Somehow we all missed the fact that in Spectacular Spider-Man #20, Spider-Man now has organic web-shooters — just like the movie version of Spider-Man.
Did anyone else read or hear about this?
I feel like I’m living in cave.
A better question may be, do we even care?
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
I care. It’s stupid. It’s pandering to the movies and changing a fundamental nature of the character (the science aspect).
It’s the same in USM…
Maybe it’s just a story point. How’d it happen?
Its gotta be just a matter of time before it happens in USM.
I didn’t read the issues, rather flipped through them in my LCS, but it looked like he fought some woman who turned him into a spider and then he turned back into Peter, but had organic shooters
DOWNGRADE
Well, happening in USM is okay becuse that’s an alternate reality, not the Official Marvel Universe.
you sound like me now
I think that I’ve always been against wholesale changes to the core of characters in the established universes. Having the X-Men wear black leather like in the movies is no big deal, but giving Spider-Man organic web shooters is something else altogether.
The question is – is it a permanent change?
That was sort of my question. I don’t care if a writer makes some changes now and then. I’m not really all that committed to history and tradition. Usually anyway….
But if this isn’t really them changing something for good, and a writer is experiementing, then onward. But then, if they changed it, they changed it. It happens all the time. And the original character of spiderman is gone already. he’s not a nerdy teen who lives with his elderly aunt anymore. He’s not always broke anymore. It’s all changed. You just notice this change more.
There’s a diference, I believe, between the natural evolution and growth of a character (I’d argue that Spider-Man’s arc is seriously flawed – but that’s another tangent) and a fundamental change in an important aspect of a character *IF* that change seems to stem from the success of that character’s cinematic appearances.
If the change is made for story and character reasons then at least that’s defensible, but this change seems too convienent, especially since there has been no hint of it in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, which makes me wonder if it is a permanent change.
Well, I’m sure I have no stake in this argument, as I’m not even a Spider-Man consumer, and since I don’t buy the books, they shouldn’t care what I think.
Was anyone else really put off by the whole Beast turning into cat-man thing?
I WAS
Do you think you would have been put off when he turned into a monkey thing in the 60’s?
I was kinda put off, but I didn’t get really bent out of shape about it.
Beast:
Started out a regular human guy with big hands and feet. Then he expierimented on himself and turned into the grey fuzzy beast. The he expierimented again and became the blue fuzzy beast. Then he expierimented again, and became human with big hands and feet again, and then expierimented again and became the blue fuzzy beast we know and love.
Then Morrison drops the “second mutation” bomb, and he becomes a cat.
The second mutation never sat well with me, and I just realized why. His mutation was never animalistic, it was just the increased dexterity and strength and agility etc. the fur and such came from expierimentation.
The reasons Ron lists for why Beast’s cat mutation didn’t sit right with him are the same reasons they didn’t sit right with me, thus I agree with what Ron says.
We see EYE-TO-EYE Ma’MAN. MANO y MANO