Speaking of liking things that others here have already enjoyed, I've been using my new ComiXology subscription to further my comics exposure, and @Byrd Man was dead on the money with Richard Stark's Parker. What a fucking talent Darwyn Cooke was. RIP.
Eddie Brock Member
- Last Seen: 6 mos ago
- Joined: 11 yrs ago
- Posts: 747 (0.19 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Eddie Brock 11 yrs ago
-
Latest 10 profile visitors:
-
Most recent →
nitemare shape,
Sep,
Fetzen,
Morden Man
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
...Despite the fact that Robin was introduced about a year after Batman was...
...Which is why I'm looking forward to building to UOU's version of Robin...
I'm picking up what you're putting down, big guy.
*starts S2 Dick Grayson application*
Here's what I'll say as my last words on the subject:
1.) Betty Brandt: Sure, it's not much of a character lost, and I fully admitted that we were splitting hairs, but say we do go back to the Bugle eventually. If you want or need a secretary/intern/cub reporter character that fits the Betty mold... what do you call her now? You went and blew a chance at a real reference on a joke one. Unless you're going to use Glory Grant, which... okay, well, then I'd be back on board. Disregard.
2.) Ned Leeds: See, we've heard the argument that you can't call him Ganke because what if Miles Morales comes along, but they already ripped the rest of Ganke's character out wholesale. Appearance, personality, relationship to Spider-Man. So if we ever do see live-action Miles, what do you do now? A) Have an identical character to Ned who's just called Ganke this time around? B) Have a completely unrelated character called Ganke because the Miles Morales bylaws clearly state that Miles' best friend must be named Ganke? It would not bother me in the slightest if Ganke got transplanted to the Peter timeline rather than the Miles one; what bothers me is doing it and fudging the name for no reason. (Also, now you can't use a "real" Ned Leeds later, as above.)
3.) Flash Thompson: Now, this is the controversial one because you either think the update makes sense or it doesn't. And I'm not really going to rehash the discussion we've already been having vis-a-vis that particular point. But what I will say in response to @Master Bruce's post is that his issue with jock-Flash seems to be that he's a flat character... is that really the character's fault, though, or is it unimaginative writers squandering the potential there? The fact that jock-Flash has such a big following certainly attests to the fact that in the right hands, he can be just as compelling as anyone else in the supporting cast. We just haven't seen it, and now that we have nerd-Flash we probably won't for a long, long time. (Hence the sore spot.)
1.) Betty Brandt: Sure, it's not much of a character lost, and I fully admitted that we were splitting hairs, but say we do go back to the Bugle eventually. If you want or need a secretary/intern/cub reporter character that fits the Betty mold... what do you call her now? You went and blew a chance at a real reference on a joke one. Unless you're going to use Glory Grant, which... okay, well, then I'd be back on board. Disregard.
2.) Ned Leeds: See, we've heard the argument that you can't call him Ganke because what if Miles Morales comes along, but they already ripped the rest of Ganke's character out wholesale. Appearance, personality, relationship to Spider-Man. So if we ever do see live-action Miles, what do you do now? A) Have an identical character to Ned who's just called Ganke this time around? B) Have a completely unrelated character called Ganke because the Miles Morales bylaws clearly state that Miles' best friend must be named Ganke? It would not bother me in the slightest if Ganke got transplanted to the Peter timeline rather than the Miles one; what bothers me is doing it and fudging the name for no reason. (Also, now you can't use a "real" Ned Leeds later, as above.)
3.) Flash Thompson: Now, this is the controversial one because you either think the update makes sense or it doesn't. And I'm not really going to rehash the discussion we've already been having vis-a-vis that particular point. But what I will say in response to @Master Bruce's post is that his issue with jock-Flash seems to be that he's a flat character... is that really the character's fault, though, or is it unimaginative writers squandering the potential there? The fact that jock-Flash has such a big following certainly attests to the fact that in the right hands, he can be just as compelling as anyone else in the supporting cast. We just haven't seen it, and now that we have nerd-Flash we probably won't for a long, long time. (Hence the sore spot.)
I will say, though, that while on an emotional level it will always bother me if they don't bring back "With great power...", intellectually I do love watching them squirm, right? So we had:
Raimi: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Then:
Webb: "Your father believed that if you could do something to help people, it was your duty to do those things."
And then:
MCU: "Because when you can do things I can, and you don't? And then the bad things happen? They happen because of you."
So I can only assume the next reboot will be something like: "Wherefore as a person or persons is possessed of some unique capabilities, and being so possessed has the agency with which to enact change, they should and must then comport themselves in a manner displaying all due responsibility of such a station."
Raimi: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Then:
Webb: "Your father believed that if you could do something to help people, it was your duty to do those things."
And then:
MCU: "Because when you can do things I can, and you don't? And then the bad things happen? They happen because of you."
So I can only assume the next reboot will be something like: "Wherefore as a person or persons is possessed of some unique capabilities, and being so possessed has the agency with which to enact change, they should and must then comport themselves in a manner displaying all due responsibility of such a station."
<Snipped quote by GreenGrenade>
A good deal about what made Spider-Man such a hit was how relatable he was. Stan Lee said he created Peter Parker because he wanted a character for his young reader-base to identify with.
Obviously, Spidey is such a well written character with such a colorful supporting cast and rogues gallery that relatability isn't necessary to make his movies engaging and interesting. But him being a teenager is the core appeal. And modern day teenagers (most of them) don't live in a world with Raimi or even Webb's versions of Flash Thompson. They're caricatures of the often violent and insane bullies we saw in older films in the eighties and early nineties. It's hard to pull that off and expect a modern, young audience to be pulled in like your older viewers would be.
I'm not saying the reboot was necessarily successful- but the idea behind it isn't wholly without merit.
The idea behind it may not be without merit, but there are still plenty of athletic, attractive assholes in high school. There comes a point where reimagining a character crosses a line to "This is a totally different idea, but we need a recognizable name, so shoehorn it in." That's all my original point was. And I get what you're saying that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater; but if you're finding yourself stretching the adaptations so far that you are rewriting the supporting cast wholesale... shouldn't you ask yourself if you really want to be doing an adaptation at all?
I dunno, I don’t think they’re dated if they work. Spider-Man (Peter, specifically) has probably the best supporting cast in comics, and I think the MCU kinda fudged themselves by trying to shove them aside and give us new, much lesser alternatives.
MCU Spidey is positively terrified of even sniffing a rehash of anything. Everything has to be different for difference's sake. Can't (directly) mention Uncle Ben. (Because God knows, say, the Batman movies have never returned to the "dead parents" well. Once you've told an origin, that's it! You may never mention it again.) Can't use the line "With great power comes great responsibility." Can't go back to the Daily Bugle. Can't have the Osborns. Can't have Spider-Man web-swinging through Manhattan.
Homecoming is a good movie. And in time, the MCU Spider-Man series may go back on some of these things; particularly since everything has to be watching the "evolution" of a character. (Because who wants the full version of the character anyway, amirite?) But when people say it's the definitive Spider-Man movie, I have to stop and wrap my head around it for a second...
What's that? Discussing the Homecoming supporting cast? How did this can of worms get here? The central problem I have with it is that the supporting cast is written like a bad RPG writer who shoehorns references even when they don't fit, just to sneak an established name in there. (Hey, that kettle over there looks pretty black; maybe I should say something...)
Seriously, though. Ned is just Ganke. But they didn't want to use the name Ganke, so eh, just take a name from elsewhere in the supporting cast gallery. Who cares? (Hint: this guy.) Michelle is a fine character, but there's no reason to call her MJ; even if you try to walk it back and pretend it was just a wink. If Flash Thompson is going to share absolutely nothing in common with his comic counterpart except that they're both dicks to Peter, then why not give him his own identity? Even the little girl on the morning show has to be called Betty Brandt, even that though defies all logic. (Sure, I'm splitting hairs on that one, but it's a symptom of the "disease.")
There's an almost pathological fear in inventing new characters, even though characters created outside the comic pages have sometimes done just fine for themselves. Harley Quinn, to name the obvious one. Phil Coulson, to stick within the MCU.
Seriously, though. Ned is just Ganke. But they didn't want to use the name Ganke, so eh, just take a name from elsewhere in the supporting cast gallery. Who cares? (Hint: this guy.) Michelle is a fine character, but there's no reason to call her MJ; even if you try to walk it back and pretend it was just a wink. If Flash Thompson is going to share absolutely nothing in common with his comic counterpart except that they're both dicks to Peter, then why not give him his own identity? Even the little girl on the morning show has to be called Betty Brandt, even that though defies all logic. (Sure, I'm splitting hairs on that one, but it's a symptom of the "disease.")
There's an almost pathological fear in inventing new characters, even though characters created outside the comic pages have sometimes done just fine for themselves. Harley Quinn, to name the obvious one. Phil Coulson, to stick within the MCU.
@Superboy I dunno I just didn't find him that menacing.
>crushes a man's head with a car door for interrupting a date
>"didn't find him that menacing"
I think @Superboy's got me covered here:
<Snipped quote by Lord Wraith>
That being said, I do love me some Michael Clarke Duncan Kingpin. Two valid (and awesome) takes on the same character, IMO.
Topher Grace - Venom
Ben Affleck - Daredevil
Brendan Routh - Superman
Brendan Routh - Iron Man Atom
Eric Bana - Bruce Banner
Julian McMahon - Dr. Doom
Chris O'Donnell - Robin
Halle Berry - Catwoman
David Hasselhoff - Nick Fury
Tommy Lee Jones - Two-Face
Spiraling CGI Space Cloud - Galactus
Am I doing this right?
Well, at least Hasselhoff is right.
© 2007-2024