Page 4 of 83 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1232
  1. #46
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    6,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Cosmic View Post
    I agree with you on Norman's return. The mastermind behind the Clone Saga should have been who editorial originally envisioned: Otto Octavius. It fit in with his previous role as The Master Planner and he was always more brilliant and cunning than Norman.

    That said, bringing back Harry as the mastermind would have also worked for different reasons.
    Interesting that you mention Otto was the original intended mastermind. In USM, he was the mastermind of all things clone. Maybe Bendis saw the potential that Marvel originally overlooked? I'd probably be happier if we had no Jackal character and instead had Ock filling that role.

    Harry would not have worked for me, simply because he is not any good at science.

    As for ASM2 being a "damned good movie," how do you get around the awful characterization and performance of Jamie Foxx as Electro and the soap operatic approach to Harry Osborn? That level of utter campy trash should have stayed dead the last time it reared its ugly head in "Punisher War Zone."
    Nothing bothered me about Jamie Foxx as Electro. I have no idea what you are talking about. He was portrayed as a nerdy, creepy guy and then once he got powers alot of bottled up feelings came out and he changed. The character was not true to just about any comic book portrayal, but thats really my only minor complaint.

    Harry Osborn's whole life in the comics is a soap opera. He's the whiniest guy Pete knows, easy! Not seeing the problem.

  2. #47
    Amazing Member Peter Porker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheetah View Post
    This, like many things in serial ongoing comics by the Big Two depend heavily on the writer. Most of Peter's love interests have at least a few stories were they depicted with a great deal of depth and personality to them. Also dating hot chicks does not necessarily mean your life is 100% awesome especially one is dead (Gwen), another is a criminal (Felicia) and another thinks hanging around you would get her killed (MJ and Carlie)
    I know what you mean and don't get me wrong, I love Peters supporting female characters.
    I like MJ, I like Felicia and I like many many others. And you're right, it really depends on the writer. I'm just saying that they are all super hot and all of them served for voyeuristic purposes at some point.

  3. #48
    Amazing Member Peter Porker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CRuby28 View Post
    I thought about this for a while. Good topic.

    I don't believe that Marvel Comics, or DC Comics, would ever take their most popular character and change their sexual orientation to homosexual or bisexual. At least not in my lifetime. I don't know if that is good or bad.

    I do not agree that making him bisexual, or homosexual, would make him an underdog. I see so many inspiring people that do great things in this world that happen to be bisexual or homosexual and they aren't underdogs. I would like to think that if Peter Parker were to be written as a homosexual or bisexual man that it would mean something more than a gimmick to make him an underdog.
    I also think that bisexuality as a gimmick isn't exactly what I'd consider a good thing. That's why I stated some more reasons why I think it would be a good idea. Of course it would also be a personal preference for me!

    But I have to disagree on one thing:
    Not being straight automatically makes you the underdog, but not in the usual sense. It has more to do with institutionalized disadvantages etc.


    There's no way in hell Marvel will do this, but one can dream!

  4. #49
    Fantastic Member jgprime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Porker View Post
    It might not be true, I didn't read the Ultimate Comics with Peter (only those with Miles). Someone stated that she was bisexual, but I have absolutely no source. I apologizie if I'm saying things that are simply not true.
    Can someone confirm this?
    When Peter was alive in the Ultimate Comics he has a chat with Jessica where she tells him that she knows exactly what Peter's thinking when he sees her. Jessica tells Peter that he's probably wondering if she's gay. Before getting too deep into that, they change topic. In another comic we see Jessica flirting with Johnny Storm so that's a hint to her liking men. However after Pets and Jessica starts teaching Miles about being Spider-Man she says that she hardly remembers Peter's memories and doesn't identify with him anymore, she sees herself as another person now.

  5. #50
    Amazing Member Peter Porker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgprime View Post
    When Peter was alive in the Ultimate Comics he has a chat with Jessica where she tells him that she knows exactly what Peter's thinking when he sees her. Jessica tells Peter that he's probably wondering if she's gay. Before getting too deep into that, they change topic. In another comic we see Jessica flirting with Johnny Storm so that's a hint to her liking men. However after Pets and Jessica starts teaching Miles about being Spider-Man she says that she hardly remembers Peter's memories and doesn't identify with him anymore, she sees herself as another person now.
    So when she had Peters memory she felt affection to specific women and when she developed an own consciousness her feelings of affection and attraction disappeared? Huh. That's odd and not how sexuality works.
    I'm confused and think I will not say she's heterosexual or bisexual until proven otherwise.

  6. #51
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    188

    Default

    I know this is a thread titled "controversial Spider-Man opinions" but can we PLEASE leave out discussion of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or political views of Peter Parker and/or his supporting cast?

    There was PLENTY to talk about before these topics were brought up and there remains much more yet.

  7. #52
    Amazing Member Peter Porker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Cosmic View Post
    I know this is a thread titled "controversial Spider-Man opinions" but can we PLEASE leave out discussion of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or political views of Peter Parker and/or his supporting cast?

    There was PLENTY to talk about before these topics were brought up and there remains much more yet.
    Why? It's what people care about, so why should we leave it out?
    People are still writing other opinions, aren't they?

  8. #53
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    670

    Default

    1. Aunt May is not one of the most important characters in Spider-Man. She's a flat, two dimensional character that never really brings any real depth to the story. Those creators that do claim she's a great character and more important to the mythos tend to only use her either as a crutch to justify any controversial decision they choose, hiding behind her legacy and the legacy of her creator Stan Lee to defend their position, or they simply don't use her at all. Any attempt to give her real depth tend to be undone and ignored in short order.

    2. Miles Morales replacing Spider-Man in the Ultimate Universe was a smart move. Unfortunately, it came five years too late to be truly help the Ultimate Universe. The premise of the line, offering entry level series for new and lapsed readers, had faded and became an "Anything could happen" sort of universe. Unfortunately, this sort of "anything goes" appeal can quickly turn people off, as the lack of stability leads to a lack of connection to the characters and the events in the story.

    3. BND, while not a total failure, was not the financial or commercial success Marvel wanted or needed it to be, and never lived up to the promise of higher quality that was made by the company or the creators on the book. This wasn't helped by the fact that the creators, rather than listening to their critics, instead decided to double down on their philosophy for the franchise, which didn't help endear them to the doubters. By the time the creators tried to bring people back to the fold, their efforts like "Who Was Ben Reilly" or "Something Stopped the Juggernaut" were too little too late. It was only through the efforts from good creators like Mark Waid that the book managed to stay relatively entertaining, but even then it was hit or miss.

    4. OMIT, on the other hand, was a failure. But had it succeeded, I think the landscape of the Spider-Man books would be radically different. OMIT was likely meant to be the final nail in the coffin of Peter and MJ's relationship, meant to show Peter and MJ closing the door on their time together and "moving on." However, the toxic reaction to the story likely caused a rewrite for the stories going forward. Had OMIT did what Marvel wanted, MJ would likely not have had a prominent role in the mythos aside from cameo appearances here and there. But since it didn't, MJ's role had to be rewritten to accommodate fan concerns. Hence why MJ's presence in the book post Big-Time for the longest time was something that came across as added after the fact and shoe-horned in when there was time.

  9. #54
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Mary Jane being in the dark about the brain swap was not far fetched.

    She also needed to leave Peter alone and stop breaking up with him every few months in "Superior".

  10. #55

    Default

    Superior was not original or fresh.

  11. #56
    I'm at least a C-Lister! exile001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sudbury, UK
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesedique View Post
    Peter having unmasked and facing JJJ in a boxing ring almost made the entire run for me.
    This was the absolute worst thing for me!

  12. #57
    Is The Best Monk The Red Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Porker View Post
    1.) Peters life isn't actually terrible, people pity him way too much. There are other comic book characters with worse lifes and even Peter himself doesn't seem to think that everything sucks (even if he is self-loathing and self-pitying sometimes, he's still pretty optimistic).

    And here's the bomb I actually tried not to drop:
    2.) Peter should be outed as bisexual. Why? Because of many reasons.
    Recently Moviebob pointed this out:

    I agree with Bob and I'm sick and tired of Peter dating super-hotties that are just there for fanservice and voyeurism. It would be interesting to see him being interested in men.
    Another thing? He's supposed to represent the underdog, but I don't see how there is anything underdog-y about him right now. He's white, supposedly straight, dated a lot of hot and cool women, worked together with a bunch of amazing scientists, isn't poor anymore, him being a genius and a nerd actually gives him a privileged status instead of it turning him into an outcast (...)
    Not only would he regain his status as an underdog if he'd been outed as bisexual, it would actually mean something because he's friggin Spider-Man.
    As far as I know, Jessica Drew is bisexual in the Ultimate Comics and since she's Peters clone, it would be hypocritical if Peter wasn't. But that's not the 616 universe.
    Also, Peter has interesting dynamics (not subtext) with many male characters and it would make sense if he had a crush on one of them.

    3.) Peter should absolutely not come back in the Ultimate Comics. Please, no. Just no. But I guess that's not a controversial opinion.
    1) Here's an idea. Instead of taking Peter Parker, the ultimate representative of a straight white American male underdog wish-fulfillment fantasy, and turning him into something that he is not, and was not intended to be, create your own character embodying what you describe above. Imagination is a criminally lacking thing in comics nowadays.

    2) Why would Peter not being bisexual when Jessica is, be hypocritical? Nobody knows for sure how sexual orientation works. It's open territory for speculation.

    3) Peter having crushes on male friends or acquaintances would not make sense, it would be rightfully decried as nonsensical bullshit. Being close to a male friend does not make one bisexual or gay.

    4) How the hell would being bisexual make Peter an underdog again?

    5) This would be just as stupid as an African-American Wally West.

    Oh yeah, and now for the controversial opinions:

    1) Spider-Man works best as a teenager/young adult. Once he's got his life in order, matured out of the "teenage loser" zone completely, and achieved full adulthood, that should basically be it for the character. Peter reaching adulthood should be The Dark Knight Returns of Spider-Man stories, the end-point of his journey. Many key themes underpinning the foundations of the character and his world rely on his being a teenager/young man.

    2) Lots of Spider-Man's classic villains are lame, stupid and way past being consigned to the rubbish bin and replaced with better antagonists. As Peter Parker progresses, a lot of them feel like artifacts from the past, trying to relive their greatest hits.

    3) Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson are the only two crucial supporting characters in Spider-Man' mythos. Everyone else is optional. Yes, that includes Mary Jane Watson.

    4) Seeing a crappy villain like Carnage getting so much love from the Spider-Man fandom makes me feel sad.

    5) I always thought that Black Cat was out of place in Spider-Man's mythos. Whenever I see her, I can't shake the feeling that her presence is entirely forced and unnatural. She seems like a character that wandered in from another character's world.
    Last edited by The Red Monk; 05-14-2014 at 05:38 AM.
    "If you're afraid - don't do it - and if you're doing it - don't be afraid!" - Genghis Khan

  13. #58
    Amazing Member Peter Porker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Red Monk View Post
    1) Here's an idea. Instead of taking Peter Parker, the ultimate representative of a straight white American male underdog wish-fulfillment fantasy, and turning him into something that he is not, and was not intended to be, create your own character embodying what you describe above. Imagination is a criminally lacking thing in comics nowadays.

    2) Why would Peter not being bisexual when Jessica is, be hypocritical? Nobody knows for sure how sexual orientation works. It's open territory for speculation.

    3) Peter having crushes on male friends or acquaintances would not make sense, it would be rightfully decried as nonsensical bullshit. Being close to a male friend does not make one bisexual or gay.

    4) How the hell would being bisexual make Peter an underdog again?

    5) This would be just as stupid as an African-American Wally West.
    1.) So you're saying that not being straight would change the meaning of what his character intended to be. So being straight is a major point in his life? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just don't get it. The thing is that I don't get how wish-fulfillment for straight, white American male underdogs is necessary anymore, when nowadays you get to see so many of these types in the media. While not so much with people of minorities. Just a thought.
    I'm creating many characters on my own, because it's a good way of practicing character design. But that's not the topic here and I don't know how this is somehow an argument, it's not like I work for Marvel. You could say that about anything, really.

    2.) If Jessica WAS bisexual (which I don't know) and Peter wasn't, it would indicate two things: A) Sexuality is a choice and B) female bisexual characters are hot, but male bisexual characters aren't. That's what I would find hypocritical.
    And yes, you're right about how we can't be sure how sexuality works, but this way it would seem like two people with the same genes, memories (so basically the same lifes until a point) and the same feelings for certain people can still decide whether or not they want to feel attracted to all genders or not and that doesn't make sense and that's definitely not how sexuality works.
    I'm glad that Jessica got her own life or is working on getting one and i definitely think that even clones could have different sexualities, but not in this context.

    3.) Why would it be nonsensical bullshit? I never said that being close to a male friend makes someone bisexual or gay, that would be insulting. I just think that it would make sense IF he could develop romantic feelings for one of his close male friends, because they have interesting dynamics and work well together. Maybe it's just me, but I made the experience that love builds wonderfully on close and deep friendship and that's basically the point I was trying to make (I am sorry if I'm not choosing the right words at times, I'm not a native English speaker)

    4.) I think we have a misunderstanding about the word "underdog" here. I talked about this with a friend, because this topic wouldn't let me go and she told me that what I mean is another type of "underdog" than that one that most people think of.
    In my understanding an underdog is someone who is a victim of social or political injustice or a person in adversity or in a position of inferiority (x) and when I read that I automatically think of people who are not heterosexual.

    5.) Imo a black Wally West wouldn't be entirely stupid!

    I mean, we all have different opinions on things, but I am not that strict about changing ethnicities, religions, genders or sexualities of characters. It just isn't a big deal for me

  14. #59
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,183

    Default

    I have a few:

    - the Spider-man comics haven't had a truly great storyline since Back In Black. The only one that approaches greatness was Astonishing SM & Wolverine, an out-of-continuity tale.

    - the constant reboots and resets have spoiled the Spider-man character, to the point where I have no faith in the current regime making the comics or the execs calling the shots on the movies.

    - there's far too much emphasis on trying to do something that's never been done with Spider-man. That is really not the point, and it makes for often shitty stories (Superior, the movie reboot). Yes, they could have him fight Doc Ock, Green Goblin and Venom again and again if they're well-told stories. It really is about leaving the mythos intact.

  15. #60
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Cosmic View Post
    I know this is a thread titled "controversial Spider-Man opinions" but can we PLEASE leave out discussion of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or political views of Peter Parker and/or his supporting cast?

    There was PLENTY to talk about before these topics were brought up and there remains much more yet.
    If one of those topics starts dominating the thread, I'll move posts about it into a thread.

    That's what happened with the old controversial opinions thread, which led to thread drifts about Sins Past and whether Aunt May should be killed off.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

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