Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[Mister Mets]

The "best of stories" thing is a whole thread topic on here somewhere.

My thought on that is that Spider-Man stories (even KLH and TNGSD) are not really standalone stories as much as DKR and alot of other DC stories. The Dark Phoenix Saga suffers the same thing - alot going on in that story that a casual reader would not have any clue about, and would miss out on some of the depth (though the Wolverine scene would do it for any casual reader!).

Kraven's Last Hunt was essentially a six issue fill-in arc. While it built on earlier DeMatteis stories (especially Vermin's appearance in Marvel Team Up) and did have a follow-up in his Spectacular Spider-Man run, it was self-contained.

The Night Gwen Stacy Died was part of a larger run, although it was rather accessible, partly because some ongoing subplots (Aunt May essentially being Doc Ock's prisoner) were ignored.

Marv Wolfman's run was great mainly because of what he did with the Burglar. The rest of his run was mundane.

I thought Wolfman's run got really good in the second half, when he had that Spider Slayer two parter. Then came the Black Cat's first appearance, the final fight with the Kingpin, the return of Mysterio and the Burglar's story.

[J. D. Guy]

I actually quite like the idea of a "Spider-Family" and hope to see it continue and grow as well.

[Mister Mets]

The writing is much more important to me than the art.

In my opinion, a comic with competent writing and great art is not as good as a comic with competent art and great writing.

[SpiderNerd]

The writing is much more important to me than the art.

In my opinion, a comic with competent writing and great art is not as good as a comic with competent art and great writing.

I'd agree with that, though for me personally, I can't read a comic if it has what I believe to be horrible art. There are certain Spidey stories that I can't even look at because of the artwork (Origin of the Species for example).

[Mister Mets]

I'd agree with that, though for me personally, I can't read a comic if it has what I believe to be horrible art. There are certain Spidey stories that I can't even look at because of the artwork (Origin of the Species for example).

If the art is actually bad, it will hinder my appreciation of a comic. Personally, I don't think there's a lot of Spider-Man art that is bad. The series tends to attract decent talent, and I can appreciate a wide array of styles. I suppose another controversial view of mine is that I like Azaceta, Ramos and other divisive artists.

[SpiderNerd]

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but it's something that others might disagree with...I don't really care about Spidey being in Captain America: Civil War. I don't know why, but I just can't get excited for his involvement in the film. I eagerly anticipate the movie itself, and I can't wait to see what it holds for all of the other characters, but with Spidey I just think...meh.

I'm glad that Spidey can be in the MCU now, and I'm curious to see how Holland portrays him, but I just can't get excited. I often forget that he's even going to be in the film at all.

[Phantom Roxas]

If the art is actually bad, it will hinder my appreciation of a comic. Personally, I don't think there's a lot of Spider-Man art that is bad. The series tends to attract decent talent, and I can appreciate a wide array of styles. I suppose another controversial view of mine is that I like Azaceta, Ramos and other divisive artists.

Azaceta is fine, though the way he draws mouths could be improved at times.

Ramos draws people like they're spindly noodle people like Reed Richards, pieces of their bodies are like contorted parallelograms, spines should be broken, jaws look awkward in the middle of fights, and "dynamic poses" can emphasize the wrong pieces of Spidey's body from disproportionate shoulderblades that intrude upon the armpits to a rather unfortunate focus on the nether regions.

Ramos' art repeatedly fails at anatomy, and not in a Picasso-esque fashion that Azaceta deals in. Coupled with Edgar Delgado's coloring, which gives a lot of characters a rather "plastic" sheen to them, the end result is extremely unpleasant to look at. Art should immerse the reader in the world of the story. When the art is as bad as Ramos' and Delgado's, it takes the reader out, as the concern becomes how bad the art is. You're not left with a book with great writing and competent art. In this case, it's a book with mediocre writing and chaotic art.

[Starter Set]

The writing is much more important to me than the art

I kind of agree and disagree with that. Sure in the end it's the writing who makes a good or bad story but art is nevertheless such a decisive factor when it comes to really appreciate a book.

Poor art can ruin a story. Or not exactly, i should say "poor art can ruin your experience as a reader". (when good artists can save their writer buddies by giving the illusion to the readers that they are reading a good book, even if the story actually isn't that great)

[David Walton]

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but it's something that others might disagree with...I don't really care about Spidey being in Captain America: Civil War. I don't know why, but I just can't get excited for his involvement in the film. I eagerly anticipate the movie itself, and I can't wait to see what it holds for all of the other characters, but with Spidey I just think...meh.

I'm glad that Spidey can be in the MCU now, and I'm curious to see how Holland portrays him, but I just can't get excited. I often forget that he's even going to be in the film at all.

I wasn't a fan of how Spidey was used in Millar's Civil War, but I'm kind of interested to see how things will play out here.

It looks as though Spidey would be the only hero in the MCU with an actual, honest-to-God secret identity, so I can't imagine him giving it up.

[Mister Mets]

Azaceta is fine, though the way he draws mouths could be improved at times.

Ramos draws people like they're spindly noodle people like Reed Richards, pieces of their bodies are like contorted parallelograms, spines should be broken, jaws look awkward in the middle of fights, and "dynamic poses" can emphasize the wrong pieces of Spidey's body from disproportionate shoulderblades that intrude upon the armpits to a rather unfortunate focus on the nether regions.

Ramos' art repeatedly fails at anatomy, and not in a Picasso-esque fashion that Azaceta deals in. Coupled with Edgar Delgado's coloring, which gives a lot of characters a rather "plastic" sheen to them, the end result is extremely unpleasant to look at. Art should immerse the reader in the world of the story. When the art is as bad as Ramos' and Delgado's, it takes the reader out, as the concern becomes how bad the art is. You're not left with a book with great writing and competent art. In this case, it's a book with mediocre writing and chaotic art.

I think there's stuff that Ramos does well that's worth the perceived flaws.

I wasn't a fan of how Spidey was used in Millar's Civil War, but I'm kind of interested to see how things will play out here.

It looks as though Spidey would be the only hero in the MCU with an actual, honest-to-God secret identity, so I can't imagine him giving it up.

It's a bit like the original silver age comics, when the Fantastic Four were the best known heroes in the Marvel Universe.

[cyberhubbs]

I think there's stuff that Ramos does well that's worth the perceived flaws.

It's a bit like the original silver age comics, when the Fantastic Four were the best known heroes in the Marvel Universe.

What's that? An artist known for his cartoony style is being faulted for not being realistic enough? There's just a point where arguments like that become laughable.

[Phantom Roxas]

Throwing around the word "cartoony" doesn't excuse how bad his art is, and just because I "perceive" things a certain way doesn't make my argument laughable.

[manymade1]

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but it's something that others might disagree with...I don't really care about Spidey being in Captain America: Civil War. I don't know why, but I just can't get excited for his involvement in the film. I eagerly anticipate the movie itself, and I can't wait to see what it holds for all of the other characters, but with Spidey I just think...meh.

I'm glad that Spidey can be in the MCU now, and I'm curious to see how Holland portrays him, but I just can't get excited. I often forget that he's even going to be in the film at all.

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.

[Phantom Roxas]

I think understanding the concept of weasel words would be helpful for this thread, as it helps you know some phrases to avoid so your controversial opinions could hold more weight.

For example, saying that my criticism only addresses perceived flaws? The link notes that spurious authority "can be used in combination with the reverse approach of discrediting a contrary viewpoint by glossing it as 'claimed' or 'alleged'", and "perceived" is similar to those words, as it's used to quantify a statement in such a way that it could be easily ignored. This thread should be a space for all of us to make our controversial opinions known. Don't try to use weasel words to discredit other's opinions while relying on semantic cop-outs to avoid being challenged on your own opinions.

[Mister Mets]

I think understanding the concept of weasel words would be helpful for this thread, as it helps you know some phrases to avoid so your controversial opinions could hold more weight.

For example, saying that my criticism only addresses perceived flaws? The link notes that spurious authority "can be used in combination with the reverse approach of discrediting a contrary viewpoint by glossing it as 'claimed' or 'alleged'", and "perceived" is similar to those words, as it's used to quantify a statement in such a way that it could be easily ignored. This thread should be a space for all of us to make our controversial opinions known. Don't try to use weasel words to discredit other's opinions while relying on semantic cop-outs to avoid being challenged on your own opinions.

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.