|
Wanderer posted:He always was, but he was never in a position where he could really leverage it. He invented the webbing and the web-shooters himself, as well as an electronic tracking beacon that he can home in on psychically, and he's got a consistent history of coming up with scientific solutions to the villain or problem of the week. Yeah, because he's a really smart science geek in comic book world. Science doesn't work the same way in the MU as it does in the real world. That doesn't mean he's the in-universe equivalent of an Einstein or a Howard Hughes like Reed and Tony are. He was never really presented that way before. I'm not saying don't progress the character and show him having some actual professional success for once in his life, but portraying him as being literally one of the smartest human beings on the planet and an intellectual rival of a dude as crazy smart as Mr. Fantastic? That just comes across as fanboy-ish power level wankery to me. quote:Traditionally, the problem has been Spider-troubles interfering with his education, or keeping him from consistently being able to keep hold of the kinds of resources that Tony or Reed have. In the fields of chemistry or DIY electronics, he's probably top-ten MU and has been for quite a while. How so? The Marvel Universe is absolutely lousy with two-bit heroes and villains who manage to cobble together amazing gadgets that would make them unparalleled scientific geniuses in the real world. Is Stilt-Man one of the greatest scientific geniuses in the Marvel Universe now? No, he's just a smart guy with an aptitude for scientific engineering. I remember there was an old comic where Peter actually tried to market his web fluid to a science corporation to make some money off it, and they weren't interested, because it wasn't really terribly useful for any application beyond "being Spider-Man". Peter's obviously smart as hell for being able to come up with something like that at age 15, but in the context of the Marvel Universe it was never presented as some sort of earth-shattering feat, and that was intentional. There's a reason the movie adaptations have always had such trouble when it comes to explaining the web-shooters. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 4, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Peter's level of genius has always fluxed but he's always been portrayed as being far above any of his peers. If not for Ben's death he'd be right up there with Richards and Stark. Few writers really seem to have a handle on Pete's smarts other than Bendis and Hickman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:How so? The Marvel Universe is absolutely lousy with two-bit heroes and villains who manage to cobble together amazing gadgets that would make them unparalleled scientific geniuses in the real world. Is Stilt-Man one of the greatest scientific geniuses in the Marvel Universe now? No, he's just a smart guy with an aptitude for scientific engineering. Peter didn't just cobble together amazing gadgets once. He did it on a regular basis near-constantly and was shown to be educated enough that high-end scientists like Connors or Octopus actually found him impressive and said he had amazing potential. He's often portrayed as being really smart and in a diverse number of ways. Like he isn't just good at tinkering he's capable of doing things like creating a cure for monsteritis with some notes or adapting his webbing formula for all sorts of things without any resources. Cnut the Great posted:I remember there was an old comic where Peter actually tried to market his web fluid to a science corporation to make some money off it, and they weren't interested, because it wasn't really terribly useful for any application beyond "being Spider-Man". That's always been a bit of a joke because a company that can't figure out how to make use of an extremely strong adhesive that dissolves cleanly in an hour is really dumb. Like again, think about that: It's an absurdly strong adhesive that can be easily contained in large amounts on things the size of a wrist shooter that also can be easily reloaded and is apparently cheap enough that Peter Parker can afford to make it (even if it is tight for him sometimes) despite being regularly broke. It is strong enough to contain literal supervillains, resists burning, and yet is apparently entirely nontoxic and dissolves cleanly. That is a dream thing. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I remember there was an old comic where Peter actually tried to market his web fluid to a science corporation to make some money off it, and they weren't interested, because it wasn't really terribly useful for any application beyond "being Spider-Man". They were actually really excited until they learned that the stuff dissolves quickly. After they shot him down, Peter was convinced he could make a better formula that lasted longer, but he didn't really have the time and needed the money right then. So he totally could have redone his formula and sold it for a lot of money, but once he found another way to make money he kind of stopped caring about it because Peter Parker is really bad at making money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Peter as a genius is kind of dumb yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Pete as Tony's number one assistant was pretty much the level of genius most appropriate to his character. Smart enough to keep up and offer some valuable insights here and there, but not so smart as to actually compete with the big boys. I liked how in Spider-man 2 Pete predicted that Doc Ock's experiment would blow up in his face.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I liked the time Spidey suggested to the Avengers that he do some technical wizardry to find the bad guys, then they just asked "you can do that?" and he groans "why doesn't anyone ever remember that I'm also really smart?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yeah, because he's a really smart science geek in comic book world. Science doesn't work the same way in the MU as it does in the real world. That doesn't mean he's the in-universe equivalent of an Einstein or a Howard Hughes like Reed and Tony are. He was never really presented that way before. I'm not saying don't progress the character and show him having some actual professional success for once in his life, but portraying him as being literally one of the smartest human beings on the planet and an intellectual rival of a dude as crazy smart as Mr. Fantastic? That just comes across as fanboy-ish power level wankery to me. There's certainly a substantial element of fanboy wish-fulfillment in the post-ANAD status quo (now he has cars and rockets and a hot Chinese scientist girlfriend and SHIELD loves him and--), but the basic concept is sound. Slott was smart to ensure that, for example, the primary products of Parker Industries are explicitly based on things Peter has had to invent in the past over the course of one adventure or another, such as the wall-crawling grip tires on the Spider-Mobile, the spider-tracers, and various new applications for the web-fluid. Using it in air-bags, for example, is actually pretty brilliant. It also helps that Slott's been working towards this for quite a while, by introducing the Horizon Labs connections and encouraging Peter to spend a lot of his off-hours tinkering. I'm as big a Slott detractor as the next guy on this board, but he's worked hard on this, and while the eight-month time skip means it looks like it came out of nowhere, it's largely a decent extrapolation on a lot of previously established story beats. If it ruptures your suspension of disbelief, that's fine, but you haven't been reading the comics for a while, and this is the end point of something that's been getting built on for the better part of five years. If it helps, Reed is currently AWOL, Hank Pym is out in space and presumed dead, Tony's company is falling apart, and Hank McCoy is busy working with the Inhumans. In the current Marvel Universe, Peter isn't so much one of the smartest guys as he's one of the smartest guys left, so he's inadvertently filled what would otherwise be a power vacuum, and there are already plots going on that revolve around Peter's inexperience in business and the various unpleasant things that are going on in the company without his knowledge (i.e. everything in the Spider-Man/Deadpool team-up book, or the slow build towards Doctor Octopus coming back from the dead).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
To be honest using stuff SM has used in the past is probably the dumbest part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
I don't see how, aside from the risk that somebody will backwards-engineer the tech and find vulnerabilities in it, but that's happened before. One of the big criticisms you can make about Spider-Man books, as has already been mentioned upthread, is that he's supposed to be a hard-luck hero when at any given time in the character's history, he's been sitting on at least two inventions (and a few different superpowers) that could easily support him for life. Now they're using that to get some stories out of it, and while it's got big fat doses of the usual things that bring Slott down, it's at least an interesting direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
This dude just happens to use tech that was first used by SM, not suspicious at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
They established back in the first few issues of the Horizon Labs status quo that everyone already thinks Peter is responsible for making Spider-Man's tech, and now Peter's got Hobie Brown running around in a spider-suit to help sell that cover story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
You know Dan set that up right? I didn't say it came out of know here just that it was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Yeah, it was part of the setup he's drawing on for why this entire arc is something the wider world is capable of accepting. I have no idea if he had Big Time in mind as an arc back then, of course, especially since Superior came along between then and now. It's not like Peter being conveniently close to Spider-Man hasn't been a well-known thing since the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I remember there was an old comic where Peter actually tried to market his web fluid to a science corporation to make some money off it, and they weren't interested, because it wasn't really terribly useful for any application beyond "being Spider-Man". Peter's obviously smart as hell for being able to come up with something like that at age 15, but in the context of the Marvel Universe it was never presented as some sort of earth-shattering feat, and that was intentional. There's a comic out there somewhere when Peter is only 11-12ish and aunt may(or Ben) is knocked over by Flash on a skateboard - he actually started designing his web/web shooters then, pre-bite. The intention wasn't to swing around on but to snag flash and pull him off his board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Peter didn't just cobble together amazing gadgets once. He did it on a regular basis near-constantly and was shown to be educated enough that high-end scientists like Connors or Octopus actually found him impressive and said he had amazing potential. He's often portrayed as being really smart and in a diverse number of ways. Like he isn't just good at tinkering he's capable of doing things like creating a cure for monsteritis with some notes or adapting his webbing formula for all sorts of things without any resources. Yes, and it always played off with Spider-Man confidently exclaiming, "Luckily, I'm a science major!" He could do those things because he was an exceptionally bright, exceptionally clever science nerd, not because he was some sort of super-mega-genius on a Top 10 list of world's smartest. It was the Silver Age, man. Even within that tonal context, it was always made clear that Peter was mostly just an average guy who happened to have a higher-than-average aptitude for science. He always had to go to someone like Curt Connors for help when he needed to do some genuine super-science, and it wasn't just because he was strapped for resources or just didn't have enough time to read the right books, it was because he was just plain out of his league, like a normal-rear end person would be. Everything else Peter whipped up was the comic book equivalent of a gifted tech enthusiast doing engineering projects in their garage. Like, creating an electronic tracking bug really isn't that mind-blowing of a feat when you look at what everyone else in this universe is constantly up to. quote:That's always been a bit of a joke because a company that can't figure out how to make use of an extremely strong adhesive that dissolves cleanly in an hour is really dumb. Like again, think about that: Yeah, and yet the comics went out of their way to show that, in the Marvel Universe, it's still not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Science is way easier in the MU than it is in the real world. The Vulture invented a harness that grants its wearer the amazing ability to fly through the air at extremely high velocity, at any altitude, in a fully controlled manner, for extended periods of time. It is impossible to overstate how loving insane a scientific accomplishment that is. But that aspect is hand-waved away as being because the Vulture is a former electronics engineer. So why did he decide to use his amazing invention to rob banks instead of just patenting his technology and making billions? Because in the Marvel Universe it's just a very clever bit of engineering. Otherwise, it's not particularly revolutionary or mind-shattering. Peter did some impressive amateur chemistry and came up with something that suited his specific needs as Spider-Man but isn't really that useful for anything else. If you analyze it using real-world logic then yeah, you'll be forced to conclude that Peter Parker is probably a scientific genius worthy of being spoken of in the same breath as guys like Tesla. But that would be silly, because it's a comic book, not the real world. Peter Parker is a relatively relatable every man who by sheer chance was granted amazing powers and ultimately decided to use them for good, not a once-in-a-generation intellectual prodigy of historic proportions who also got superpowers. It's like the core of the character. It's why it's so satisfying to see him outwit guys like Doc Ock who are, on paper, far more intellectually capable than he is, but much less able to think creatively in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yes, and it always played off with Spider-Man confidently exclaiming, "Luckily, I'm a science major!" He could do those things because he was an exceptionally bright, exceptionally clever science nerd, not because he was some sort of super-mega-genius on a Top 10 list of world's smartest. Peter was supposed to be exceptionally smart, not merely a science major. He was never supposed to be the smartest but frequently shown as being able to keep up. There is 'power bloat' there but that same power bloat extends to all the Top 10 smartest. Reed went from being merely incredibly smart to having the superpower of doing anything as long as he justifies it with intelligence. Tony went from a gifted guy to someone who... well, invents insane power sources in a cave from scraps. Hank Pym went from a science adventurer to a guy who can do basically anything the story asks but not as well as Reed can. Cnut the Great posted:It was the Silver Age, man. Even within that tonal context, it was always made clear that Peter was mostly just an average guy who happened to have a higher-than-average aptitude for science. He always had to go to someone like Curt Connors for help when he needed to do some genuine super-science, and it wasn't just because he was strapped for resources or just didn't have enough time to read the right books, it was because he was just plain out of his league, like a normal-rear end person would be. Peter would go to smarter people for help in their areas of expertise but very often would end up puzzling out a solution on his own and even finding a way to execute it. He is very frequently portrayed as being Close To But Not Quite As Smart As a lot of intelligent people. However the aforementioned intelligent bloat extends to him too. If he's shown to be able to keep up with Curt Connors or Tony Stark or Otto Octavious then when they get their inevitable boost from "merely good" to "literally the best in the world" it influences how Peter is portrayed as well. Cnut the Great posted:Yeah, and yet the comics went out of their way to show that, in the Marvel Universe, it's still not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Science is way easier in the MU than it is in the real world. No it isn't. The Marvel Universe exists in a realm very very close to our own except for certain geniuses who intentionally suppress their tech unless it is part of a story. There wasn't an equivalent to Peter's webbing on the market that made it seem unimpressive. Science is 'easier' in the Marvel Universe but it isn't portrayed as being easier. Every person who invents a power suit or a super gadget or whatever is supposed to be extremely talented and gifted, that is why they are so rare and few and far between. (That or they're someone like Forge whose superpower is creating poo poo.) The reason they don't patent their amazing invention tends to be a combination of egotism and shortsightedness, not because it wouldn't be meaningful. It's easy to forget that even the lovely supervillains are at the high-end of the spectrum more often than not. Batroc the Leaper may be a joke but he's still probably one of the most physically capable people on the planet. Cnut the Great posted:Peter Parker is a relatively relatable every man who by sheer chance was granted amazing powers and ultimately decided to use them for good, not a once-in-a-generation intellectual prodigy of historic proportions who also got superpowers. It's like the core of the character. It's why it's so satisfying to see him outwit guys like Doc Ock who are, on paper, far more intellectually capable than he is, but much less able to think creatively in the moment. Peter Parker isn't just a relatable every-man, he's a giant nerd, and part of the power fantasy there (justified or no) is that he is actually extremely smart but not respected for his smarts. A lot of Spider-Man is playing around with nerd fantasies (and also giving them to Peter while having his life get in the way.) As such he's extremely smart but undervalued and underappreciated and can't do much with it. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Instead of framing this as finding the One True Reading of Spider-Man's mechanical acumen, I think it's more productive to acknowledge that a reasonable cross-section of prior Spider-Man fiction supports the current super-inventor direction—not exclusively supports it, but that it's one of many possible valid interpretations of what came before. Given that, it's more interesting to consider things like why this Peter Parker was appealing to Slott/editors, how this storyline might change what works as a reasonable interpretation of Spider-Man in the near future, why shooting webs is awesome, or literally anything other than whether or not Peter Parker is as sciencey as the story right in front of us is telling us that he unambiguously is, at least for now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yeah, and yet the comics went out of their way to show that, in the Marvel Universe, it's still not that impressive in the grand scheme of things. Yes it is. It's so insanely useful in like a hundred billion ways, probably the most obvious of them just giving them to cops to launch at assholes in grenade launchers. Presto, now random cops can stand up to like 70% of super-villains instantly on the cheap. gently caress, they are New York cops. Enjoy your rampage when six guys mag dump a bunch of those at you and you suffocate to death. "He had a rhino suit and he was coming at me" he said, shortly before his grand jury acquittal. Christ at least they give the pretense that a lot of Reed's inventions are so complicated and expensive they can't really be used in any useful mass market sense [Which is it's own type of bullshit, but whatever, lets go with that]. "Notoriously broke man-child can generally scrounge up enough money to make a ton of this on the go" puts his webbing in the realm of "There is no possible reason not to use this for everything it could conceivably work on". You just have to ignore certain things because status quo is God.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Spidey webs would be  as heck for work in construction, disaster recovery, riot control, all kinds of sporting stuff, and Christ like a million other things.Imagine if firefighters were able to suffocate a big ol' blaze in a fireproof goop that also also acted as a structural reinforcer until it completely and harmlessly evaporated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
There's some potentially interesting class stuff going on as well. Regardless of what it says on hypothetical RPG character sheets for Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Reed Richards, you can't get around this-- Tony Stark's dad was also a billionaire inventor and for as long as Iron Man's been a character he's had the resources to goof around with extremely expensive equiptment. Peter Parker grew up in a household where he had to work to support his elderly caretakers, and IIRC even had to quit grad school out of a combination of money woes and family obligations (that somebody like Tony Stark could have whisked away by hiring Aunt May a fleet of nurses and housekeepers). When you're poor or struggling you can't drop everything to tinker on every stray web-shooter you dream up. I don't know Reed Richards' backstory very well so I'm sort of curious about whether or not he's typically been portrayed more like Tony Stark-- somebody who had the material luxury to be able to experiment and pursue his whims at his leisure, or if he had more of a hard-luck background.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Archyduke posted:There's some potentially interesting class stuff going on as well. Regardless of what it says on hypothetical RPG character sheets for Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Reed Richards, you can't get around this-- Tony Stark's dad was also a billionaire inventor and for as long as Iron Man's been a character he's had the resources to goof around with extremely expensive equiptment. Peter Parker grew up in a household where he had to work to support his elderly caretakers, and IIRC even had to quit grad school out of a combination of money woes and family obligations (that somebody like Tony Stark could have whisked away by hiring Aunt May a fleet of nurses and housekeepers). When you're poor or struggling you can't drop everything to tinker on every stray web-shooter you dream up. Richard and Mary Parker were secret agents (in some variations SHIELD agents.) In Ultimate he was a scientist who helped created the Venom thing as part of a cure for cancer. Both were shown as fairly well off. Edit: Oh! I misread Reed as Peter for some reason. Reed generally was shown as fairly well-to-do as far as I recall. A quick wiki says his dad left him two billion dollars so... ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Instead of framing this as finding the One True Reading of Spider-Man's mechanical acumen, I think it's more productive to acknowledge that a reasonable cross-section of prior Spider-Man fiction supports the current super-inventor direction—not exclusively supports it, but that it's one of many possible valid interpretations of what came before. Given that, it's more interesting to consider things like why this Peter Parker was appealing to Slott/editors, how this storyline might change what works as a reasonable interpretation of Spider-Man in the near future, why shooting webs is awesome, or literally anything other than whether or not Peter Parker is as sciencey as the story right in front of us is telling us that he unambiguously is, at least for now. Yeah, that's a better way of phrasing what I was trying to say. Boogaleeboo posted:Christ at least they give the pretense that a lot of Reed's inventions are so complicated and expensive they can't really be used in any useful mass market sense [Which is it's own type of bullshit, but whatever, lets go with that]. I always preferred the line from Waid's run, about how there are several inventions of Reed's that he's being actively paid to not put into wide release.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Archyduke posted:I don't know Reed Richards' backstory very well so I'm sort of curious about whether or not he's typically been portrayed more like Tony Stark-- somebody who had the material luxury to be able to experiment and pursue his whims at his leisure, or if he had more of a hard-luck background. Reed Richards's dad was a world-renowned super-genius scientist like him, but abandoned him at a young age to go and live in the distant future as a high-tech barbarian warlord.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
loving wrecked SM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Yes it is. It's so insanely useful in like a hundred billion ways, probably the most obvious of them just giving them to cops to launch at assholes in grenade launchers. Presto, now random cops can stand up to like 70% of super-villains instantly on the cheap. gently caress, they are New York cops. Enjoy your rampage when six guys mag dump a bunch of those at you and you suffocate to death. "He had a rhino suit and he was coming at me" he said, shortly before his grand jury acquittal. Christ at least they give the pretense that a lot of Reed's inventions are so complicated and expensive they can't really be used in any useful mass market sense [Which is it's own type of bullshit, but whatever, lets go with that]. "Notoriously broke man-child can generally scrounge up enough money to make a ton of this on the go" puts his webbing in the realm of "There is no possible reason not to use this for everything it could conceivably work on". I think you're missing my point. My point is essentially exactly this: quote:You just have to ignore certain things because status quo is God. The reason Peter was able to invent web shooters at age 15 is because any spider-themed super hero needs some way of creating webs, and Stan Lee wasn't too keen on the idea of Peter shooting gobs of white goo out of his rear end like a real spider. There's no reason to read anything else into it, and up until relatively recently, most writers made a conscious choice not to--and for good reason. Lurdiak posted:Pete as Tony's number one assistant was pretty much the level of genius most appropriate to his character. Smart enough to keep up and offer some valuable insights here and there, but not so smart as to actually compete with the big boys. Yeah, this is how I always saw him, and I thought it was a reasonable balance to keep Peter very smart but still relatable. He's intelligent enough that people like Tony and Reed genuinely respect and value him for his insights, but that doesn't mean he's ever going to be able to compete with them in a no-holds-barred science off. Peter's main advantage is that he approaches things from a unique intuitive perspective which guys like Tony and Reed are too wrapped up in their own big brains to ever be able to understand. Like in Spider-Man 2, the reason Peter is able to find the fatal flaw in Octavius's experiment is precisely because he approaches the problem from more of a human perspective as opposed to a strictly scientific one. Octavius kind of just rolls his eyes at Peter because of course he thought of all that, and of course he took all the proper precautions (or so he's convinced himself). Octavius is basically too smart for his own good, and it's made him arrogant. It's not that Peter understood something about the experiment that Octavius didn't; he just placed a higher priority on the negative effects the experiment might have on other people. Squizzle posted:Instead of framing this as finding the One True Reading of Spider-Man's mechanical acumen, I think it's more productive to acknowledge that a reasonable cross-section of prior Spider-Man fiction supports the current super-inventor direction—not exclusively supports it, but that it's one of many possible valid interpretations of what came before. Given that, it's more interesting to consider things like why this Peter Parker was appealing to Slott/editors, how this storyline might change what works as a reasonable interpretation of Spider-Man in the near future, why shooting webs is awesome, or literally anything other than whether or not Peter Parker is as sciencey as the story right in front of us is telling us that he unambiguously is, at least for now. Well, I don't find it terribly compelling. I mean, Iron Man already exists. I don't mind the idea of Peter temporarily being in a situation that's kind of similar to Iron Man's, because it's interesting to see how a character like Peter would react to that, but the version of Peter we're getting just seems to be wanked all to hell, so it's hard for me to care. I mean, I can't even begin to relate to being that smart. I'm a loving idiot. At least with the old version of Spidey, I could at least pretend I could ever possibly be in his shoes. But mega-super-genius Spidey? I just don't possess the capacity to delude myself. I've still got Miles at least, but it would be nice to have a relatable adult Spider-Man too. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
So you're the person unable to related to a married Spider-Man? I didn't think you actually existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:So you're the person unable to related to a married Spider-Man? I didn't think you actually existed. Hey, Joe Quesada's existence is a matter of public record.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 08:01
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Hey, Joe Quesada's existence is a matter of public record. I thought he was an in-joke, like Forbush Man.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Even if Spidey was only smart of enough to merely "keep up" with people like Tony or Reed Richard, it would still make him a drat genius well beyond that of 99.99% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Totbot posted:Even if Spidey was only smart of enough to merely "keep up" with people like Tony or Reed Richard, it would still make him a drat genius well beyond that of 99.99% of the population. Yeah, it'd put him on the same level as the non-Doom mad scientist villains Iron Man beats up between big arcs where the Mandarin tries to turn Paris into a gulag or something. Edit: Also, Spider-Women and Spider-Man were both really good. The villain for the former is exactly who it was obvious it was going to be, but the whole girls' day out meat of the issue was a lot of fun, and it's a nice dynamic to have Jessica as the mature one of the group. And while I fear burnout would occur, I really wish Thompson was writing Spider-Gwen. Gwen comes off so much better in this issue than she does in her own book. Like, in her book she feels like she oscillates between like 13 and 21, in Spider-Women Alpha she felt like an actual 18 year old. And Spider-Man has set up it's greatest villain ever: Miles' grandma. I was right there with his dad. I really hope that's what Bendis was going for. I'm also not sure, but it almost looked like he was setting up a love triangle with Bombshell and Ms Marvel. (The former was frickin adorable, by the way) Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:So you're the person unable to related to a married Spider-Man? I didn't think you actually existed. Why wouldn't I be able to relate to a married Spider-Man? Are you implying I'm destined to die alone and unloved? Thanks, pal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Why wouldn't I be able to relate to a married Spider-Man? Are you implying I'm destined to die alone and unloved? Thanks, pal. Well, you do post on Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Why wouldn't I be able to relate to a married Spider-Man? Are you implying I'm destined to die alone and unloved? Thanks, pal. it was more implying "I can't relate to a super-genius!" is the same line of thought as "I can't related to a guy married to a supermodel actress!" which in both cases are complaints I just can't wrap my mind around someone actually having.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:it was more implying "I can't relate to a super-genius!" is the same line of thought as "I can't related to a guy married to a supermodel actress!" which in both cases are complaints I just can't wrap my mind around someone actually having. I can relate to a supergenius. But it's in a different, slightly more removed way than I relate to a non-supergenius. That doesn't strike me as all that odd, given that I am not a supergenius, never will be, and couldn't even imagine what it would feel like to be one. I can certainly relate to Reed Richards in certain ways, for instance, but there's still some level of remove there that wasn't there for me when it came to classic Spider-Man. I suppose you could say the same thing about the Spider-Marriage, but to me it seems like that's a bit different. Most normal people know what it's like to be in a committed relationship. By that token, I admit it doesn't matter one way or the other to me whether Spider-Man is married, single, or in a long-term relationship in the comics. While I disagree with the way the marriage was undone, I can see the storytelling logic in the desire to not have Peter permanently married off. You can still tell stories about Peter's long-term relationship with Mary Jane, who is probably always going to be implied to be the one he's destined to end up with. You can do that whenever you want. You can put them together and keep it that way for years and years and years and the only difference from the old days will be that they aren't legally married. But if any writer ever wants to go in a different direction for a little while to open up new storytelling possibilites, it allows them to do that without having Peter and MJ go through a messy divorce, thus permanently tainting any future storyline where they get back together again--which will always happen, because come on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:it was more implying "I can't relate to a super-genius!" is the same line of thought as "I can't related to a guy married to a supermodel actress!" which in both cases are complaints I just can't wrap my mind around someone actually having. Well, you could argue that being married to a very attractive woman (considering they knew each other from long before she became a supermodel actress*) is a sight more plausible than being a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world. I mean, naturally nobody here has Spider-Powers (that I am aware of), so we can't really relate on that front. It's especially jarring that some people at Marvel talk about how the marriage ran counter to what Spider-Man is about - apparently, youth - but being the new Tony Stark is A-OK. Peter Parker hs always been billed as an everyman, and honestly I think being married is far more relatable than the spider-Man we have now. The Spider-Man of the JMS run (pre, oh, let's say Civil War) felt a lot more like a logical etension of Spider-Man than Peter Parker, CEO. I mean, I'm sure that it can be made relatable, but Slott's depiction of it (swan dive from deep space - and not only surviving, but actually managing to land in the exact city he was aiming for) rings hollow to me. *and they almost immediately shot down the supermodel part with Jonathan Caesar. They only really made her a massively famous supermodel/actress again during the Byrne run, which they then used to bash the marriage - and in JMS' run her acting career went downhill because most people just assumed she was only a pretty face. So 'he's married to a supermodel!' always seems to me to be a flawed argument, when that element was only ever pushed to the forefront by people who wanted to use it to attack the marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
It's not like being a model (and working in lovely plays and soaps) is quite the same thing as being an international sex symbol or whatever people think models are in real life. Very few models ever become "super", just the same way very few actors become movie stars.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:it was more implying "I can't relate to a super-genius!" is the same line of thought as "I can't related to a guy married to a supermodel actress!" which in both cases are complaints I just can't wrap my mind around someone actually having. What is that, is that partially identifying with those who aren't like you ? You must be a white dude. Check your privilege, bro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
I really enjoyed Spider-Women Alpha that guy following them round was pretty good I liked the way he got the dimension jumping device. Seemed very logical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:28
|
|
