Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
And the Joker is a guy in a purple suit and makeup who uses parlour tricks to get at people...

'Cept he's not fighting a super-human who can lift cars above his head. Batman is still human.

And in all the ways that would matter to someone like Mysterio, so is Parker. He has a secret identity, discover that and you have all kinds of weapons. He tries to be a hero wherever he can; it is very easy to trap him through engineering those situations. He has ideals, which can be forced to breaking point.

Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn and have Parker running in circles trying to stop everyone he loves from being mercilessly killed while also trying to stop him and save however many innocents Mysterio is planning to blow up. He's not a world-level threat, but he's not meant to be. To me, Spiderman has always been the route to more personal stories, about him and his enemies rather than the fate of humanity.

Less Cap vs Hydra, more Sherlock vs Moriarty.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, you kind of need superpowers to be a threat to a superhero with tons of totally insane superpowers. For instance, to pose a threat to Superman, you will need at least a Lex Luthor-like amount of superpowers!

Pretty sure Lex goes squish in a fist fight with Clark.
Pretty sure you know that.
Pretty sure you're just trolling.

Again.

 Paradigm wrote:
Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn

Except Mysterio has never actually been shown to be as smart as Peter, he really just does rely on his tricks. One thing to remember is that Peter Parker actually IS that smart. We're talking about someone who reprogrammed something designed by Tony Stark himself in the off chance Tony ever tried to use it against him.

You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn

Except Mysterio has never actually been shown to be as smart as Peter, he really just does rely on his tricks. One thing to remember is that Peter Parker actually IS that smart. We're talking about someone who reprogrammed something designed by Tony Stark himself in the off chance Tony ever tried to use it against him.

Parker is science-smart, but I've never seen him as plan-smart to be honest. That, and as I said, he has a lot of facets that would make him very predictable and easy to manipulate. Gwen's death is a perfect example of him try too hard to do good and failing because of that, now scale it up. Let him play the hero, and in doing so, lure him into a trap. Give him the choice between saving 1 person that he loves or a building full of others and watch him squirm. He may have ideals, but he's not incorruptable.

You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

What I'm saying is that Mysterio could easily work along the same lines. MCU has already changed several characters to fit the story better (with varying degrees of success), so I don't see why they couldn't do the same here. I think having Spiderman fight someone against whom all his power is basically useless would be a far more interesting plot that someone like Venom, Goblin or Rhino.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Pretty sure Lex goes squish in a fist fight with Clark.

I am pretty sure that prevents him no less from being Superman's nemesis, and featured in tons of movie involving Superman.
Which means a movie with a super-powered Spiderman fighting a non-powered Mysterio could still make a good movie.
What I am not sure though, is whether you you were that obtuse intentionally or not. In both case that makes you look bad, though.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn

Except Mysterio has never actually been shown to be as smart as Peter, he really just does rely on his tricks. One thing to remember is that Peter Parker actually IS that smart. We're talking about someone who reprogrammed something designed by Tony Stark himself in the off chance Tony ever tried to use it against him.

Parker is science-smart, but I've never seen him as plan-smart to be honest. That, and as I said, he has a lot of facets that would make him very predictable and easy to manipulate. Gwen's death is a perfect example of him try too hard to do good and failing because of that, now scale it up. Let him play the hero, and in doing so, lure him into a trap. Give him the choice between saving 1 person that he loves or a building full of others and watch him squirm. He may have ideals, but he's not incorruptable.

You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

What I'm saying is that Mysterio could easily work along the same lines. MCU has already changed several characters to fit the story better (with varying degrees of success), so I don't see why they couldn't do the same here. I think having Spiderman fight someone against whom all his power is basically useless would be a far more interesting plot that someone like Venom, Goblin or Rhino.

Except when Mysterio first showed up, didn't he have smoke/gas that negated Peter's 'Spider Sense' and dissolved his webbing?

Anyway, Miles wouldn't work in a "Civil War" sense, so I'm prety sure that MCU Spidey will be Peter, and Sony's "Stand Alone" movies could be...anyone?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn

Except Mysterio has never actually been shown to be as smart as Peter, he really just does rely on his tricks. One thing to remember is that Peter Parker actually IS that smart. We're talking about someone who reprogrammed something designed by Tony Stark himself in the off chance Tony ever tried to use it against him.

Parker is science-smart, but I've never seen him as plan-smart to be honest. That, and as I said, he has a lot of facets that would make him very predictable and easy to manipulate. Gwen's death is a perfect example of him try too hard to do good and failing because of that, now scale it up. Let him play the hero, and in doing so, lure him into a trap. Give him the choice between saving 1 person that he loves or a building full of others and watch him squirm. He may have ideals, but he's not incorruptable.

Actually, that's such a standard procedure in Spidey comics that he DOES have plans for the more common ones. In fact, when Mac Gargan first got the Venom suit and was told Spiderman's identity, his very first act was Spidey villain Plan A: go after Peter Parker's loved ones. Hell, he even intentionally recreated the Gwen Stacy scenario with Mary Jane. Of course, the very next day after Gwen had died, Peter had actually looked into why(a single strand of webbing is too little contact to save someone, hence Gwen's broken neck) and had a plan for if he ever needed to do it again(20-30 quick bursts to make several contact points).

Hell, I even provided you an example where he pre-planned for a contingency he never expected to happen. If that doesn't prove Peter's plan-smart, I'm not sure what will convince you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Except when Mysterio first showed up, didn't he have smoke/gas that negated Peter's 'Spider Sense' and dissolved his webbing?

Yes. And Peter foils him by tricking him into confessing to the crime he was framing Spidey for on camera. Mysterio's good with coming up with his tricks, smart he ain't. Hell, he designed his damn costume and didn't even look into whether the stuff he was using was dangerous and ended up giving himself cancer and a brain tumor.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Mysterio isn't going to risk a great plan on a brawl with Spidey, he's going to outthink him at every turn

Except Mysterio has never actually been shown to be as smart as Peter, he really just does rely on his tricks. One thing to remember is that Peter Parker actually IS that smart. We're talking about someone who reprogrammed something designed by Tony Stark himself in the off chance Tony ever tried to use it against him.

Parker is science-smart, but I've never seen him as plan-smart to be honest. That, and as I said, he has a lot of facets that would make him very predictable and easy to manipulate. Gwen's death is a perfect example of him try too hard to do good and failing because of that, now scale it up. Let him play the hero, and in doing so, lure him into a trap. Give him the choice between saving 1 person that he loves or a building full of others and watch him squirm. He may have ideals, but he's not incorruptable.

You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

What I'm saying is that Mysterio could easily work along the same lines. MCU has already changed several characters to fit the story better (with varying degrees of success), so I don't see why they couldn't do the same here. I think having Spiderman fight someone against whom all his power is basically useless would be a far more interesting plot that someone like Venom, Goblin or Rhino.

Except when Mysterio first showed up, didn't he have smoke/gas that negated Peter's 'Spider Sense' and dissolved his webbing?

Anyway, Miles wouldn't work in a "Civil War" sense, so I'm prety sure that MCU Spidey will be Peter, and Sony's "Stand Alone" movies could be...anyone?

MCU Spidey could be Peter. Peter could die. Now not-Peter has to step up in the Sony movie. Instant comic-compatible background and minimal origin story.

I want MCU to go with the ultimate troll. You go through Civil War with Spidey popping in and out every where. Never reveal his identity in the actual movie.

Post credit scene: You see Fury talking to someone. Pan right, it's the three Red Team MVP clones in Spiderman costumes.

 Platuan4th wrote:
You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

The thing is...that's not really true in the comics, and I'd argue it's not true in TDK either. At least if we're defining those terms similarly.

The Joker has *always* been about schemes and plans. You see this throughout the character's history in the comics, and while he gives Bruce those binary options in TDK, they've been carefully orchestrated. They aren't random. The Joker in most incarnations wants to cause mayhem and likes to feth with people, but his plans never resemble truly random violence or actions. They're thoughtful and sophisticated. If he was really about randomness, that'd take his best asset out of the mix...his intelligence.

He certainly pretends that he's an agent of chaos, and even in TDK you see that in the hospital as he pushes Dent in his desired direction. But that was "all part of the plan," right? Conversely, while Bruce is the champion of order in many ways, his nature tends to more reactive and not about careful planning.

The Joker is actually kind of a phony...and I guess that's part of the joke. The Joker's phoniness on this point even came up in the books within the past few years...was it Dick that confronted him about it during Morrison's run? I'd have to go back and look.

 gorgon wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
You compared him to Joker and the thing is, Joker's plans aren't intelligent, they're random. That's why Batman is tricked up. Hell, even Ledger's joker's plan was hinged upon nothing but 50/50 shots, playing the odds. Nearly every single time he challenged Batman, Bats was given binary options. It's almost like it was a theme in the movie.

The thing is...that's not really true in the comics, and I'd argue it's not true in TDK either. At least if we're defining those terms similarly.

The Joker has *always* been about schemes and plans. You see this throughout the character's history in the comics, and while he gives Bruce those binary options in TDK, they've been carefully orchestrated. They aren't random. The Joker in most incarnations wants to cause mayhem and likes to feth with people, but his plans never resemble truly random violence or actions. They're thoughtful and sophisticated. If he was really about randomness, that'd take his best asset out of the mix...his intelligence.

He certainly pretends that he's an agent of chaos, and even in TDK you see that in the hospital as he pushes Dent in his desired direction. But that was "all part of the plan," right? Conversely, while Bruce is the champion of order in many ways, his nature tends to more reactive and not about careful planning.

The Joker is actually kind of a phony...and I guess that's part of the joke. The Joker's phoniness on this point even came up in the books within the past few years...was it Dick that confronted him about it during Morrison's run? I'd have to go back and look.

Honestly, it depends on the writer. Some writers do make it meticulous and exacting and some make it more random and chaotic. I think the Animated series really hit the balance better than anyone. It's most noticeable in the episode where he's having an issue figuring out his piranha death trap and how to make them smile. It's stuff like his utter rage that Harley came up with the simple solution of hanging Bats upside down that really nails home the fact that yes, he plans, but it's not about whether it succeeds or not, it's about the joke. That's where the part about the plans being random comes in. I know a lot of people love Hammil's Joker cause it's Hammil, but he's my favorite Joker cause the writers were really good at nailing down the whole "here's a man who wants the world to believe he's insane while he's really the sanest person in the room".

You mention in the past couple years, though, and I can't comment on that. I avoid New 52 like the plague.

Actually, I think what I remember is pre-New 52, when Dick was under the cowl. But I'll have to check. Besides, New 52 Batman didn't get much of a reboot. The plotlines in the late post-Crisis period (Damian, RIP, etc.) all seem to be valid. The origin story got some tweaks with the Zero Year run, but otherwise things seem to have continued on. DC didn't need to blow up and start over with Batman like they did with the other two members of the trinity.

I think Snyder is doing some really interesting stuff with the Joker right now in Endgame. I think it's shaping up to be better than Death of the Family, although that was conceptually fine IMO, just bloated with too many tie-ins and dragged out a little too long.

There are rumors that the Jared Leto Joker will be a little more of a psychological manipulator than the Ledger version. I have a feeling we're going to get a Joker a little closer the middle as you describe it.

They should adapt one more day


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Actually, I think what I remember is pre-New 52, when Dick was under the cowl. But I'll have to check. Besides, New 52 Batman didn't get much of a reboot. The plotlines in the late post-Crisis period (Damian, RIP, etc.) all seem to be valid. The origin story got some tweaks with the Zero Year run, but otherwise things seem to have continued on. DC didn't need to blow up and start over with Batman like they did with the other two members of the trinity.

I think Snyder is doing some really interesting stuff with the Joker right now in Endgame. I think it's shaping up to be better than Death of the Family, although that was conceptually fine IMO, just bloated with too many tie-ins and dragged out a little too long.

There are rumors that the Jared Leto Joker will be a little more of a psychological manipulator than the Ledger version. I have a feeling we're going to get a Joker a little closer the middle as you describe it.

Can we please stop with adapting the joker. How about another villian, like penguin or catwomen? Poison Ivy or something.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Actually, I think what I remember is pre-New 52, when Dick was under the cowl. But I'll have to check. Besides, New 52 Batman didn't get much of a reboot. The plotlines in the late post-Crisis period (Damian, RIP, etc.) all seem to be valid. The origin story got some tweaks with the Zero Year run, but otherwise things seem to have continued on. DC didn't need to blow up and start over with Batman like they did with the other two members of the trinity.

I think Snyder is doing some really interesting stuff with the Joker right now in Endgame. I think it's shaping up to be better than Death of the Family, although that was conceptually fine IMO, just bloated with too many tie-ins and dragged out a little too long.

There are rumors that the Jared Leto Joker will be a little more of a psychological manipulator than the Ledger version. I have a feeling we're going to get a Joker a little closer the middle as you describe it.

Can we please stop with adapting the joker. How about another villian, like penguin or catwomen? Poison Ivy or something.

I hardly see those characters as being much fresher ground. We've seen all those characters in other films already. Catwoman's been in 2 plus a solo film (albeit not the Selina Kyle character). Meanwhile, the Joker's only been in 2 of the 7 Batman films we've had since 1989. He's also Batman's arch-nemesis. I think it's almost important for any Batman film series to address the Joker.

One more day adaptation wouldnt work, as Peter and MJ havent been married in any movie universe yet for them to give it up

Bleh, I hope they do Miles. Had about enough of Peter Parker myself....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They should adapt one more day

No

No

NO

NO

NOOO

NOOOOOOOOOO

 Slarg232 wrote:
Bleh, I hope they do Miles. Had about enough of Peter Parker myself....

As we've already explained, wouldn't happen because of character recognition. So don't get your hopes up on the matter.

Peter Parker is definitely "plan-smart" btw. Before his most recent death all he did was invent things (because he is super-science smart as well) and use them in plans to beat bad-guys.

 Ahtman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They should adapt one more day

No

No

NO

NO

NOOO

NOOOOOOOOOO

You aren't supposed to do that - it is almost like...food to certain online types!

Well, it is an important part of Civil War.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well, it is an important part of Civil War.

It is not part of Civil War. It's the Marvel writers being so utterly uncreative that they couldn't do anything but absolutely suck writting stories in a world where everyone knows who Spider-Man is, so instead of not sucking, they just decided to press the reset button on the whole thing and erase years of character development in a terrible plot line that was even worse than the ones that came before it.

Assuming that the MCU folks actually do Civil War right (because there was nothing wrong with the concept of Civil War, just it's execution*) and aren't brain dead on creativity afterwards, there is 0 need for one of the worst comic story lines in living memory (and it is one of the worst) to ever be repeated.

*And MCU writers pretty much have to do something, because it's already been pointed out to death by fans that the MCU can't adapt Civil War without not making any sense or making serious changes to the plot of the event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
As we've already explained, wouldn't happen because of character recognition.

And has also been pointed out, your claims make 0 sense. If we live in a world where Johnny Storm can be black, then it's safe to say that a world where Miles Morales appears on the big screen isn't too much of a stretch.

Though on that note, if we're lucky a similar deal can be reached on the Fantastic Four. I never much cared for them ever really but I hear they're like, important or something in the Marvel Universe, and not having them around in the MCU is about as weird as a glaring lack of X-Men

I never understood the anger over One More Day. The writers hit a reset button? In a comic book? But that never happens!!!

They also killed Captain America, and look how that turned out?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The writers hit a reset button? In a comic book? But that never happens!!!

Why do you think I have a love/hate relationship with comics?

Call me a hater, but honestly, the writing quality of most comic books is at best, on par with mediocre fan fiction (its in bold so everyone knows I'm really dead fething serious). A huge part of it is the absolute unwillingness of writers in the industry to live with consequence. They'd rather just press a reset button, and either rehash terrible plots they've already written or produce brain dead new ones, than actually build a plot line where people have to live with their choices. And this is a huge irony in comic books, because I can't tell you how many times "you have to live with your choices" is brought up in comic books. A really fresh hypocrisy for a genre almost completely devoid of lasting consequence.

On top of that of course, One Last Day was just horrible. Peter Parker went completely out of character during the whole thing. "Responsibility? Pah. I don't need responsibility. I'll just go make a deal with the devil instead cause I can't live with responsibility!"

I think that this:

"... the absolute unwillingness of writers in the industry to live with consequence."

... is perhaps the most succinct (not to mention truthful) explanation of the problems comics have. But, at the same time, I don't mind, because I often like the stories that lead to the reset.

So, for example, right now in Marvel comics Wolverine is dead. The whole "Death of Wolverine" was a big series that went on for a while. But is Logan going to stay dead? Of course not! But the story that brings Logan back could also be interesting, so I don't mind that the "death" is temporary, because the story of how he died and how he came back could make for an interesting read*, so I just live with the way comic books reset everything.

*And by "read" I mean "read the wiki article after its published", as that's where all my comic knowledge comes from.

I mean, obviously there are things in comic books I love. It's a unique genre, with its own flavor and flare. Battle for the Cowl? I loved it. I knew Bruce Wayne wasn't staying dead yeah (I would have loved it if he did) but I can enjoy the ride. I'm probably one of the few people who liked Ultimatum... maybe just because seeing Cyclops get he deserves made me gitty. The Killing Joke is one of the greatest works the genre has ever produced and made better in that for over 20 years, Barbara did live with the lasting consequences of that comic (I will not speak as to how this is no longer true). I didn't like House of M, but at least for a time, I was excited to read X-Men comics after it, because there was finally something exciting and fresh going on.

It's just that for me, while the journey can at times be fun, after years and years, it gets hard to even find fun in the journey, because I know that very soon (usually within 6 months or a year) nothing from that journey will have any meaning. It'll be retconned, forgotten, ignored, or at worst repeated as if it hadn't already happened. I don't think there is any greater example of Sturgeon's Law than Comic Books, and it's kind of tragic, because the genre wants to fight to be taken as a serious and mature medium, but is ultimately unwilling to grow past some of it's most basic, and worst, childish tendencies.

Why do you think they do it? It can't just because they're afraid of people complaining about change, because people are already complaining!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It can't just because they're afraid of people complaining about change, because people are already complaining!

It probably reflects badly on them, but one major issue is the writers themselves. Comic Books switch in new writers and artists frequently, and often give them a lot of leeway in what they can do. Unfortunately, a bad habit has developed where a writer, if they don't like how the character or series was previously being handled, will retcon, ignore, or diminish the work of the last author in the series. I know a strong example of the behavior but its in the Star Wars EU, not comic books;

Have you ever heard of the Solo Wars? It was a behind the scenes 'civil war' among the writers of the Star Wars EU, concerning character Jaina Solo. It began as a simple conflict of characterization. She would bounce back and forth between four or five different personalities, at first because the writers were trying to define her, and then very quickly later because they were actually waging war in print over which of those personalities was their favorite. Eventually that part of the conflict ended and writing of the character became more consistent. Unfortunately the war continued as the 'Jagged Fel' and 'Zek' factions started fighting, really creepily I might add, over who her love interest would be. It ended in the ultimate case of awfulness, the Dark Nest Trilogy, where the author of the series tried to force a resolution to the Solo Wars by having Jaina and Zek have lots of alien mind control sex (I'm dead serious). It didn't work, in part because the series was so bad that when you added the creepiness of mind control sex, no one wanted to touch the Jaina/Zek ship anymore. Further, the sheer popularity of the Fel Empire in the Star Wars Legacy comic series, was something of a shadow play by another author to end the conflict and one that worked much better than the Darknest Trilogy. So now Jaina is married to Jagged Fel and everyone has pretty much just shrugged and said "yeah okay." But don't worry! There's now the Ben Skywalker/Vestara War to keep anyone who loves author drama entertained. This behavior can be called "Running the Asylum."

^So it's basically like that. It's a common problem in multi-creator projects with a very weak central control. It's made worse in comic books, because the retcons are now often turned into grand events, which make a lot of money, so the brokenness of it all is just being reinforced as something that's good for business. Even terrible events like One More Day, which was pretty much universally panned, made a lot of money simply riding on sensationalism. EDIT: And this behavior is probably most observable in how most comic book heroes have a revolving door of women/men in their lives. One of the oldest examples is the war waged over Gwen Stacey and Mary Jane Watson way back when (and we all know how that war was resolved).

So a decision has to be made. Keep making money and stay this discombobulated and mediocre mess of a continuity (one that runs the risk of eventually killing itself from sheer repetition). Or run take a very difficult road where the continuity actually starts to mean something, but where that sensationalism is going to end up needing a lot more creativity to maintain. Being childish works if comic books are okay with being a juvenile medium. But they're obviously not. For years now there's been a push for more mature stories. More mature content. This childish lack of consequence, cannot exist if comic books want to be taken as something more serious/mature. It just won't work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I never understood the anger over One More Day. The writers hit a reset button? In a comic book? But that never happens!!!

It isn't that they hit a reset button...as you said that happens often...but it was how it was handled (badly) and what was retconned (something readers liked but the editor didn't).

And how no one is the marvel universe could cure a gunshot.