everything that once defined and made Peter unique as a teenage hero has changed. New York has become too expensive, so any white guy living on his Uncle's pension and small inheritance and his Aunt who is too old to work, on a freelance shutterbug's salary moreover, is basically an anachronism.

    Sam Raimi's movies largely took that approach since his movies mashed different perods of New York history on top (an elevated train in manhattan...yeah, not since the '50s), no internet (seriously nobody uses the net once in the trilogy even if the late '90s was the cyber cafe and post-dotcom bubble era, the period those stories are ostensibly set in).

    If you keep updating Peter time and time again in his origin to a new setting and period and so reimagine everything that defined him, you are essentially not doing the original character anymore. MCU Spider-Man is a kid who gets stuff handed down to him, toils in the shadow of an established hero, and is both a sidekick and has a sidekick. His story resembles Miles Morales in that sense. Also a kid who got the web-shooters and outfit and motif handed down, is a legacy character to a pre-established hero, and has a sidekick who was hijacked for the MCU with brazen shamelessness. He is functionally a whiteboy Miles. Miles Morales has a supportive family environment and background you know probably because Peter's original "loner teen" aesthetic while highly sympathetic at one point is now, unfairly I might add, now tags him as "creep" and so on.

    Bendis created Miles Morales as basically an update of Peter's original archetype to the 21st Century. As Bendis pointed out if you are doing a kid from a poor background who is getting ahead on scholarship and so on, there's a solid chance that kid won't be white anymore. Miles Morales is here to stay. He is the teenage Spider-Man of the current generation in a way the original Peter Parker can never really be again. So I don't think people are wrong to insist that Miles take Peter's place. Besides there are loads of ways to bring Raimi-Peter or an Adult Peter and his story into the MCU. You have Spider-Verse, you have the Quantum Realm, you have Infinity Stones, in the words of the Beyonder, Nothing we dream of is impossible to achieve.
    This is one of the best analyses of Peter and Miles I've ever read. And it's pretty concise. Well done.
    Pull List:

    Marvel Comics: Venom, X-Men, Black Panther, Captain America, Eternals, Warhammer 40000.
    DC Comics: The Last God
    Image: Decorum

  5. #530
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Bendis created Miles Morales as basically an update of Peter's original archetype to the 21st Century. As Bendis pointed out if you are doing a kid from a poor background who is getting ahead on scholarship and so on, there's a solid chance that kid won't be white anymore. Miles Morales is here to stay. He is the teenage Spider-Man of the current generation in a way the original Peter Parker can never really be again. So I don't think people are wrong to insist that Miles take Peter's place. Besides there are loads of ways to bring Raimi-Peter or an Adult Peter and his story into the MCU. You have Spider-Verse, you have the Quantum Realm, you have Infinity Stones, in the words of the Beyonder, Nothing we dream of is impossible to achieve.
    Isn't that what Ultimate Peter was to begin with?

    And Spectacular Peter...

  6. #531
    Spectacular Member FeliciaSpidey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Peter Parker was originally created to embody a particular archetype. The poor working-class scholarship boy who did everything on his own and became a major superhero without a butler, a fortress, a batcave, a sidekick nor was he a sidekick to anyone. That archetype is fundamentally rooted in the '60s. As time passes, everything that once defined and made Peter unique as a teenage hero has changed. New York has become too expensive, so any white guy living on his Uncle's pension and small inheritance and his Aunt who is too old to work, on a freelance shutterbug's salary moreover, is basically an anachronism.

    Sam Raimi's movies largely took that approach since his movies mashed different perods of New York history on top (an elevated train in manhattan...yeah, not since the '50s), no internet (seriously nobody uses the net once in the trilogy even if the late '90s was the cyber cafe and post-dotcom bubble era, the period those stories are ostensibly set in).

    If you keep updating Peter time and time again in his origin to a new setting and period and so reimagine everything that defined him, you are essentially not doing the original character anymore. MCU Spider-Man is a kid who gets stuff handed down to him, toils in the shadow of an established hero, and is both a sidekick and has a sidekick. His story resembles Miles Morales in that sense. Also a kid who got the web-shooters and outfit and motif handed down, is a legacy character to a pre-established hero, and has a sidekick who was hijacked for the MCU with brazen shamelessness. He is functionally a whiteboy Miles. Miles Morales has a supportive family environment and background you know probably because Peter's original "loner teen" aesthetic while highly sympathetic at one point is now, unfairly I might add, now tags him as "creep" and so on.

    Bendis created Miles Morales as basically an update of Peter's original archetype to the 21st Century. As Bendis pointed out if you are doing a kid from a poor background who is getting ahead on scholarship and so on, there's a solid chance that kid won't be white anymore. Miles Morales is here to stay. He is the teenage Spider-Man of the current generation in a way the original Peter Parker can never really be again. So I don't think people are wrong to insist that Miles take Peter's place. Besides there are loads of ways to bring Raimi-Peter or an Adult Peter and his story into the MCU. You have Spider-Verse, you have the Quantum Realm, you have Infinity Stones, in the words of the Beyonder, Nothing we dream of is impossible to achieve.
    For me, Spider-Man is Peter Parker, I don't care about others who called themselves Spider-Man. I want to see Peter Parker and his friends such as Johnny Storm in the same movie, so I support MCU Peter. If you want a MCU Miles instead of MCU Peter, you can write e-mails to Marvel Studios. There's no point in saying that in this post.
    If Spider-Man is no longer Peter Parker, then I'm no longer a spidey's fan. After that, it's none of my business.
    Last edited by FeliciaSpidey; 04-05-2019 at 08:28 AM.

  7. #532
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Isn't that what Ultimate Peter was to begin with?
    Ultimate Peter was late 90s in conception and attitude and not really millennial in aesthetic. And Ultimate Spider-Man was a commission by Bill Jemas and he and Bendis have joint plotting credit for Power and Responsibility. So Bendis initially set out with do Spider-Man and his supporting cast and stories but use updated scenery, slang, and styles. So Peter's now a web-designer, Uncle Ben has gone from World War II vet to ex-hippy, MJ is now an aspiring humanities student rather than a girl who wants to set out on her own and be a model/actress (social trends have changed, and modelling and acting aren't as open to people coming in from the sticks as they used to be back then). Bendis remember said that he had to prove himself before he could do what he wanted with USM. #13 where Peter tells MJ his secret (and Bendis' personal favorite of his issues) was something he had to tip toe around and pitch and sell, after proving himself. Throughout the 90s, Marvel wanted to revive Spider-Man as a "teenage Spider-Man" which management and others who want to get in with management thought was who Peter was originally supposed to be. (Newsflash, he wasn't). So you had Untold Tales of Spider-Man then Spider-Man Chapter One. Those two were commercially not setting the world on fire, even if the former was critically acclaimed, and the latter was trashed. USM was the proverbial "third time's the charm". There was nothing inevitable or set in stone about teenage Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man taking off the way they did. It did because it was no-continuity baggage (both Untold Tales and Chapter One needed some familiarity with the stories and setting), and because of Bendis. Heck Ultimate Spider-Man is probably more successful than the original Lee-Ditko run in high school was. Remember that Spider-Man only really became a major sales success when he went to college and contrary to the lies Marvel is telling, everytime Spider-Man grew up and progressed sales increased.

    Ultimate Marvel was more about using contemporary stylings, slang and setting then actually situating and reimagining characters for a new generation. That was what Bendis did with Miles.

    And Spectacular Peter...
    Like Spider-Man Trilogy, an anachronistic melange and blend, mostly geared towards the Lee-Ditko-Romita era and aesthetic. It borrows stuff from Ultimates and adds in diversity of course but it isn't actually contemporary. Like Hammerhead drives an old fashioned '30s Car since his 30s Gangster chic is a big part of the character design.

    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaSpidey View Post
    I want to see Peter Parker and his friends such as Johnny Storm in the same movie,
    Johnny Storm is Spider-Man's friend, not Peter Parker's. And their friendship evolved over time. The Spider-Man/Human Torch miniseries is largely from Johnny's point of view of how Spider-Man never really trusted him over the years and only in the 5th issue does that change. In the L-D highschool teenage era, Spider-Man and Johnny were often at loggerheads and fought each other, and Peter was too put it bluntly a jerk a lot of the times in their interactions.

    If you want a MCU Miles instead of MCU Peter, you can write e-mails to Marvel Studios. There's no point in saying that in this post.
    There's no point in saying anything in any post in any thread in this forum. And I and others did my part by voting with my feet and wallet for ITSV. I paid money to see that in theatres and bought the home video for that, while I only rented Homecoming by redbox to see with my friends.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 04-05-2019 at 08:40 AM.

  8. #533
    Spectacular Member FeliciaSpidey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    There's no point in saying anything in any post in any thread in this forum. And I and others did my part by voting with my feet and wallet for ITSV. I paid money to see that in theatres and bought the home video for that, while I only rented Homecoming by redbox to see with my friends.
    Do what you like. Far From Home will do well at the box office anyway.

  9. #534
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Ultimate Marvel was more about using contemporary stylings, slang and setting then actually situating and reimagining characters for a new generation. That was what Bendis did with Miles.
    I dunno. I feel like those two aims kind of go hand-in-hand.
    Like Spider-Man Trilogy, an anachronistic melange and blend, mostly geared towards the Lee-Ditko-Romita era and aesthetic. It borrows stuff from Ultimates and adds in diversity of course but it isn't actually contemporary. Like Hammerhead drives an old fashioned '30s Car since his 30s Gangster chic is a big part of the character design.
    I mean, the characters and setting felt contemporary even though they didn't really change much about the characters (because they didn't have to).

    Like look at all the times Batman gets updated in the modern day while still pretty much retaining the core of the character and elements from different eras.

    Hammerhead acts like an old-fashioned gangster no matter the setting, except Ultimate, but it was Ultimate.

  10. #535
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I dunno. I feel like those two aims kind of go hand-in-hand.
    Well in some ways it should. We tend to have this idea that the present is more progressive than the past that history goes linearly, but many real-world historians tells us that there's no evidence that things work that way. Sometimes you have zig-zags, one-steps-back, two-steps-forward and so on.

    In the case of Ultimate Marvel...if you look at the Ultimate X-Men and compare that to Grant Morrison's New X-Men and the X-Men Evolution cartoon, Millar's Ultimate X-Men is less diverse than the other versions. Think of a character like X-23, Wolverine's POC female legacy character. It feels like she should have been introduce in Ultimate Marvel, but actually she came in the Cartoon, in Season 3. In the case of Ultimate Marvel, they finally gave us Wolverine's...blonde white son who's introduced as a '50s James Dean throwback anachronism. Ultimate Spider-Man for all its charms and so on felt like the Friends TV Show, you know all these white pretty teenagers. I like it and enjoy it don't get me wrong but in terms of representing high school life of the early millennium, it's less accurate to its time than Lee-Ditko and Romita were to theirs. And it's only in Miles Morales' story with the lottery and so on, you have a more accurate look at high school today than earlier.

    So that's the difference between having contemporary stylings and being contemporary. It's the difference I guess between ASM comics of the early '60s being generally set in that decade, and having Mary Jane Watson, a character who couldn't exist in any superhero comic in any period before that.

    Like look at all the times Batman gets updated in the modern day while still pretty much retaining the core of the character and elements from different eras.
    With Batman, he's set in Gotham City and since his entire background and world is fictional you can retain and control it better than having to situate a character and mythos in a real-world city which is also widely documented by the media and on which the story depends a lot on for its verisimilitude and impact.

  11. #536
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well in some ways it should. We tend to have this idea that the present is more progressive than the past that history goes linearly, but many real-world historians tells us that there's no evidence that things work that way. Sometimes you have zig-zags, one-steps-back, two-steps-forward and so on.

    In the case of Ultimate Marvel...if you look at the Ultimate X-Men and compare that to Grant Morrison's New X-Men and the X-Men Evolution cartoon, Millar's Ultimate X-Men is less diverse than the other versions. Think of a character like X-23, Wolverine's POC female legacy character. It feels like she should have been introduce in Ultimate Marvel, but actually she came in the Cartoon, in Season 3. In the case of Ultimate Marvel, they finally gave us Wolverine's...blonde white son who's introduced as a '50s James Dean throwback anachronism. Ultimate Spider-Man for all its charms and so on felt like the Friends TV Show, you know all these white pretty teenagers. I like it and enjoy it don't get me wrong but in terms of representing high school life of the early millennium, it's less accurate to its time than Lee-Ditko and Romita were to theirs. And it's only in Miles Morales' story with the lottery and so on, you have a more accurate look at high school today than earlier.

    So that's the difference between having contemporary stylings and being contemporary. It's the difference I guess between ASM comics of the early '60s being generally set in that decade, and having Mary Jane Watson, a character who couldn't exist in any superhero comic in any period before that.
    I think there are a variety of ways you can depict a "modernized" version of something, or at least taking an IP and then revamping it with more modern sensibilities or elements without necessarily changing as much, just as there a variety of different experiences as far as being a teenager or high schooler that you can see in the different stories Peter and Miles have.
    With Batman, he's set in Gotham City and since his entire background and world is fictional you can retain and control it better than having to situate a character and mythos in a real-world city which is also widely documented by the media and on which the story depends a lot on for its verisimilitude and impact.
    Spider-Man lives in a very fictionalized version of New York City so I don't think it's all that different.

  12. #537
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I think there are a variety of ways you can depict a "modernized" version of something, or at least taking an IP and then revamping it with more modern sensibilities or elements without necessarily changing as much, just as there a variety of different experiences as far as being a teenager or high schooler that you can see in the different stories Peter and Miles have.
    True. The other thing is that it's extremely difficult in the best of times to get a handle on the present or capture lightning-in-the-bottle as it were. You kind of need some distance and perspective to get a sense of that. In the case of Ultimate Marvel, Bendis and then EIC Axel Alonso, the wake-up call was Obama's election and (for Bendis) Donald Glover's campaign to be Spider-Man. If America was ready for a black President, then it should be for a black Spider-Man, and that kind of started the ball rolling on this debate on representation.

    Spider-Man lives in a very fictionalized version of New York City so I don't think it's all that different.
    If that were the case then there should be no problem showing the twin towers in the comics.

    I mean on one hand it's true that it's a fictionalized version but on the other hand Marvel has to be "the world outside your window".

  13. #538
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    If that were the case then there should be no problem showing the twin towers in the comics.
    For obvious reasons, that would be inappropriate. Especially if the point is only to underline that this is a fictional version of NYC.

    I think the fact that its inhabited by superheroes is enough to get that point across. You don't have to be grossly insensitive to further prove the point.

    Everyone understands the Marvel universe is a fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I mean on one hand it's true that it's a fictionalized version but on the other hand Marvel has to be "the world outside your window".
    Yes, and it is. It's a fantasy that's still anchored enough in the real world to acknowledge a real life tragedy that permanently altered the landscape of the city most of its heroes call home.

  14. #539
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Peter Parker was originally created to embody a particular archetype. The poor working-class scholarship boy who did everything on his own and became a major superhero without a butler, a fortress, a batcave, a sidekick nor was he a sidekick to anyone. That archetype is fundamentally rooted in the '60s. As time passes, everything that once defined and made Peter unique as a teenage hero has changed. New York has become too expensive, so any white guy living on his Uncle's pension and small inheritance and his Aunt who is too old to work, on a freelance shutterbug's salary moreover, is basically an anachronism.
    Peter was not created to be an "archetype."

    If anything, he was created to demystify the heroic archetype of the costumed hero. The point was to turn the old, conventional notions of superheroes on their head.

    While the era that he was created in has passed, that doesn't make Peter any less relevant. He's able to change with the times. In any era, Peter can still be a young hero. The idea that, gee, New York is too expensive to live in these days and so that's a bridge too far that somehow makes Peter unbelievable now is frankly absurd. Radioactive spiders can't pass their powers on to anyone, either. Teenagers also can't invent an adhesive webbing in their bedrooms and create a delivery system to fire it. So Peter making his rent in the Big Apple is the least of the leaps that a reader has to take with the character.

    Making a living isn't what defined Peter. It's how he grappled with his responsibilities to both his civilian life and his superhero life and the nuts and bolts of that can easily change to suit the times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Sam Raimi's movies largely took that approach since his movies mashed different perods of New York history on top (an elevated train in manhattan...yeah, not since the '50s), no internet (seriously nobody uses the net once in the trilogy even if the late '90s was the cyber cafe and post-dotcom bubble era, the period those stories are ostensibly set in).
    Raimi made his movies to reflect the era of the comic he was most familiar with and fond of. They were ostensibly in current times but also were clearly rooted in an earlier era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    If you keep updating Peter time and time again in his origin to a new setting and period and so reimagine everything that defined him, you are essentially not doing the original character anymore. MCU Spider-Man is a kid who gets stuff handed down to him, toils in the shadow of an established hero, and is both a sidekick and has a sidekick. His story resembles Miles Morales in that sense. Also a kid who got the web-shooters and outfit and motif handed down, is a legacy character to a pre-established hero, and has a sidekick who was hijacked for the MCU with brazen shamelessness. He is functionally a whiteboy Miles. Miles Morales has a supportive family environment and background you know probably because Peter's original "loner teen" aesthetic while highly sympathetic at one point is now, unfairly I might add, now tags him as "creep" and so on.
    Peter as a loner is still sympathetic. There's nothing to tag him as a creep.

    Also, the magic of the concept of Peter Parker is that he doesn't have to be rooted in the era that he was created. He can, and has been, re-imagined to update with the times - whether it be through Ultimate Spider-Man, the Raimi and Webb films, the modern animated adaptations, or the MCU. There's nothing in the concept of Peter Parker that says that to tell a story that's true to his essence of his character that he has to be selling pictures to the Bugle in the NYC of the early '60s. That stuff is all peripheral to the character, not essential to it.

    Also, you continue to misread the MCU Spidey's accomplishments and his relationship with other heroes.

    He became a hero on his own, invented his web fluid and web shooters and went out in a costume of his own making. That's how Tony discovered him in the first place.

    That Tony has provided him with tech doesn't devalue what Peter has done and Peter has shown that he doesn't need to be sponsored by Tony to be a hero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Bendis created Miles Morales as basically an update of Peter's original archetype to the 21st Century. As Bendis pointed out if you are doing a kid from a poor background who is getting ahead on scholarship and so on, there's a solid chance that kid won't be white anymore. Miles Morales is here to stay. He is the teenage Spider-Man of the current generation in a way the original Peter Parker can never really be again. So I don't think people are wrong to insist that Miles take Peter's place. Besides there are loads of ways to bring Raimi-Peter or an Adult Peter and his story into the MCU. You have Spider-Verse, you have the Quantum Realm, you have Infinity Stones, in the words of the Beyonder, Nothing we dream of is impossible to achieve.
    Bendis, of course, also showed us in Ultimate Spider-Man what Peter would be like in the new millennium.

    Miles is a great character. But he's not going to supplant Peter. As ITSV showed, there's no reason to kick any Spider person to the curb.
    Last edited by Prof. Warren; 04-06-2019 at 04:22 AM.

  15. #540
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Bendis, of course, also showed us in Ultimate Spider-Man what Peter would be like in the new millennium.
    And what Bendis started in Ultimate the Spectacular cartoon was able to take, refine, and execute to extreme effectiveness in modernizing and updating the Spider-Man mythos.
    Miles is a great character. But he's not going to supplant Peter. As ITSV showed, there's no reason to kick any Spider person to the curb.
    He's also a very different Spider-Man from Peter if you're actually utilizing the characters effectively.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •