Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[jimishim12]

I never liked the idea of Spidey being an Avenger. I'm excited to see his solo film but I can't imagine the need for him in a film with Cap and Iron Man.

He looks up to them in his own series history and has always made an aspiration to joining their ranks to be a part of something greater. Cap and Tony think Spidey would be one of the greats when they eventually pass on the new generation to him and other heroes. This isn't a question of whether it's a good idea, it's more like when is he gonna be there, of course Marvel had to make jump through hoops to make his induction to the team meaningful as a step of growth and progress for his whole canon life, it's one of the things Spider-Man personifies, when Spider-Man becomes ready to change into a new role, it's promoted as a equivalent to a Marvel event because Spider-Man represents coming of age and maturing.

[Metamorphosis]

He looks up to them in his own series history and has always made an aspiration to joining their ranks to be a part of something greater. Cap and Tony think Spidey would be one of the greats when they eventually pass on the new generation to him and other heroes. This isn't a question of whether it's a good idea, it's more like when is he gonna be there, of course Marvel had to make jump through hoops to make his induction to the team meaningful as a step of growth and progress for his whole canon life, it's one of the things Spider-Man personifies, when Spider-Man becomes ready to change into a new role, it's promoted as a equivalent to a Marvel event because Spider-Man represents coming of age and maturing.

Now it's coming of age AND maturing? Doesn't seem to be the case to me. One eventually cancels out the other.

My controversial opinion: Spider-Man is least interesting when portrayed as a teen. The ideal age range is twenties (so he can still "represent youth", but have a lot more interesting adventures, the drabness of the BND era notwithstanding).

[Phantom Roxas]

I don't think the example you give is a weasel word.

When I referred to Ramos' "perceived flaws" I did so because I wanted to respond to a point without leaving the incorrect impression that I agreed with you about the quality of Ramos' art. I had a different opinion there.

My opinions on Ramos were clearly stated. I like his work.

The contrary viewpoint is a matter of subjective opinion, rather than objective truth. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, nor do I expect anyone to do differently with my views.

The point you were making is that Ramos does stuff well that's worth the flaws, suggesting that he can do well in spite of something else, so there was no reason to include "perceived". Tacking that on isn't avoiding an incorrect impression. That's showing you don't even think there's something for him to do well in spite of. It's like saying "This artist did well in spite of the limits placed on him" and then immediately saying that no such limits were ever there to begin with. I posted a variety of artwork to show why I felt Ramos is a divisive artist. You can't just call him "divisive" - acknowledging that there are multiple sides that heavily split general opinion of him - and then pretend that one of those sides doesn't even exist. What does Ramos do well that's worth the flaws? Because Cyberhubbs outright dismissing the other side that makes Ramos divisive as "laughable" really wasn't helping in this scenario. The combination of the responses from the both of you really makes me doubt how much subjectivity is actually allowed if the only way you'll acknowledge that a different perception exists is when it's just a joke to you.

[Mister Mets]

The point you were making is that Ramos does stuff well that's worth the flaws, suggesting that he can do well in spite of something else, so there was no reason to include "perceived". Tacking that on isn't avoiding an incorrect impression. That's showing you don't even think there's something for him to do well in spite of. It's like saying "This artist did well in spite of the limits placed on him" and then immediately saying that no such limits were ever there to begin with. I posted a variety of artwork to show why I felt Ramos is a divisive artist. You can't just call him "divisive" - acknowledging that there are multiple sides that heavily split general opinion of him - and then pretend that one of those sides doesn't even exist. What does Ramos do well that's worth the flaws? Because Cyberhubbs outright dismissing the other side that makes Ramos divisive as "laughable" really wasn't helping in this scenario. The combination of the responses from the both of you really makes me doubt how much subjectivity is actually allowed if the only way you'll acknowledge that a different perception exists is when it's just a joke to you.

I'm well aware another side exists. I just don't agree with them.

I am the one who brought up Ramos being divisive.

People are free to post their controversial opinions, and to respond to what others say, whether it's to agree, disagree, or offer something more nuanced. Disagreement is not the same thing as forbidding subjectivity.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm well aware another side exists. I just don't agree with them.

I am the one who brought up Ramos being divisive.

People are free to post their controversial opinions, and to respond to what others say, whether it's to agree, disagree, or offer something more nuanced. Disagreement is not the same thing as forbidding subjectivity.

I know you brought up Ramos being divisive. I was saying I posted art to explain why I thought that was the case. Yes, disagreement is different from forbidding subjectivity, but stuff like "There's just a point where arguments like that become laughable" isn't a disagreement at all. That's just finding it silly that such a different could be possible. And making the issue about someone's perceptions rather than refuting specific examples is completely ignoring what the subject of disagreement is about. What has Ramos done that's worth putting up with the examples I provided for why I find his art bad?

[jimishim12]

Now it's coming of age AND maturing? Doesn't seem to be the case to me. One eventually cancels out the other.

My controversial opinion: Spider-Man is least interesting when portrayed as a teen. The ideal age range is twenties (so he can still "represent youth", but have a lot more interesting adventures, the drabness of the BND era notwithstanding).

I mean originally he was a kid wanting to be on the main Avengers and was pestering them until he finally gave them a chance to let him prove himself. It was a big moment in his life when Cap and the other welcomed him. I think Spider-Man is both a character that expresses the thin line of growth and learning since he gets stories that treat him as a up and coming mvp that gets a new job that is treated like a big deal due to his youth like leading the Avengers by himself in the Ends of the earth.

[JTait]

The Jackal has been misused since his return from the dead.

[Moral_Gutpunch]

Everyone's going to hate me, but:

I hated the story of Point of No Return and how it changed the relationship between Michael Morbius and Spider-Man. Then again, I think Spider-Man is both dumb and cruel when it comes to dealing with Michael.

I'm not that big of a fan of Todd McFarlane's art.

Or Slott's writing.

Or Utau (the kid, not the blue guy).

I also don't like the idea of the totems or most things that have anything to do with them.

I don't like the modern art style for Spider-Man.

I think the Big Wheel was under-utilized.

[Phantom Roxas]

Everyone's going to hate me, but:

Or Slott's writing.

I don't hate you, I want to hug you.

I don't like the modern art style for Spider-Man.

As I had said before, this mostly applies to the art of Humberto Ramos. Giuseppe Camuncoli, Stefano Caselli, and Olivier Coipel are all pretty great, and Jim Cheung's art is the most exciting thing about Dead No More.

[cyberhubbs]

The point you were making is that Ramos does stuff well that's worth the flaws, suggesting that he can do well in spite of something else, so there was no reason to include "perceived". Tacking that on isn't avoiding an incorrect impression. That's showing you don't even think there's something for him to do well in spite of. It's like saying "This artist did well in spite of the limits placed on him" and then immediately saying that no such limits were ever there to begin with. I posted a variety of artwork to show why I felt Ramos is a divisive artist. You can't just call him "divisive" - acknowledging that there are multiple sides that heavily split general opinion of him - and then pretend that one of those sides doesn't even exist. What does Ramos do well that's worth the flaws? Because Cyberhubbs outright dismissing the other side that makes Ramos divisive as "laughable" really wasn't helping in this scenario. The combination of the responses from the both of you really makes me doubt how much subjectivity is actually allowed if the only way you'll acknowledge that a different perception exists is when it's just a joke to you.

Ramos is on time and I love his action sequences, not to mention his style in general. If you want a thesis on why, you're probably not gonna get it. I just respond well to his art. Plus, no one is dismissing the other side, just the condemnation that he's not realistic enough with his art. Someone is always gonna complain, either lightly or heavily, about art.

Pointing out flaws is well and good but, really, I don't care whether you like Ramos or not, Phantom. Without a doubt.

[Alastor]

I also don't like the idea of the totems or most things that have anything to do with them.

Same here, I've always preferred that Peter got his powers by accident. Morlun is probably the worst villain introduced in recent years, and his family was incredibly annoying.

[Moral_Gutpunch]

Same here, I've always preferred that Peter got his powers by accident. Morlun is probably the worst villain introduced in recent years, and his family was incredibly annoying.

I like science fiction. I like fantasy. You can put them together and get peanut butter and chocolate, but insisting one is actually the other doesn't taste right. Hey, maybe The Lizard is actually magic too! Or Dr. Strange is actually science-based and no one knew all this time!

I'm also not buying those Inheritors are that old, especially when they're that dumb.

Anyone remember the last person who insisted he was a time-traveler and had some mystic reason to screw everything up for Spider-Man? A guy name Judas Traveler perhaps?

I don't hate you, I want to hug you.

I'm not sure if this confirms I'm sane when it comes to Slott or if we're both crazy.

As I had said before, this mostly applies to the art of Humberto Ramos. Giuseppe Camuncoli, Stefano Caselli, and Olivier Coipel are all pretty great, and Jim Cheung's art is the most exciting thing about Dead No More.

Jim Cheung's looks great. I'm not sure about the others, but the mix of 'too blocky' and 'too rubbery' almost hurts my eyes.

[Phantom Roxas]

Pointing out flaws is well and good but, really, I don't care whether you like Ramos or not, Phantom. Without a doubt.

Yet you cared enough to respond to a post that wasn't directed at you a month after the fact.

I'm not sure if this confirms I'm sane when it comes to Slott or if we're both crazy.

I've been told I have an "echo chamber" and I've been stalked on Twitter by someone who blocks me, while my friends have been blocked simply because they are my friends. I guess that depends on whether or not you'd want to be a part of my "cyber circle".

[Moral_Gutpunch]

I've been told I have an "echo chamber" and I've been stalked on Twitter by someone who blocks me, while my friends have been blocked simply because they are my friends. I guess that depends on whether or not you'd want to be a part of my "cyber circle".

I tend to like cyber circles.

[DT Winslow]

I like Dan Slott's Spider-Man run. It seems to be a controversial opinion these days.