|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 6, 2015 10:50:10 GMT
I just want direction and growth if marvel ever reboot and they may one day, when i say reboot i mean wipe everything out and start from the begining them i'm out i mean it no more marvel. I'm not sure I'm getting your meaning. If they reboot and progress the story forward (like in the Ultimate universe, for example), are you in favor of that, or would you leave the Marvel "building"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 11:07:58 GMT
No i would leave the Marvel building if i'm much mistaken they updated spidey's orgins a bit so what i'm saying is i dont want to have the orgin story told again(updated or not) then have new versions of classic villians up. Just let peter grow and hand off the title to Anya when he wants to hang them up.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 6, 2015 11:15:12 GMT
So you want a reboot, but no from the beginning? Isn't that something like what I've been advocating for, with the 1984 Gwen proposal?
|
|
|
Post by stillanerd on Apr 4, 2015 18:07:30 GMT
When talking about the Spider-Totem story, I only consider the "original" one, which ran from Coming Home to The Book Of Ezekiel. Latter revisitations are of little interest, because they seem to be afterthoughts, clearly added to profit from the story's initial success. Same here. It's when Marvel decided to build a crossover out of JMS' totem-origin concept with The Other: Evolve or Die is when it really went off the rails, not to mention eliminated any sense of ambiguity behind the totemic aspect introduced to Spidey's origin, which in turn went completely against the very themes JMS was established all along with that storyline.My main problem with it, was the fact that I saw it as an Alan Moore's Swamp Thing rip-off. True, magic doesn't mix very well with Spidey, but as long as it was an option and didn't affect later stories, I was mostly ok with it. Obviously that wasn't the case, as they've come back to the concept several times. Not particularly happy about that. Well, the other theme involved with JMS' totemic origin is that it also touched on the idea that "science" and "magic" are indistinguishable--something which he explored earlier in his television series, Babylon 5--especially with the introduction of "Techno-Mages," people who had mastered science and technology to such levels that they've become like wizards and warlocks of fantasy. The possibility that Cindy might take Peter's place at the center of the "web", is little consolation. The fact that they're still spinning stories around this concept, is largely unwelcome. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by stillanerd on Apr 4, 2015 18:09:34 GMT
I haven't watched that series, but from what you say, it looks like JMS has also taken "inspiration" in Clarke's third law. You have to hand it the guy, at least he knows who to read. Oh, indeed he does. If you ever get the chance to watch Babylon 5, the series is loaded with references to science fiction literature, some more obvious than others. Case in point, one of the recurring villains in the show (played by Star Trek's Chekov, Walter Koeing) is an investigator for "psi-corp," and Earth-based secret police comprised of telepaths. The character's name? Alfred Bester. The same name as the notable science fiction writer whose novels include The Demolished Man, a story involving--you guessed it--law enforcement agencies employing telepaths.
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 6, 2015 1:14:05 GMT
The problem isn't the character it's the people at Marvel who keep writing him as a 16 year old in a 28 year old's body, as soon as Marvel stop doing that he'll be fine. Problem is though I doubt we'll ever get Peter ''acting his age'' so too speak, plus he never says ''great power great responsibility'' anymore lol. Why does he have to act his age? Marvel's hottest cinematic property right now is Iron Man, who is portrayed as a 16 year old in a 50 year old's body. A 28 year old acting like a teenager isn't exactly a stretch considering how the maturation of young men is being delayed, with men choosing their thirties as the period in which to settle down and build their lives (since 40 is the new 30). The "never shuts up" version of Spidey might not be endearing to older fans but Spidey being a smartass chatterbox manchild is a big part of why younger fans (both dedicated and casual) like him.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman62 on Apr 6, 2015 13:17:36 GMT
I just feel that if Marvel want Peter to act like a teenager than they should just put him back in High-School. I haven't got a problem with the trash-talking part as far as the battles with the bad guys are concerned however as that's a way to distract them during a fight, particularly the stronger ones.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 6, 2015 20:59:22 GMT
Marvel's hottest cinematic property right now is Iron Man, who is portrayed as a 16 year old in a 50 year old's body. […] Spidey being a smarts chatterbox man child is a big part of why younger fans (both dedicated and casual) like him. It comes with the cast choice, Robert is basically being himself in those movies; not much could be done, if Marvel wanted him in the role of Tony. […] I'd say this is a much broader issue. Not only comics, but TV and films, are plagued with "witty" dialogues. Could it be, that Spider-Man initiated this cultural wave, way back in the 60's, and that it slowly caught on?
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 8, 2015 19:55:36 GMT
Marvel's hottest cinematic property right now is Iron Man, who is portrayed as a 16 year old in a 50 year old's body. […] Spidey being a smarts chatterbox man child is a big part of why younger fans (both dedicated and casual) like him. It comes with the cast choice, Robert is basically being himself in those movies; not much could be done, if Marvel wanted him in the role of Tony. […] I'd say this is a much broader issue. Not only comics, but TV and films, are plagued with "witty" dialogues. Could it be, that Spider-Man initiated this cultural wave, way back in the 60's, and that it slowly caught on? If they didn't want RDJ being himself then they wouldn't have hired RDJ for the role. As for the witty dialog in movies and TV, I wouldn't blame Spider-Man as much as I would blame people wanting to laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 8, 2015 20:26:32 GMT
It comes with the cast choice, Robert is basically being himself in those movies; not much could be done, if Marvel wanted him in the role of Tony. […] I'd say this is a much broader issue. Not only comics, but TV and films, are plagued with "witty" dialogues. Could it be, that Spider-Man initiated this cultural wave, way back in the 60's, and that it slowly caught on? If they didn't want RDJ being himself then they wouldn't have hired RDJ for the role. As for the witty dialog in movies and TV, I wouldn't blame Spider-Man as much as I would blame people wanting to laugh. Maybe they just wanted a movie star who could play the part, not worrying about the nuances of his performance. This is just speculation, but even more so would be, trying to argue that Marvel hired him, because they wanted to have a particular version of Tony Stark, on the screen. Spider-Man is one of the most popular fictional characters in the USA, in the past few decades (the most popular?). As such, it'd be a very good place to start looking for the genesis, of the witty epidemic currently en vogue. People liking a humorous character, only helps to explain Spider-Man's popularity in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 9, 2015 5:30:39 GMT
If they didn't want RDJ being himself then they wouldn't have hired RDJ for the role. As for the witty dialog in movies and TV, I wouldn't blame Spider-Man as much as I would blame people wanting to laugh. Maybe they just wanted a movie star who could play the part, not worrying about the nuances of his performance. This is just speculation, but even more so would be, trying to argue that Marvel hired him, because they wanted to have a particular version of Tony Stark, on the screen. Spider-Man is one of the most popular fictional characters in the USA, in the past few decades (the most popular?). As such, it'd be a very good place to start looking for the genesis, of the witty epidemic currently en vogue. People liking a humorous character, only helps to explain Spider-Man's popularity in the first place. It's highly unlikely that RDJ was chosen for star power since at the time he didn't have any, being famous for being a junkie washout and having zero box office credit. And if Marvel didn't want a comedic take on Iron Man, why hire Jon Favreau to direct? Swingers, Made, Elf... The tone Marvel wanted was clear. And I doubt Spidey would be the genesis of the "epidemic." It's just a reflection of the changing culture. Ditko's Spider-Man was a grumpy old man when he was 16, horribly dated just a few years after his creation. Even his characterization in the 80s seems dorky in a post-Web 2.0 world.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 9, 2015 7:19:46 GMT
Maybe they just wanted a movie star who could play the part, not worrying about the nuances of his performance. This is just speculation, but even more so would be, trying to argue that Marvel hired him, because they wanted to have a particular version of Tony Stark, on the screen. Spider-Man is one of the most popular fictional characters in the USA, in the past few decades (the most popular?). As such, it'd be a very good place to start looking for the genesis, of the witty epidemic currently en vogue. People liking a humorous character, only helps to explain Spider-Man's popularity in the first place. It's highly unlikely that RDJ was chosen for star power since at the time he didn't have any, being famous for being a junkie washout and having zero box office credit. And if Marvel didn't want a comedic take on Iron Man, why hire Jon Favreau to direct? Swingers, Made, Elf... The tone Marvel wanted was clear. And I doubt Spidey would be the genesis of the "epidemic." It's just a reflection of the changing culture. Ditko's Spider-Man was a grumpy old man when he was 16, horribly dated just a few years after his creation. Even his characterization in the 80s seems dorky in a post-Web 2.0 world. Not that unlikely, because given his problems, I'm sure they got him way cheaper than otherwise. It was a risky bet, but it paid off big time. As for the choice of director, it could very well be that they chose him, to accommodate their star. Dorky? Ok, what's the problem with that? There's a lot of nerds in fiction nowadays, Peter was just a pioneer. I guess my point of discrepancy is, that you're basically saying that culture's evolution, is independent from pop culture. A popular pop character, must have some influence, in shaping the society, that makes it popular.
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 9, 2015 15:06:33 GMT
It's highly unlikely that RDJ was chosen for star power since at the time he didn't have any, being famous for being a junkie washout and having zero box office credit. And if Marvel didn't want a comedic take on Iron Man, why hire Jon Favreau to direct? Swingers, Made, Elf... The tone Marvel wanted was clear. And I doubt Spidey would be the genesis of the "epidemic." It's just a reflection of the changing culture. Ditko's Spider-Man was a grumpy old man when he was 16, horribly dated just a few years after his creation. Even his characterization in the 80s seems dorky in a post-Web 2.0 world. Not that unlikely, because given his problems, I'm sure they got him way cheaper than otherwise. It was a risky bet, but it paid off big time. As for the choice of director, it could very well be that they chose him, to accommodate their star. Dorky? Ok, what's the problem with that? There's a lot of nerds in fiction nowadays, Peter was just a pioneer. I guess my point of discrepancy is, that you're basically saying that culture's evolution, is independent from pop culture. A popular pop character, must have some influence, in shaping the society, that makes it popular. Favreau is the one who chose Downey for the part, so that theory doesn't wash. I definitely believe a cultural evolution is independent from pop culture. Culture influences the media, not the other way around, which is the same faulty logic that says violent videogames and movies make people go on mass shootings. Since we're talking about an influence in media Spidey might have had some part in it. But I think it's just a natural development of the fast talking smartasses always being the most popular character in a movie or TV show. Someone just had the bright idea of making that every character. Someone realized that a character being funny does a lot to endear them to an audience.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 9, 2015 17:22:44 GMT
Not that unlikely, because given his problems, I'm sure they got him way cheaper than otherwise. It was a risky bet, but it paid off big time. As for the choice of director, it could very well be that they chose him, to accommodate their star. Dorky? Ok, what's the problem with that? There's a lot of nerds in fiction nowadays, Peter was just a pioneer. I guess my point of discrepancy is, that you're basically saying that culture's evolution, is independent from pop culture. A popular pop character, must have some influence, in shaping the society, that makes it popular. Favreau is the one who chose Downey for the part, so that theory doesn't wash. I definitely believe a cultural evolution is independent from pop culture. Culture influences the media, not the other way around, which is the same faulty logic that says violent videogames and movies make people go on mass shootings. Since we're talking about an influence in media Spidey might have had some part in it. But I think it's just a natural development of the fast talking smartasses always being the most popular character in a movie or TV show. Someone just had the bright idea of making that every character. Someone realized that a character being funny does a lot to endear them to an audience. When you said "If they didn't want RDJ being himself then they wouldn't have hired RDJ for the role.", I thought you were talking about Marvel. But even if Favreau was the one selecting the cast, it doesn't mean Marvel gave the OK on RDJ, because he would be a man-child. I still think they did it, because he was a bargain at the time, and they were confident the director would keep him in-character… to a point. In fact, his rendition of Tony, doesn't diverge much from the one seen in The Ultimates, which are, after all, the mold for the MCU characters. There's no logic to social dynamics, but saying one aspect of our culture (zeitgeist), is immune to another (media), when the former is constantly exposed to the second, defies any form of causality that may derive, from the interaction of the individual, with the collective.
|
|