• 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by TheAcidSkull (17334 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Huge's Wolverine, but avengers? i think he should be back with the x-men :)

Online
#52 Posted by TheAcidSkull (17334 posts) - - Show Bio

Or we could put someone good on the team.

Huge Jackman Is awesome, origins wasn't his fault.

Online
#53 Edited by CHUCKY47 (254 posts) - - Show Bio
#54 Posted by TDK_1997 (14468 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't have a problem with it but I would rather see Hnak Pym,Wasp,Black Panther and maybe Ms. Marvel as part of the Avengers before Wolverine.

#55 Posted by frogdog (3240 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@fuchsia_nightingale: Andrew Garfield would ruin it. If they're going to have a Spider-man, then make it Tobey Maguire.

Good Lord no.

#56 Posted by Gambit474 (1460 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambit474: Founding members? If marvel was concerned about the founding members then they probably would have included Hank and Janet.

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

There's probably a limit to how many characters are going to be used, so the inclusion of Wolverine could mean that a more classic/appropriate member would not be included.

Wolverine has already had plenty of screen time in the X-Men films anyway, so it would be better to give another character some attention.

Marvel is has a history of focusing on characters they KNOW can sell. Wolverine is just one of those characters. And given the nature of the source material being much more aligned with the Ultimate universe, Wolverine is a appropriate choice in my opinion.

I honestly have no problem with them adding Hugh to the roster, i am also still hoping for spider-man and know Moon knight is a long shot. But the acknowledgment of their extended universe would be (for me at least) a surreal moment on film. Even with the X-franchises messy continuity, tho i might have a problem if Days of Future Past makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

#57 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:

@innervenom123 said:

Or we could put someone good on the team.

Huge Jackman Is awesome, origins wasn't his fault.

Hugh Jackman and Wolverine both suck, mate. Origins is the fault of a useless character and an actor who didn't stand up and say "wow, this script sucks"

#58 Edited by CheeseSticks (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

no thanks

#59 Posted by TheAcidSkull (17334 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:

@innervenom123 said:

Or we could put someone good on the team.

Huge Jackman Is awesome, origins wasn't his fault.

Hugh Jackman and Wolverine both suck, mate. Origins is the fault of a useless character and an actor who didn't stand up and say "wow, this script sucks"

i still like his Performances in other films :P, and he's not a bad wolverine IMO

but yeah, Origins was Gut wrenching.

Online
#60 Edited by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#61 Posted by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't get the hate for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. Frankly, he does extremely well with the role. He just has been given mediocre/bad scripts.

Online
#62 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Can't be because he's a Mary Sue that is always presented as correct, despite ever present hypocrisy and other characters being miswritten solely to give Wolverine a higher moral position.

There has never been a story that has benefited from Wolverine. Compare him to the other great characters (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Constantine, etc...) and he simply doesn't measure up. What's his best story? Dark Phoenix Saga? The arc where he was a bit-player?

#63 Edited by Pyrogram (35143 posts) - - Show Bio
@awesam said:

@fuchsia_nightingale: Andrew Garfield would ruin it. If they're going to have a Spider-man, then make it Tobey Maguire.

Agreed!

And yes about wolverine.

#64 Edited by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt:

Wolverine's best story is his first mini series by Chris Claremont. Have you read it? Have you read ANY Wolverine stories? Because you sound like you haven't. Also, Batman is a Mary Sue. The biggest one in comics :)

Online
#65 Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5511 posts) - - Show Bio

@monarch_chronicle said:

@gambit474: Founding members? If marvel was concerned about the founding members then they probably would have included Hank and Janet.

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

There's probably a limit to how many characters are going to be used, so the inclusion of Wolverine could mean that a more classic/appropriate member would not be included.

Wolverine has already had plenty of screen time in the X-Men films anyway, so it would be better to give another character some attention.

Marvel is has a history of focusing on characters they KNOW can sell. Wolverine is just one of those characters. And given the nature of the source material being much more aligned with the Ultimate universe, Wolverine is a appropriate choice in my opinion.

I honestly have no problem with them adding Hugh to the roster, i am also still hoping for spider-man and know Moon knight is a long shot. But the acknowledgment of their extended universe would be (for me at least) a surreal moment on film. Even with the X-franchises messy continuity, tho i might have a problem if Days of Future Past makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

#66 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Yes, that's usually the counter made by Logan fans.

Let's play a game, you say a comic starring Wolverine that's considered a literary achievement, and I'll say one starring Batman.

And for the record, I have read Wolverine stories, and I used to like him. Then I turned 7.

#67 Edited by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt:

There are barely any comics with top tier characters like Superman, Wolverine, etc. that are considered literary achievements. That's a bad criteria to judge if a character by. Do you even understand Wolverine as a character? And judging by how ignorant you are about Wolverine, I'm having a hard believing that you aren't 7.

Online
#68 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: I understand Wolverine substantially better than you do, that's why I dislike him and recognise him for the plot device that he is. I could go into the historical reasons for his growing pointlessness and reflection of whatever trend is "cool" in the current consciousness, but I dare say that'd be like trying to explain The Prince to a duck.

And it's not a poor criteria. A good character lends itself to good story-telling. A bad character does not. You also proved my point with your response of "zero literary Wolverine comics".

And to be fair, I'm not saying that all Wolverine fans are stupid.(Neither Lykopis or IrishX are/were stupid, they're both very clever) Just the vast, vast majority.

#69 Posted by frogdog (3240 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambit474 said:

@monarch_chronicle said:

@gambit474: Founding members? If marvel was concerned about the founding members then they probably would have included Hank and Janet.

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

There's probably a limit to how many characters are going to be used, so the inclusion of Wolverine could mean that a more classic/appropriate member would not be included.

Wolverine has already had plenty of screen time in the X-Men films anyway, so it would be better to give another character some attention.

Marvel is has a history of focusing on characters they KNOW can sell. Wolverine is just one of those characters. And given the nature of the source material being much more aligned with the Ultimate universe, Wolverine is a appropriate choice in my opinion.

I honestly have no problem with them adding Hugh to the roster, i am also still hoping for spider-man and know Moon knight is a long shot. But the acknowledgment of their extended universe would be (for me at least) a surreal moment on film. Even with the X-franchises messy continuity, tho i might have a problem if Days of Future Past makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

#70 Posted by M3th (2042 posts) - - Show Bio

I say yes and screw Fox's continuity

#71 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@gambit474 said:

@monarch_chronicle said:

@gambit474: Founding members? If marvel was concerned about the founding members then they probably would have included Hank and Janet.

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

There's probably a limit to how many characters are going to be used, so the inclusion of Wolverine could mean that a more classic/appropriate member would not be included.

Wolverine has already had plenty of screen time in the X-Men films anyway, so it would be better to give another character some attention.

Marvel is has a history of focusing on characters they KNOW can sell. Wolverine is just one of those characters. And given the nature of the source material being much more aligned with the Ultimate universe, Wolverine is a appropriate choice in my opinion.

I honestly have no problem with them adding Hugh to the roster, i am also still hoping for spider-man and know Moon knight is a long shot. But the acknowledgment of their extended universe would be (for me at least) a surreal moment on film. Even with the X-franchises messy continuity, tho i might have a problem if Days of Future Past makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

He did, they were just homophobic slurs.

#72 Edited by Michael_Moran (86 posts) - - Show Bio

I would like to see it

#73 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5511 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@gambit474 said:

@monarch_chronicle said:

@gambit474: Founding members? If marvel was concerned about the founding members then they probably would have included Hank and Janet.

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

There's probably a limit to how many characters are going to be used, so the inclusion of Wolverine could mean that a more classic/appropriate member would not be included.

Wolverine has already had plenty of screen time in the X-Men films anyway, so it would be better to give another character some attention.

Marvel is has a history of focusing on characters they KNOW can sell. Wolverine is just one of those characters. And given the nature of the source material being much more aligned with the Ultimate universe, Wolverine is a appropriate choice in my opinion.

I honestly have no problem with them adding Hugh to the roster, i am also still hoping for spider-man and know Moon knight is a long shot. But the acknowledgment of their extended universe would be (for me at least) a surreal moment on film. Even with the X-franchises messy continuity, tho i might have a problem if Days of Future Past makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

#74 Edited by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt:

You clearly do not understand Wolverine. He represents a couple of things.

The first thing he represents is never giving up. Throughout his life, he has lost all of his family member, had all the women he has ever loved killed, has had his memory wiped and been brainwashed into thinking he is some mindless animal. But the never gave in. Even though he has tempted to become a bad person because of his horrible life, he has never given in and resolves to become a better man.

He also represents never giving up in how he fights. No matter how much, bigger, stronger, or faster Wolverine's opponents are than him, he always refuses to give up until you've completely taken him out.

The second thing he represents is redemption. Throughout his life, Wolverine has made many morally questionable decisions due to him being tempted to become a bad person. He belonged to clandestine black ops teams who often did many bad things. But now, he has moved beyond that life and is trying to be the best person he can be. That's why Logan is so drawn towards the concept of the samurai. He feels that if he works hard enough, he can redeem himself into a truly honorable man, and he won't give up until he has. IGN said it best when they said "Wolverine is a failed samurai trying to atone for his many sins knowing full well that he can't".

You say that Wolverine is a "plot device', but Batman isn't. To make up for him being just human, Batman has been given a huge set of abilities that impossible for a human and is a blatant Gary stu. He knows 127 martial arts (impossible for someone his age), has a genius so vast he can hack into alien technology (again impossible for a human), his plans and contingencies never fail, he can take numerous broken bones all the time and can still get up every day and fight crime (impossible for a human), and is so overpowered he can stand beside a group of demi gods in the Justice League even though they outclass him in everything he does and isn't needed for anything besides keeping the sales high, and beats everybody with prep time. I like Batman (he's my second favorite hero behind Wolverine), but saying that Wolverine is a Gary Stu and Batman isn't is just biased.

And saying that the majority of Wolverine fans are stupid is so arrogant. What gives you the right to stereotype the majority of a fanbase as stupid? Stop being so snobbish.

P.S, touting your maturity by saying that got past Wolverine when your seven doesn't make you look very mature. It actually makes you look like a puerile fool, and keep your ignorance about Wolverine to yourself.

Online
#75 Edited by RulerOfThisUniverse (6147 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: First off, very nice analysis of Wolverine. I agree with everything you stated about Wolverine there, until you said that Batman is a plot device. Ummm........What? I disagree with the guy you're arguing against when he said that Wolverine is just a plot device.......but Batman? He is one of the most psychologically complex heroes ever made. I really don't understand how he is just a plot device.

Your first point is that he has mastered 127 forms of martial art, which is impossible. First of all, how does that make him a plot device? A plot device is a character that is only in existance to continue the story. Which has NOTHING to do with how fast you can learn martial arts. Second of all, you complain that this is unrealistic when your favorite character is a dude with the abilities of animals that shoots metal infused bone claws out of his fist.

You continue to list that he can hack into alien machinery, has contingencies that never fail (actually, he stopped his contingencies when Ra's Al Ghul [Vandal Savage in the animated version] used them against the Justice League), and he can survive broken bones. Still, none of this make him a plot device in any meaning of the word. It means he has unrealistic feats.

By the way, any member of the Justice League could kill him instantly (unless he gets put in a The Dark Knight Returns situation). And he can't beat everyone with prep time, that's an annoying stereotype often used to insult him.

I have absolutely no idea how any of that makes him a plot device. Neither Wolverine or Batman are.

#76 Edited by Wolverine08 (38862 posts) - - Show Bio

@rulerofthisuniverse:

I don't think Batman is a plot device bro. I was just pissed that he completely insulted and degraded Wolverine like that, and let my emotions get the best of me.

Online
#77 Edited by RulerOfThisUniverse (6147 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Ok then, that's cool. Neither character should be classified as a plot device. Back to watching you two argue, then.

#78 Edited by SideburnGuru (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm going to be honest, Spider Man and Wolverine SHOULD appear in these. Now look, I'm not saying automatically put them in as Avengers.

I'm saying, it does answer that one question that was out when Avengers came out. Where the hell were they? It's a giant war in New York City, it would be cool to see Spider Man alligning himself and Wolverine just for temporary purposes with the others, not as official Avengers, but just to help. Wolverine could come in saying "On behalf of the X-Men" or something totally corny like that, which explains why the other X-Men aren't there in a simplistic, stupid, but movie way.

Spider Man could say he just wanted to do the right thing. Have some great moments together, they leave then.

#79 Edited by RulerOfThisUniverse (6147 posts) - - Show Bio

As for the question, this will never happen but if it did it might be cool.

#80 Posted by theTimeStreamer (2841 posts) - - Show Bio
#81 Posted by batmannflash (6192 posts) - - Show Bio

i want wolverine! also spidey. i feel like joss whedon could write a very funny spider-man

#82 Edited by frogdog (3240 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

#83 Edited by buttersdaman000 (9491 posts) - - Show Bio

Eh....no

But if it did happen, imagine the power struggle for screen time between Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Jr.!!! It would be ridiculous. You would have to just call the movie Wolverine and Ironman featuring others lol

And about the Spider-Mans.....I personally think Tobey was the better Spider-Man. Andrew was fine but something about the way he plays the character irks me. And, really.....who can really see Andrews Spider-Man not being popular????

#84 Posted by Samimista (20609 posts) - - Show Bio
#85 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5511 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

#86 Posted by frogdog (3240 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

When did tobey stop wanting to be spider-man? After Mary Jane broke his heart. Please there more serious situations in comic's where peter's mental health is boardline crazy or heavy case delusional depression and his powers still work.

Parker is also suppose to be a genius, Tobey hardly displayed that side. Skateboarding hardly requires athleticism unless the person is fat, no different to those times Parker used a bike for high school. Tobey spent 3/4's of Spiderman 2 being mopey about his life, yet Garfield is outed as the emo?

#87 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (19939 posts) - - Show Bio

No way with these copyright issues. I personally wouldn't mind though.

#88 Posted by Gambit474 (1460 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

you've obviously not seen many skaters if you think just because they skate then all of a sudden it means they're athletic. Quit basing what you see off the x-games as what all skaters look like. Weird emo outcast? Hmm that's funny..If I recall Spider-man's always been the character with the rough life and having difficulty fitting in and he whines all the time so the emo part applies as well.

#89 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5511 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

When did tobey stop wanting to be spider-man? After Mary Jane broke his heart. Please there more serious situations in comic's where peter's mental health is boardline crazy or heavy case delusional depression and his powers still work.

Parker is also suppose to be a genius, Tobey hardly displayed that side. Skateboarding hardly requires athleticism unless the person is fat, no different to those times Parker used a bike for high school. Tobey spent 3/4's of Spiderman 2 being mopey about his life, yet Garfield is outed as the emo?

Did you even see the second spider man? He gave up being spider man, that was big plot point of the movie.....

I said his powers have fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included. I also said it was plausibly true, meaning somewhat true.

Tobey did somewhat display this, he understood the works of geniuses.

Skateboarding requires some athleticism, something peter isn't supposed to have at all. And yes it is harder to ride than a bike. Don't even try to say riding a bike is just as difficult as riding a skateboard because thats stupid.

His life was coming apart and was feeling sad, a lot more normal and consistent than garfield's mood swings.

Tobey was the more accurate spider man, get over it.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

you've obviously not seen many skaters if you think just because they skate then all of a sudden it means they're athletic. Quit basing what you see off the x-games as what all skaters look like. Weird emo outcast? Hmm that's funny..If I recall Spider-man's always been the character with the rough life and having difficulty fitting in and he whines all the time so the emo part applies as well.

When did I mention the X games? Someone sounds mad over nothing.

You must be thinking of a different Spiderman because the one I know of (earth 616) isn't a whiner.

#90 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

While I wouldn't mind seeing Wolverine in Avengers, I'd rather see Spider-Man honestly it would make more sense...

#91 Posted by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

It doesn't matter Man of Steel would still kick their asses anyway.

#92 Posted by ThatGuyWithHeadPhones (10366 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope

Mutants and superheroes should stay in separate universes

#93 Edited by frogdog (3240 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

@fadetoblackbolt: Really never noticed that.

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@frogdog said:

Which is why they're making an Ant Man movie here in the next year or so...and no Awesam Tobey's spider-man sucked. At least Garfield's tried to be accurate to the comics

Garfield was more accurate? 0.o

Tobey's spider-man never made quips while fighting.

Neither did Garfield except for that one scene. He also was the weird skater kid which is very inaccurate.

Which is alot more than tobey. Tobey lost his powers due to being heart broken, that's more inaccurate than using a skateboard.

That is inaccurate, which is why its a good thing it never happened. Tobey lost his powers due to not wanting to be spider man, a psychological condition. Its somewhat plausible because spider man's powers fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included.

Garfield was a skater, peter is supposed to be very unathletic which is why its inaccurate. He's also not some weird emo outcast, hes supposed to be a nerd like tobey.

When did tobey stop wanting to be spider-man? After Mary Jane broke his heart. Please there more serious situations in comic's where peter's mental health is boardline crazy or heavy case delusional depression and his powers still work.

Parker is also suppose to be a genius, Tobey hardly displayed that side. Skateboarding hardly requires athleticism unless the person is fat, no different to those times Parker used a bike for high school. Tobey spent 3/4's of Spiderman 2 being mopey about his life, yet Garfield is outed as the emo?

Did you even see the second spider man? He gave up being spider man, that was big plot point of the movie.....

After seeing Mary Jane getting engaged with a better man than him.

I said his powers have fluctuated depending on his health, mental health can be included. I also said it was plausibly true, meaning somewhat true.

Expect his powers have never fluctuated on mental health in any comic. Hell after mary jane left him in spider-man 3, his powers still worked. The whole thing was just a contrived plot device just have Toby whine about his life.

Tobey did somewhat display this, he understood the works of geniuses.

Understand the works, yet never displaying any of work of his own.

Skateboarding requires some athleticism, something peter isn't supposed to have at all. And yes it is harder to ride than a bike. Don't even try to say riding a bike is just as difficult as riding a skateboard because thats stupid.

I meant as means of transport.

His life was coming apart and was feeling sad, a lot more normal and consistent than garfield's mood swings.

In comparison to comic peter, that's hardly a mid-life crisis.

Tobey was the more accurate spider man, get over it.

Tobey is only accurate to people wearing nostalgia goggles. His peter was too dorky and his spider-man is un-charismatic. Tobey's spider-man stick out like sore thumb in comparsion to the other avengers, Garfield would actually blend in easier.

#94 Edited by Dayvid3 (807 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course he wants to be injected in more big budget movies. I can't even imagine what role wolverine would have had in the fight against Loki's army. Cap and Black Widow? As more street level heroes were just going around guiding civilians. Add someone else who can't help on the big scale? Just more sickening overexposure. My only pleasure would be seeing stark and him constantly posturing for the spotlight.

#95 Posted by Shadowcloak (8 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt (Nice name, btw) If you are or wish to be an academic, then I recommend an open mind as all academics should. All comic book characters have literary potential that are reached in the hands of great writers. My cents ;-)

#96 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

I can dig it. I think Hugh has done fine with the character and being in a cast of like Hemsworth, a CGI Hulk, Chris Hemsworth (Being 6'0 anyway and even bigger than Hugh), the scaling would look suitable since Logan hasn't exactly been 5'3 in forever based on artistic rendering.

Exactly. Thank you.

As for this article -- it was Hugh Jackman having a bit of fun. He's sincere about it in the sense he would be totally on board but we're talking three different companies, all with varying licenses. It's not an impossibility to make happen, but in all honesty, it won't. Just too complicated and unwieldy. Everyone going off on him wanting to make more money, or what have you is ridiculous. Sure, there is money to be had but the whole reason for him talking about it is just for the cool factor due to the comics. Chill pill people.

#97 Posted by Fuchsia_Nightingale (10180 posts) - - Show Bio

Yay spawned a argument about Spiderman hehe, gold star for me !

#98 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt:

I think I bust a blood vessel in my eye.

The more I read along this thread the more I thought about developing the ability to neuter you via telekinesis. Then you mentioned me in a pseudo half exclusion....

...I have to marinade in this. Because at present, I still want to make you a eunuch.

#99 Edited by Pyrogram (35143 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

The more I read along this thread the more I thought about developing the ability to neuter you via telekinesis.

You've turned into Nerx. He said exactly the same thing once!

#100 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: That's OK, if you do that I'll just grow them back.

Oh wait, no I won't since what happens to me actually leaves lasting ramifications because I'm not just a vehicle for action scenes =O