Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
reformed marvel zombie

In Reply To
Ned Leeds Jr.

Subj: Re: You are missing the point.......
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:07:18 pm EST (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Re: You are missing the point.......
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:12:44 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> > > > > I didn't buy 546, but a buddy of mine owns a comicbook store, he lets me read in advance certain issues before i actually buy them.  I read BND, and i dunno what everybody is gushing about "great art"?  Ok, Mcniven's art is passable, but his renditions of Peter and practicaly evrybody all look like dolls.  i mean, the eyes look so, ummm, i can't describe it.  The art from the preview pages looked awesome, to be fair.  But when i saw the entire issue, forget about it.  It got old real fast.  That whoelscene when Peter refused to change into spidey just so the Bugle will not sell???  Errr...he thinks waaaaayyy too much of himself. > >
> >
> > Actually, Spidey's effects on the Bugle's sales has been mentioned many times throughout years past.
>
> Not the point

..and yet it was.

> > >Well, that's not really the point i am making here. Whether it is true or not is of no moment.  What strikes me as Peter being full of himself is, he actually THINKS that Bugle sales will pick up just because he is in it. 
> >
> > It does. That was the point. He has known this. It has been pointed out to him in the past. It has been discussed by characters with and without him in their presence.
>
> Not the point. To actually show Peter not changing to Spidey so JJJ will not sell Bugle issues show that Peter is full of himself. That is the point. That is not Peter Parker. whether it is true or not that his pics sell papers is beside the point. the point that i do not like about that scene is it shows Peter as self-centered egotistical prick. A criminal about to get loose, and he stops and ponder, "oh wait, i can't do this, JJJ will become rich", awww puhleeez!

Peter was through being used by JJJ. There is a big difference between what occurred and how you are portraying it.

> > >It's like, if one looks like Brad Pitt, he is obviously good looking, and can probably get any girl, that is ok.  But if he actually THINKS he can get any girl, then he is so full of it.
> >
> >
> > Naw. Peter is desperate for money and angry with JJJ. He went off. This has happened numerous times over the years, though the supporting cast has been discarded over the past 10 years and so some may not know this.
>
> Errr...i have been reading spidey for 20 years, and i do have a wealth of spidey back issues and masterworks....Never at anytime did Peter concern himself more as to whether by catching a criminal that he will unwittingly make JJJ more money. Never. That is so way out of character.

Peter has refrained from donning the costume on multiple occassions. He was going to grab the guy and had no doubt that he could without putting the costume on. Very much within character.

> > >And actually not changing to Spidey just to avoid being photographed for the Bugle?????  Sense of responsibility????  Wah? And, actually not changing to spidey???? Errrr, sense of responsibility?
> >
> > He chased after the guy and would have taken him out there if the female hadn't stepped into the middle of the confrontation.
>
> Great, way to point out something to somebody who has read the issue also. That is not the point. Spidey should not even be thinking about whether JJJ will make money or not. Priorities.

I'm not sure whether you are intentionally trying to be argumentative or not, since you are being aggresive in your wording and responses. He was reacting to feeling unappreciated and taken advantage of. That is what Peter does.

> > >>>It was an absurd issue, and it insults its readers if they think that just by littering the issue with sexy chick is enough to make it sell. 
> >
> > > > I didn't feel insulted, nor did I feel that it was littered with with sexy chicks.
> >
> > >Good for you.
> >
> > Pretty good, yep. Not much of a response though.
>
> Well, you are entitled to your opinion, and that its good for you that you didn't feel insulted. i really couldn't comment more than that.

Then why bother at all?

> > > > >I find it funny that there are actually guys here that think that Peter married to MJ is "unrealistic" because supposedly she is a model.  Well??? All girls in that issue look like models.  And a girl actually makes out with Peter just to be in the "click"?  What?  Absurd!!!
> >
> > > > Again, her motivations seemed pretty believable to me. Metropolitan nightlife and a young, attractive woman wanting to get into a click, behaving in a manner to get attention or become part of a crowd. I lived in NYC for 4 years and saw that behavior on occassion by members of both genders.
> >
> > >Sigh.  I do not subscribe to this idea.  it's like saying that girls are basically sluts.  Oh, wait, just in NYC, according to you (so, those from NYC, do not blame me).
> >
> > Did you miss "of both genders" or are you simply trying to provoke a fight?
>
> Nah. Not me. You were the one who said such things. Whether it's by both genders, basically what you are suggesting is, it is a fact in NYC that girls are sluts and guys are man-whores. i did say that "I do not subscribe to this idea", meeaning i do not agree with it. That is entirely you.

You are backpeddling.

> >NYC is infected with many people trying to get ahead in various areas of life, industry, entertainment. Many of those people are willing to compromise themselves to do so. That is a fact whether you believe it or not.
>
> There you go. You have just made my point. That is crystal clear. Again, entirely your opinion.

No. It is a statement made due to witnessing factual events. That isn't an opinion.

>I wouldn't generalize all New Yorkers, nor would I say that most New Yorkers are that way.

Nor would I. Many and most are very different in their meaning.

>People are willing to take the easy way, and actually compromise themselves, true in any place, but I do not think it is as prevalent as what you seem to make it out to be.

Who said it was prevalent? I said that many people do because many people do.

> Depends on one's circle, I guess.

Yes. Actors. Models. Industry people.

> > >And again, this is not the point.  The point is, wow, this happened to Peter, someone who is supposed to be an average looking, common, everyday man.  Realistic?  Only in comics.
> >
> > No.... she was trying to use him. That happens in real life.
>
> And again, not realistic, to the common everyman Peter Parker. Lottery seems to hit Peter quite often.

Did you see the other reply to this. Common enough that at least some on this board can attest to.

> > > > My only gripe with the issue was that I was struck a few times by some statements made from characters that struck me as swiped from back issues. It actually distracted me from the story. I can live with it, since mischaracterizations and character interactions have been much worse and much more often over the past decade.
> > >
> > > Mischaracterization??? In 20 years, i have never seen Peter refuse to change to Spidey for the stupid reason of not wanting JJJ sell issues of the Bugle. That is so way out of character.
> >
> > Peter has refused to change to Spidey because it interfered with his personal life or he was angry at others. This has occurred multiple times with him going through a "Spider-Man No More" period. Repeatedly.
>
> No. Not something as trivial as not wanting JJJ to make some money. That is trivial, silly, in the grand scheme of things. Even the worst of villains, if in trouble, Spidey will help out. Now, a criminal will run free, and, well, he can't be Spidey just because JJJ *might* sell some papers. It makes no sense.

He didn't intentionally allow him to escape. It makes sense. You just didn't like it.

> > Maybe you don't know the character as well as you believe you do.
>
> Maybe you are the one who doesn't know what Spidey is all about.

I'm not going to fall into a "my dad's bigger than your dad" argument here.

> > > > > I'm looking forward to the next issue.
> > >
> > > I am too, not to buy, but to read for free and make fun of with my friend. hehe
> >
> > Wow. Why not simply read something that brings you enjoyment? This appears to only make you angry and provocative.
>
> It's for free, and I make fun of it, enjoyment aplenty.

Why do something positive when you can add negativity for free, right?

Have fun with that.

Ned

> > > > > > I didn't buy 546, but a buddy of mine owns a comicbook store, he lets me read in advance certain issues before i actually buy them.  I read BND, and i dunno what everybody is gushing about "great art"?  Ok, Mcniven's art is passable, but his renditions of Peter and practicaly evrybody all look like dolls.  i mean, the eyes look so, ummm, i can't describe it.  The art from the preview pages looked awesome, to be fair.  But when i saw the entire issue, forget about it.  It got old real fast.  That whoelscene when Peter refused to change into spidey just so the Bugle will not sell???  Errr...he thinks waaaaayyy too much of himself. > > > > > > > > Actually, Spidey's effects on the Bugle's sales has been mentioned many times throughout years past.> > > > Not the point> > ..and yet it was.
Not my point.  And I have explained it enough, you just refuse to see it.  Out of character for Peter.
> > > > >Well, that's not really the point i am making here. Whether it is true or not is of no moment.  What strikes me as Peter being full of himself is, he actually THINKS that Bugle sales will pick up just because he is in it.  > > > > > > It does. That was the point. He has known this. It has been pointed out to him in the past. It has been discussed by characters with and without him in their presence. > > > > Not the point.  To actually show Peter not changing to Spidey so JJJ will not sell Bugle issues show that Peter is full of himself.  That is the point.  That is not Peter Parker.  whether it is true or not that his pics sell papers is beside the point.  the point that i do not like about that scene is it shows Peter as self-centered egotistical prick.  A criminal about to get loose, and he stops and ponder, "oh wait, i can't do this, JJJ will become rich", awww puhleeez!> > Peter was through being used by JJJ. There is a big difference between what occurred and how you are portraying it.

Being used?  Peter sells him the photos.  If Peter doesn't sell him any photos, what would JJJ use? It's really very simple, to me, it is uncharacteristic of Peter to stop and ponder whether JJJ will make money or not.  That is not the Peter I know.  Obviously, you see it otherwise.  Difference in opinion.  That is why my original post is, "i didn't like it".  You do not have to defend the creative team.  I didn't like what they did, and you did, then that is that.
> > > > >It's like, if one looks like Brad Pitt, he is obviously good looking, and can probably get any girl, that is ok.  But if he actually THINKS he can get any girl, then he is so full of it.> > > > > > > > > Naw. Peter is desperate for money and angry with JJJ. He went off. This has happened numerous times over the years, though the supporting cast has been discarded over the past 10 years and so some may not know this.> > > > Errr...i have been reading spidey for 20 years, and i do have a wealth of spidey back issues and masterworks....Never at anytime did Peter concern himself more as to whether by catching a criminal that he will unwittingly make JJJ more money.  Never.  That is so way out of character.> > Peter has refrained from donning the costume on multiple occassions.
But nothing as trivial as whether JJJ will make money or not.  That is not a good enough reason.>He was going to grab the guy and had no doubt that he could without putting the costume on. Very much within character.Out of character.  Peter wouldn't simply jeopardize his secret identity by performing heroic feats while not in constume.
> > > > >And actually not changing to Spidey just to avoid being photographed for the Bugle?????  Sense of responsibility????  Wah? And, actually not changing to spidey???? Errrr, sense of responsibility? > > > > > > He chased after the guy and would have taken him out there if the female hadn't stepped into the middle of the confrontation.> > > > Great, way to point out something to somebody who has read the issue also.  That is not the point.  Spidey should not even be thinking about whether JJJ will make money or not. Priorities.> > I'm not sure whether you are intentionally trying to be argumentative or not, since you are being aggresive in your wording and responses.

Naw! I was not the one who implied that, "i may not know spidey", as if your perception of the character is gospel truth.  The fact is, different opinions, different views.  You liked BND, I didn't.  I posted my thoughts on BND without undermining the reasons why you liked it.  I just presented a different view.

>He was reacting to feeling unappreciated and taken advantage of. That is what Peter does.> > > > >>>It was an absurd issue, and it insults its readers if they think that just by littering the issue with sexy chick is enough to make it sell.  > > > > > > > > I didn't feel insulted, nor did I feel that it was littered with with sexy chicks. > > > > > > >Good for you.> > > > > > Pretty good, yep. Not much of a response though.> > > > Well, you are entitled to your opinion, and that its good for you that you didn't feel insulted. i really couldn't comment more than that.> > Then why bother at all?
Why not?
> > > > > > >I find it funny that there are actually guys here that think that Peter married to MJ is "unrealistic" because supposedly she is a model.  Well??? All girls in that issue look like models.  And a girl actually makes out with Peter just to be in the "click"?  What?  Absurd!!!> > > > > > > > Again, her motivations seemed pretty believable to me. Metropolitan nightlife and a young, attractive woman wanting to get into a click, behaving in a manner to get attention or become part of a crowd. I lived in NYC for 4 years and saw that behavior on occassion by members of both genders.> > > > > > >Sigh.  I do not subscribe to this idea.  it's like saying that girls are basically sluts.  Oh, wait, just in NYC, according to you (so, those from NYC, do not blame me).> > > > > > Did you miss "of both genders" or are you simply trying to provoke a fight? > > > > Nah. Not me. You were the one who said such things. Whether it's by both genders, basically what you are suggesting is, it is a fact in NYC that girls are sluts and guys are man-whores.  i did say that "I do not subscribe to this idea", meeaning i do not agree with it.  That is entirely you.> > You are backpeddling.
Nah. Never.  Read it again.  My point is very much consistent.
> > > >NYC is infected with many people trying to get ahead in various areas of life, industry, entertainment. Many of those people are willing to compromise themselves to do so. That is a fact whether you believe it or not.> > > > There you go.  You have just made my point.  That is crystal clear.  Again, entirely your opinion.  > > No. It is a statement made due to witnessing factual events. That isn't an opinion.
Opinion.  If you had said, "i saw 'Mary Crawford' whore herself", that is a factual statement.  But if you say, "many NYC girls/guys undermine themselves just to get ahead...etc." that is an opinion.  The difference is, by saying a number of NYC guys/girls do that, you are lumping other guys and girls from New York who do not undermine themselves. But if you just say a specific person, such as the fictitious Mary Crawford, then that is a statement of fact, because you witnessed that specific event.
> > >I wouldn't generalize all New Yorkers, nor would I say that most New Yorkers are that way. > > Nor would I. Many and most are very different in their meaning.
Fine. According to you, "many New Yorkers undermine themselves just to get ahead".
>> >People are willing to take the easy way, and actually compromise themselves, true in any place, but I do not think it is as prevalent as what you seem to make it out to be.> > Who said it was prevalent? I said that many people do because many people do.
Or rather, many people from your circle.
> > > Depends on one's circle, I guess.> > Yes. Actors. Models. Industry people. Again, this is a gross generalization, and i do not agree.> > > > >And again, this is not the point.  The point is, wow, this happened to Peter, someone who is supposed to be an average looking, common, everyday man.  Realistic?  Only in comics.> > > > > > No.... she was trying to use him. That happens in real life.> > > > And again, not realistic, to the common everyman Peter Parker.  Lottery seems to hit Peter quite often.> > Did you see the other reply to this. Common enough that at least some on this board can attest to.
Oh you mean THAT one?  Heh. I can not tell if he is actually serious, or just joking.
> > > > > > My only gripe with the issue was that I was struck a few times by some statements made from characters that struck me as swiped from back issues. It actually distracted me from the story. I can live with it, since mischaracterizations and character interactions have been much worse and much more often over the past decade.> > > > > > > > Mischaracterization???  In 20 years, i have never seen Peter refuse to change to Spidey for the stupid reason of not wanting JJJ sell issues of the Bugle. That is so way out of character.> > > > > > Peter has refused to change to Spidey because it interfered with his personal life or he was angry at others. This has occurred multiple times with him going through a "Spider-Man No More" period. Repeatedly.> > > > No.  Not something as trivial as not wanting JJJ to make some money.  That is trivial, silly, in the grand scheme of things.  Even the worst of villains, if in trouble, Spidey will help out.  Now, a criminal will run free, and, well, he can't be Spidey just because JJJ *might* sell some papers.  It makes no sense.> > He didn't intentionally allow him to escape. It makes sense. You just didn't like it.
That is right, i didn't like it.  you liked it.  Not me.  To me, Peter shouldn't even stop and concern himself about JJJ's money when something far more important is at hand.
> > > > Maybe you don't know the character as well as you believe you do.> > > > Maybe you are the one who doesn't know what Spidey is all about.> > I'm not going to fall into a "my dad's bigger than your dad" argument here.
Nah.  you are implying i do not know Spidey.  And i am saying you do not know Spidey.  Not much argument there.  That is what you think.  I think otherwise.
> > > > > > > I'm looking forward to the next issue.> > > > > > > > I am too, not to buy, but to read for free and make fun of with my friend. hehe> > > > > > Wow. Why not simply read something that brings you enjoyment? This appears to only make you angry and provocative.> > > > It's for free, and I make fun of it, enjoyment aplenty.> > Why do something positive when you can add negativity for free, right?
Nah.  It's like watching an old B-Movie, not meant to be funny, but it's fun to make fun of it.  No negativity there.
> > Have fun with that.
I will.
> > Ned


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software