Ok lets move on to costumes. Yes... Spidermans costume sucks. Its original, but it still sucks. Lets look back to many other superhero's costumes. Superman.. is flying around in pajamas and a speedo. Powerman, he is wearing 80's disco cloths with some crazy thing wrapped around his head. Everyone's favorite Wolverine, look I dont even know how to describe that thing, but if you look at the original outfit, man I dont know what they were thinking. Captain America, Well hes wearing red WHITE and blue, are you going to say he ripped off of superman for wearing red and blue?
Here's a handy little tool for you folks out there who might feel inclined to jump onto the blog and throw around some opinions; don't assume I make crap up. (*also don't make crap up.....I hate that)
On the point of originality......Superman wins. Why you ask? because his was the first one. He was the first one. So if originality counts for costumes, he ALWAYS wins that. Wolverine's original is questionable, sure (actually it's ugly as hell).....no argument. Not even in Canadian colors, which could have made some sense. Captain America is the ultimate American soldier wrapped in the stars and stripes. That makes sense. But your suggestion that *I* said he ripped off Superman for sharing his primary colors suggests that you think I made that part up. I didn't, which you would know if you bothered to actually learn about the topics you're arguing about. During the period in question, most comic characters were designed using primary colors. Like Captain America, Superman was designed to be an 'AMERICAN' hero. The color choice was based on the colors of the flag, both of which were primary colors. For patriotic heroes it made sense.
For a guy based on a spider?
Get a grip.
And last but not least Peter Parker is an average loser, like any of us.
Don't include us in your 'us.'
He chose to be a wrestler when he first got his powers. Now tell me, if you were a nerdy loser who stayed locked in his room all day what would you do? Lets see, after hours of masturbation behind your computer over a hot red head girl you watch from your window like a stalker, you would watch tv. Who did you think was the strongest person in the world when you were a kid? Lets see next to Arnold Schwartzeneger (or however you spell his name) it was Hulk Hogan. So, if you suddenly got super strength who would you want to kicks ass in your nerd rage to feel like a bigger man?
Your assessment of how teenagers behave and what they watch on TV is......creepy. Does somebody check in on you on a regular basis? That isn't how Spidey chose to make money from wrestling either. Do some background research. He was an opportunist who saw a chance to make some money. Sitting at home watching wrestling never entered into it. I just find it incredibly funny that you would even consider defending that point. Hilarious.
Anyway he let a mugger run past him when he had super strength. Lets see. You suddenly have super powers, Idk about you but I wouldnt want to suddenly have attention on me from the police for being a young boy taking out a criminal.
I'd like to think I've been raised better than that and if I had the power and the ability to help somebody stop a crime, I would take it. That thought process you're demonstrating as you align with Peter is exactly the reason he isn't a hero. He's a selfish prick.
At least wrestling he can say is fake, actually using the powers in a non staged way would draw attention; I mean he was exactly what you said a nerdy loser who stayed in his room all day.How is a 16 year old, scrawny runt going to say its fake when he picks up a 275 lb man and spins him around and throws him like a rag doll? Even the fans watching won't believe it's staged. I wouldn't believe it if I saw Rey Mysterio pick up Big Show. The idea that nobody would figure out he was unusually (REALLY!) strong for his size because it was wrestling suggests that everyone there is dumber than a stump. So he's either worried about being discovered and doesn't do anything with his super-strength or......maybe.....he's just a selfish prick who didn't care about right and wrong.
Do you think he wanted the world looking at him on tv?)Yes. Otherwise you don't go on a wrestling show. Dur.
Now He let the criminal kill his uncle by letting him go. Yes I agree, in fact there is no way to argue that, but what defines him, and anyone else who could have been put in that situation, is what he did afterward.Lie to his aunt and act out of guilt? I agree, those actions do define him.
If you simply define him by letting the man go, then by definition, Batman would be responsible for every person any of his villains killed because he put them in Jail. Why you ask? Because he knows they are going to escape; I mean lets face it how many times have they done it. With one exception being the Penguin (and the Riddler for a little while) name a villan who left arkham and didn't kill again? I mean hell throw all the villains out the window if you want, Joker is not going to be rehabilitated no matter how many times you lock him up. Joker alone should give Batman a reason to argue the death penalty.
This argument is so colossally flawed, I'm not even sure where to start cutting it up. Batman isn't responsible for any of the crimes that people he captures commit because he turns them over to the legal system to be processed. His job isn't to keep them incarcerated. You can't just assign guilt to him because they escape (or are let out) in the future by the state. I get that you like the Punisher and think that murder is justice, but try and keep your arguments a little bit more lucid on here. Maybe take a Valium before you write this crap. Knowing that the legal system may fail does not in any way obligate Batman or any other hero to commit murder. What in God's name is wrong with you?
There is no similarity between actively ignoring a crime in progress and not killing a criminal who you suspect will escape or be released to commit crimes again one day. NONE.
All in all, if you are going to hold Spiderman up to a microscope; put any other superhero under it and you can realize how silly they are. Just go back and look at any of there original storyline and they are just dumb by our standards. Comic books go by the generation. They are subject to the silly things that that generation is into. I mean in 50 years people will be having this same argument because lets face it they will be different people (probably speaking Chinese if we keep going the way we are.).I'm not sure whether that last comment was supposed to be funny or serious, but it comes off as sad. I could put any number of heroes under a microscope and find flaws with them but I chose Spider-Man because he sucks. I watched you try and do the same thing to Superman, but your arguments were flawed, empty and completely inaccurate. Better luck next time.
And so you know, I am not a Big spiderman fan.Really? Me neither. We should hang out.
Hes ok. My actual favorite is the Punisher and I even argued that he is silly at times.Plus, he's not a hero. He's a serial killer. That you consider your favorite. You know what? We shouldn't hang out. I don't hang out with people who love Ted Bundy either though, so don't take it personally.
Truth be told I just simply think that if you put a hero up to those standards you are going to find a fault. Spiderman was based to be like every other person in this world (because he was Marvel) and you cant compare him to a DC character because they are meant to be larger than life.Another flawed perception of the different between DC and Marvel, easily countered with a quick list:
Marvel: Thor, Silver Surfer, Hulk,
DC: Azrael, Booster Gold, Flash,
Every time I hear the argument that Marvel makes more 'human' heroes I almost fall down laughing. Is Hercules human? Thor? The Surfer? Are the Inhumans? There is a scale of power from mortal to godlike in both companies. The difference is that DC has done a better job of hitting more ICONIC notes in their origins.
Green Lantern v Nova. Same basic idea. 1 company rocked it and the other botched it (until recently.)
Flash v Quicksilver. Same again.
Green Arrow v Hawkeye. Same again. Remind me to tell you guys about the time I thanked Bendis for killing Hawkeye.
Aquaman v Namor. And again.
Iconic origins Marvel did hit well? Hulk. FF. Cap.
Also, they don't compare in terms of being smart about which companies they absorbed. Dc absorbed Fawcett and got SHAZAM. Marvel absorbed Malibu and got.....ummm......Prime. Wow. Epic fail.
Marvel have human weaknesses, and with the exception to batman (and green arrow) DC characters dont (a frikn rock).
Thor does NOT have a human weakness. I suppose you could argue Banner does, though Hulk does not. Surfer doesn't. Nor does Black Bolt. What is Wolverine's? Will you argue that Banner makes Hulk more vulnerable than Kryptonite, Magic or Lois Lane make Superman? Probably. You're reliably weak like that. This is as lame an argument as every other one you've brought forward.
Maybe you should leave the comic commentary to those of us who actually read the damn things, because you sir......are clueless.