Would Stan Lee view Peter Parker as "a villain"?

[Phantom Roxas]

i really do mean it; the specifics don't matter to me at all. what i skimmed over was a lot of white noise rather than any actual fair discussion. unblocking someone isn't an act of aggression in itself and has little to do with anything. whoever attacked first carries some blame for instigation, but it takes two to tango. criticising someone and not tagging them doesn't not make one's post any more innocent or exempt from response nor does it give the responders the right to bully.

all i'm seeing is a bunch of pots and kettles yelling "black" at each other.

Fair enough.

and on the original note- villain is perhaps less precise than antagonist, but that doesn't sound as good now, does it? we live in an age of sound bites and hyperbole, why do people still act shocked by this?

Because as unbelievable as this will sound coming from me, some exceptions to hyperbole could be good. In this case, I could see it being a good source of character development. If Peter is resigned to the belief that he's his own biggest villain, will he try to change that? Trying to reconcile the two sides to his life, and the challenges that come with trying to do so (I'm not saying he'll succeed) do more to show the struggles of living overwhelming lifestyles rather than taking the lazy route of "You're your own villain!" and trying to drum up how things are really Peter's fault and makes it seem like "No One Dies" is an impossible goal because Peter is a nincompoop when really the issue is that Peter does genuinely go up against some pretty damn reprehensible people that do just as much to hurt his own life so calling Peter Spider-Man's villain is tantamount to victim-blaming. It's your fault when someone else makes your life difficult! It's your fault when someone takes advantage of those difficulties to hurt and murder people!

[boots]

Because as unbelievable as this will sound coming from me, some exceptions to hyperbole could be good. In this case, I could see it being a good source of character development. If Peter is resigned to the belief that he's his own biggest villain, will he try to change that? Trying to reconcile the two sides to his life, and the challenges that come with trying to do so (I'm not saying he'll succeed) do more to show the struggles of living overwhelming lifestyles rather than taking the lazy route of "You're your own villain!" and trying to drum up how things are really Peter's fault and makes it seem like "No One Dies" is an impossible goal because Peter is a nincompoop when really the issue is that Peter does genuinely go up against some pretty damn reprehensible people that do just as much to hurt his own life so calling Peter Spider-Man's villain is tantamount to victim-blaming. It's your fault when someone else makes your life difficult! It's your fault when someone takes advantage of those difficulties to hurt and murder people!

i can agree with the potential for exploration, but i don't really see how an hyperbolic statement affects that?

part of peter's tragedy is that he can't see his own flaw and rectify it. which imo isn't that he's to blame, but that he thinks he is.

[Dan Slott]

Since one poster has apologized for using the phrasing "seriously, SERIOUSLY fuck off",
I'm sure I can reciprocate and apologize for saying nuanced word "villain" instead of "enemy".
We good?

[Mister Mets]

i really do mean it; the specifics don't matter to me at all. what i skimmed over was a lot of white noise rather than any actual fair discussion. unblocking someone isn't an act of aggression in itself and has little to do with anything. whoever attacked first carries some blame for instigation, but it takes two to tango. criticising someone and not tagging them doesn't not make one's post any more innocent or exempt from response nor does it give the responders the right to bully.

all i'm seeing is a bunch of pots and kettles yelling "black" at each other.

and on the original note- villain is perhaps less precise than antagonist, but that doesn't sound as good now, does it? we live in an age of sound bites and hyperbole, why do people still act shocked by this?

One comment was about how an individual can "seriously, seriously f*** off."

Another was "sorry it upsets you, but the statement you quoted from that interview is the same kinda statement Stan would've made in the 60s" also providing a link to the original post.

It doesn't seem equivalent.

[DOTBHDD]

I don't see Spiderman as a bad guy. Peter is very known to act on his emotions. He's a very emotional character, and sometimes those emotions may lead him to do morally questionable things. He may not be a good person 24/7, but he always had a good heart. Helping others and being selfless is what he does. Just because he occasionally screws up his life or acts selfishly doesn't change the general good in his character. That's why, at least for me, he will never be a "bad guy" no matter what angle I look at it.

[Phantom Roxas]

i can agree with the potential for exploration, but i don't really see how an hyperbolic statement affects that?

part of peter's tragedy is that he can't see his own flaw and rectify it. which imo isn't that he's to blame, but that he thinks he is.

Peter thinking that he's to blame is rather excessive. I understand that it's part of the tragedy, but it's not an appealing part. The hyperbole either ignores the distinction you're suggesting (And I do like your distinction), or if it does acknowledge that Peter only thinks he's to blame, he either ignores advice from people encouraging him that he doesn't have to blame himself, or someone will try to pressure him into realizing that he was indeed to blame. Now he's more likely to believe a villain's boasts that put him down rather than listen to his friends. It reflected well on him to accept the role that he played in Uncle Ben's death. Now it's been pushed further, like everything has to be "the next" example of what it's like when Uncle Ben or the Stacys died.

Since one poster has apologized for using the phrasing "seriously, SERIOUSLY fuck off",
I'm sure I can reciprocate and apologize for saying nuanced word "villain" instead of "enemy".
We good?

That isn't what the apology was for, and the point was that "villain" seems less nuanced.

One comment was about how an individual can "seriously, seriously f*** off."

Another was "sorry it upsets you, but the statement you quoted from that interview is the same kinda statement Stan would've made in the 60s" also providing a link to the original post.

It doesn't seem equivalent.

You do realize that the scenario wasn't confined to just those two posts, right?

[Metamorphosis]

Since one poster has apologized for using the phrasing "seriously, SERIOUSLY fuck off",
I'm sure I can reciprocate and apologize for saying nuanced word "villain" instead of "enemy".
We good?

And here I thought the first apology was half-arsed ("I apologize to that person who harasses me and basically deserves what he gets" type non-apology).

Now we're doubling down on terminology--"villain" being supposedly more nuanced than "enemy".

And you say people make up stuff in their head that's not on the comics page. Sheesh.

[Dan Slott]

And you say people make up stuff in their head that's not on the comics page. Sheesh.

What I'm not "making up", apparently, is someone telling me to "fuck off" in a public space, basically, for using the word "villain".

[Alan2099]

And you say people make up stuff in their head that's not on the comics page. Sheesh.

And on the other hand there are people that go over each and every word looking for something to get offended by.

[boots]

Peter thinking that he's to blame is rather excessive. I understand that it's part of the tragedy, but it's not an appealing part. The hyperbole either ignores the distinction you're suggesting (And I do like your distinction), or if it does acknowledge that Peter only thinks he's to blame, he either ignores advice from people encouraging him that he doesn't have to blame himself, or someone will try to pressure him into realizing that he was indeed to blame. Now he's more likely to believe a villain's boasts that put him down rather than listen to his friends. It reflected well on him to accept the role that he played in Uncle Ben's death. Now it's been pushed further, like everything has to be "the next" example of what it's like when Uncle Ben or the Stacys died.

well, there's no context either way so it's open to interpretation through the comic book.

as for whether or not it's an appealing flaw, that's subjective. it also makes me wonder what an appealing flaw would be? personally, i prefer a flaw to be an actual flaw, which is often ugly and a weakness rather than characters like wolverine who's "flaws" end up being secret strengths and part of his cool factor.

[Metamorphosis]

What I'm not "making up", apparently, is someone telling me to "fuck off" in a public space, basically, for using the word "villain".

No one's disputing you were "slighted" first. But "villain" was perhaps a poor choice of words to begin with.

And on the other hand there are people that go over each and every word looking for something to get offended by.

I just find it funny when writers say something in an interview to try to come off "edgy" and "controversial", and then balk when people react to said controversy.

[Vic Vega]

It's usually spiderman that messes up Peter parker's life.

Also why does this matter?

Aren't most Marvel Super Heroes thier own worst enemy?

Reed Richards single mindedness has nearly cost him his family more than once.

You have Tony Stark's substance abuse issues and Matt Murduck's obsessive behaivior both nearly destroying them at different points.

And Dear God, Hank Pym. Just look at that poor bastard.

And those were the only the first examples that came to my mind.

[Bor]

I just find it funny when writers say something in an interview to try to come off "edgy" and "controversial", and then balk when people react to said controversy.

I find it funny when fans look for things to get offended by and attribute things to a writer which they have no evidence for at all just because they dont like a current writer on a comicbook. That is usually a good sign to me that some children still reads comics.

[Metamorphosis]

I find it funny when fans look for things to get offended by and attribute things to a writer which they have no evidence for at all just because they dont like a current writer on a comicbook. That is usually a good sign to me that some children still reads comics.

You don't have to throw around insults just because you don't happen to agree.

[Bor]

You don't have to throw around insults just because you don't happen to agree.

If you dont see the irony in that statement I dont know what to tell you. You were making unfounded accusations and then now try to play innocent? Funny how you get to that but writers gets a "f. Of" and just have to deal with it.