Somebody's cranky today...

"Somebody's cranky today... "

The DCAU Kicks the Sh*t out of Spidey's Show. Badly. Especially Since I Remember a Streak where they showed the EXACT SAME EPISODE with Morbius  EVERY SATURDAY for like a month, And It pissed me off. That's Just Plain Stupid!!! And ELECTRO WAS THE RED SKULL'S SON??? That's like Saying THE RIDDLER  is Lex Luthor's Cousin!!! BWAAAA AHAHSDFGBHYJUKJYTHGTFR *My Head bursts from anger*

To be fair some of those problems were caused by Fox's censorship and some from your own dislike of the characters used... and it still lasted longer than all of the Marvel or DC runs on today, so they were obviously doing something right.

"To be fair some of those problems were caused by Fox's censorship and some from your own dislike of the characters used... and it still lasted longer than all of the Marvel or DC runs on today, so they were obviously doing something right. "

Thank you. That show is so overrated its not even funny. 

" @Darth-Spidey: Morbius wasn't that prominent, he was part of a greater over-all story (Neogenic Nightmare) which he fit into well, as for Kingpin, he was a means by which other characters could be brought in, otherwise there would probably be fewer characters. Green Goblin was there when he needed to be, there aren't that many storylines he could have been put into of the four themes that were written for each season. "

"I agree, the show doesn't hold up too well anymore, but it's a part of my childhood, and I enjoy it. But why isn't Morbius's power-redo in here? They tried to make him less scary by giving him suckers on his hands and by turning him into a bigger bat mutant than he already is! How was that suppose to be less scary than the original? How?! That gave me nightmares for years! Years! Thank you Fox for one of the worst ideas ever. MZ3 Zombie Morbius wasn't even that bad! "

It's not all bad, there was some good stuff, Black Cat comes to mind, though her joining Blade and Morbius was just stupid. 
 
For every one good thing, there was 10 bad, that was the problem with the series.

So when you were watchin' this show some ten-twenty years ago, was this exactly how you felt? I find that hard to believe, especially considering this line:
 
@Darth-Spidey said:

" http://fans.marvel.com/go/thread/view/108222/23291506/Spectacular_Spider-Man    

If you look at this link you will find a list that looks an awful lot like mine.  That's because I agree with every point this guy made.  And it was only after reading it did I realize how right he was and made this rant. "

"So when you were watchin' this show some ten-twenty years ago, was this exactly how you felt? I find that hard to believe, especially considering this line:
 
@Darth-Spidey said:

" http://fans.marvel.com/go/thread/view/108222/23291506/Spectacular_Spider-Man    

If you look at this link you will find a list that looks an awful lot like mine.  That's because I agree with every point this guy made.  And it was only after reading it did I realize how right he was and made this rant. "

As a side note, I saw a very similar list like this on Wikipedia, Youtube, and I think I've seen a thread like this around here on Comic Vine before, so this really isn't news to most.  The way I see it, none of the censorships really mattered. When I was five, six, seven, eight, however old I was, I couldn't care less that they used lasers instead of bullets. Didn't care that no one got punched, didn't care that they changed "sinister" to "insidious." Seriously, what difference did that make? As for Kingpin being the main enemy, whoopee doo. They brought in a lot of enemies, and every enemy had their moment, really every character had their moment. I could through each one of those points of yours (really that other guy's since you didn't really make this list yourself) and tell you how most of that didn't really make a difference on the average 4-8 year old's viewing experience. The show did great for itself, it got a lot of kids interested in the character and more importantly, the comics, it's still generally held in high regard, so I say the show was more than a success. Making a list about how "bad" a show that was made in a completely different era, targeted at a different audience is sorta well...this is a rant, but still, I'd say there are better things you could rant about. "

I actually agree with making the hobgoblin come  first, it helps the Green Goblins name make sense. Why be the green goblin if there are no other goblins? Might as well just call yourself Goblin

"I actually agree with making the hobgoblin come  first, it helps the Green Goblins name make sense. Why be the green goblin if there are no other goblins? Might as well just call yourself Goblin"

"@Darth-Spidey:
You could have mentioned how they portraded some of the villians a tad too stupid, old people being to Senile, vulture and slivermane having the same goals, overuse of the transdimensional portal/  neogenic recombinator and also how horrible the green goblin was. If I didn't read the comics, I would still think he's a corny-ass rip-off of the hobgoblin. I agree with all points but wouldn't say it was all bad, I would say that anything after half of season 3 was bad. 
    "

hmmm

Yeah.....that's all pretty true....but i think the 90's show captured the spirit of spidey, if this is one of the worst cartoons you have ever seen, you haven't seen that many.
 
besides the spectacular spider man cartoon was 100x better anyway =p go watch that

"Yeah.....that's all pretty true....but i think the 90's show captured the spirit of spidey, if this is one of the worst cartoons you have ever seen, you haven't seen that many.  besides the spectacular spider man cartoon was 100x better anyway =p go watch that "

" @NexusOfLight said:

"So when you were watchin' this show some ten-twenty years ago, was this exactly how you felt? I find that hard to believe, especially considering this line:
 
@Darth-Spidey said:

" http://fans.marvel.com/go/thread/view/108222/23291506/Spectacular_Spider-Man    

If you look at this link you will find a list that looks an awful lot like mine.  That's because I agree with every point this guy made.  And it was only after reading it did I realize how right he was and made this rant. "

As a side note, I saw a very similar list like this on Wikipedia, Youtube, and I think I've seen a thread like this around here on Comic Vine before, so this really isn't news to most.  The way I see it, none of the censorships really mattered. When I was five, six, seven, eight, however old I was, I couldn't care less that they used lasers instead of bullets. Didn't care that no one got punched, didn't care that they changed "sinister" to "insidious." Seriously, what difference did that make? As for Kingpin being the main enemy, whoopee doo. They brought in a lot of enemies, and every enemy had their moment, really every character had their moment. I could through each one of those points of yours (really that other guy's since you didn't really make this list yourself) and tell you how most of that didn't really make a difference on the average 4-8 year old's viewing experience. The show did great for itself, it got a lot of kids interested in the character and more importantly, the comics, it's still generally held in high regard, so I say the show was more than a success. Making a list about how "bad" a show that was made in a completely different era, targeted at a different audience is sorta well...this is a rant, but still, I'd say there are better things you could rant about. "

Find something better to rant about?  Probably.  I guess it's the 90s show fanboys and the fact that these mistakes were repeated that drive me bonkers.  Many of the other marvel shows I've seen make similar mistakes, and it becomes a drag for a fan like myself, who wants a good show but gets ones aimed specifically for little kids and no one else again and again.  While it's true my list and his are similar, I agree with his points.  As already stated, though I liked the show when I was younger, I didn't know any better, and only later did I look back and realize how....weak, it was.  As far as the censorship, to me it matters.  I can't honestly take a superhero show seriously when things are so painfully dumbed down.  That's just my opinion.  "

Damn I didn't realize till now thank you, I didn't know the show was bad thank you for pointing it out

Your welcome.  Yeah, that was one of the reasons I made this rant in the first place.  To spread the word.

" I agree with you, this show is really overrated. I expecially hate lame action scenes and the fact that they made Kingpin stronger than Rhino "

W. T. F???

" @MAV said:

" I agree with you, this show is really overrated. I expecially hate lame action scenes and the fact that they made Kingpin stronger than Rhino "

W. T. F???

"

I grew up with the 90s animated Spidey show and loved every episode.

So, uh... what is it you said in your rant? 'Coz I just skip through the crap.
 
Anywho, I think people are forgetting about the CDB factor. After all the cheesy laser sound effects and the numerous weak storylines, it's Barnes' splendid voice-acting that lured me back to watching this show over and over again. Everytime I tried listening to Keaton, I feel nauseous when I think about how he's the Justin Bieber of the Spider-Man universe.
 
Oh, and of course, there was also that little bit of factor that's the well-developed character personalities in TAS. Becayse if Peter's personality was shit in TAS, it wouldn't be more memorable than Josh Keaton's Peter, whom I couldn't quite remember what he's like (other than he makes a very funny Spidey).

you forgot two important things
 
19) Venom's colors
 
 
20) Spider-Man wasnt allowed to hit anyone

"you forgot two important things
 
19) Venom's colors
   20) Spider-Man wasnt allowed to hit anyone "

I thought that looked pretty well for someone who later spawned a Carnage symbiotic which is red in color.
 
So, anyway, for the sake of ranting, I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote in another forum:
 Spectacular's script was right on the spot, but I never really gotten to like how they made slight alterations to certain artistic aspects that made Spec look more like a spin-off like Ultimate Spidey is to Amazing. Gwen's glasses for example. And then there was the Goblin outfit, of which its color tones look like the original Goblin outfit, but is never as true to it as the '90s version. And then there are several animation aspects that make the overall look feel... different, whether it's the way Peter or MJ look (more preteen-ized), their eyes being more cartoonish than ever, or, the biggest problem I have, how the outfits of several other villains (Doc Ock and Electro, just to name a few) look more upgraded. Like Raimi's Spidey organic webbing upgraded.

Hammerhead is the only one that looks better than his '90s incarnations, without a doubt, and Silver Sable looks great, too. And the scripting is, once again, very polished and decent (contrary to the outfits, the jokes are a welcoming upgrade). But somehow, it doesn't feel like the old first hundred issues of Amazing Spider-Man I have read. As I said, it feels more like Ultimate Spidey, or the first 10 or 12 issues of Untold Tales of Spider-Man, especially with how much 'younger' and 'kiddier' the animation has been set to.

But alas, I grew up in the '90s, so my favorite incarnation is a natural one. TAS has some problems, but I'm just as amazed (pardon the pun) at how it also managed to fit those little comic book references and 'wink-winks' in the series when I watch it in my current age, just as the '67 Spider-Man series had. I'm sure Spectacular also have this, but with the reasons given above, Spec to TAS feels like Nolan's Batman compared to Burton's. It's all about the atmosphere. 
 
Regarding Spider-Man not hitting anyone in the show. To be fair, Spider-Man is not exactly the strongest superhero in the Marvel universe. Besides, it's not the Spider-Man we're watching/reading for, it's the Peter Parker. And I felt the characterization was decently done.
 
The Hydro Man arc never really interested me. He feels like a punk to me more than a villain. So, it was a poor choice. The reason they couldn't use Sandman, btw, was because he was gonna be used in a canceled James Cameron Spider-Man movie, along with Electro and, I presume, Gwen Stacy.
 
Consider this: Given what they had to handle with, with the studio barking at them not to include adult stuff (not sure whether if Spec is just as censored), they get an A for effort. Yes, I got annoyed at the lack of punches, too, but if anything, he was definitely not shown to be a wimp. Want to know why? If you refer to my answer and refute to your point about Spider-Man incompetence, I wrote that Spider-Man is not the strongest superhero in the Marvel universe. Now, what did I mean by that, I wonder? Maybe because he's also Peter Parker, Science Genius, not to mention having a lot of BRAINS to work with than brawn.

If you notice throughout the series, Spidey often worked out the problems with his brain. Like when he led the Secret Wars as a leader. Or when he solved the whole time-dimensional accelerator problem The Spot had (Kingpin: "Spider-Man is a scientist?!"). Or how about the Spider Slayers arc, when he clogged the Black Widow's jet-engines with web-fluid, or when he, in the second-half of that arc, used liquid oxygen to remove the bomb attached to his wrist (among other wise moves). Or how about he defeated DORMAMMU himself (with Venom and Iron Man's distractions, yes, but like I wrote, he's the brains of this operation) by closing up the portal with, once again, his scientific knowhow. Or how about... ah, you get the point.

In fact, when reading the old ASM comics (and please do note that I am referring to the old 184 issues of ASM here), I realized just how weak Spidey can be when battling real villains, only lucking out, have an over-egoistical villain, or using his brains to achieve the ultimate victory. That's what's so 'amazing' about Spider-Man, that he is, time and time again, able to beat the bad guys without using pure strength. For he is... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! (And yes, I hadtta say that) And don't go telling me that raw strength makes Spider-Man amazing. What makes Iron Man 'Invincible?' It's not his armor, clearly. It's his heart. And what makes a monstrous thing like The Hulk 'Incredible?' It's his everlasting struggle to be consumed by his bloodlust for rage, anger. I think it's rather true to form here that Spider-Man is not doing a lot of fighting more than thinking. But you can't say he never fought a villain before in this show, or that he never got in a fight on his own before. Remember Venom in the first season?

One problem, I'll admit, is the number of superhero cameos. I think the creators were so eager to focus on the 'team-up' aspect of Spider-Man that he was left seemingly upstaged, perhaps to show how many friends he has in the Superhero world.

Also, I really love the co-stars of the other superheroes that teamed up with Spidey (a nice wink to Marvel Team-Up). And Venom was just badass compared to Spec's version, having even adapted the anti-hero aspect of Venom. Yes, the '90s retconned Venom was a poor choice, but blame the adapted material, not the adaptation for being true to form. At least the whole 'attaining the black suit' story was altered to a more realistic form. And I felt they made it really fun by including the three lamest villains of all and made them cool, The Spot, The Rocket Racer, and even (dare I say it) The Big Wheel, even to the part where he couldn't pull a brake on the mechanical wheel (I lol'd).

Finally, I don't really like 'spins' of any kind on Spider-Man. Spider-Man's original material is good enough. Don't alter Electro's classic costume (yes, they later changed the origin of Electro, this is due to the canceled 'James Cameron movie' I mentioned above, but I don't really mind this one much because they kept the original costume). Don't change the way Green Goblin looks. You might as well change the way Spider-Man looks (oops, too late for that).

Alas, there are quite a few things I don't like about TAS myself as well, most of which include the abovementioned censoring problems, but until something that could top the 'comic comes alive' look in TAS, I'm gonna stick with the '90s, for now. I don't have high hopes for Disney's Ultimate, considering I don't really prefer the comic over ASM.
 
Lastly, regarding Josh Keaton. I like how Christopher Daniel Barnes made Spider-Man seem like a potential senior hero in the superhero career, especially in his voicing of Spider-Man Noir in Shattered Dimensions. Josh Keaton's Ultimate Spidey sounded like he's still a grasshopper GreenHorn in the career, which is fine for USM, but CDB's version is suitable for the Spider-Man that is today, when he's grown up and married in his middle age (or 23-25, whatever).

Even in the series, he didn't sound exactly like so young you couldn't take Spider-Man seriously. I thought the whole point of Marvel superheroes being amazed that Spider-Man is a kid is probably because 1) he don't act like one in serious moments, 2) he doesn't have the physique of a teenager, and 3) he sounds older than he looks. But the last one is really a theory, because you can't listen to comics (unless you count those audio-comics back in the day).
 
One more personal note from myself that's not copy-pasted: I don't understand why people could appreciate the classic 1967 Spider-Man animated series, overlooking its much more corny sound effects and campy but vintage graphics, but still be bothered by the cheesy laser sound effects in the '90s series, unable to appreciate it as an aspect of the decade and unable to appreciate the overall '90s look in the animated series.

You could have mentioned how they portraded some of the villians a tad too stupid, old people being to Senile, vulture and slivermane having the same goals, overuse of the transdimensional portal/  neogenic recombinator and also how horrible the green goblin was. If I didn't read the comics, I would still think he's a corny-ass rip-off of the hobgoblin. I agree with all points but wouldn't say it was all bad, I would say that anything after half of season 3 was bad. 
    "

The way I see it, there are two different set of Spider-Fans:
1) The ones who feel Spidey's true place belongs to the "Amazing Spider-Man" series rather than all the spin-offs and Ultimate whatnot
2) The ones who see Spider-Man as a symbol that could be reincarnated in various forms, whether as Ben Reilly, Spider-Man Noir, or Ultimate Spider-Man.
 
I'd believe the second group of individuals might be the ones who see "The Spectacular Spider-Man" animated as a masterpiece of some sort, while dissing it out at the '90s animated series. Whereas, on the other hand, the first group would probably see TAS as a comic book come alive, staying as true to the ASM comic as the production crew's resources allowed it to, while seeing Spec as a blatant form of Alternate Universe Spider-Man.
 
Because, let's be honest with ourselves here, there are several points to show that Spec clearly looks and feels different from the Peter Parker we knew and love from the old days, back in the 60s/70s/80s, from the adolescent appearance crafted for realism to their voices not fitting their characters suitably at all (in fact, all the hype over Josh Keaton and the respective VAs in Spec came from their fanboyism of the great storyline, nothing to do with the voices) to the alteration of the costumes to Dr. Octopussy being more of a wimp than he originally was to Gwen not looking like Gwen to Mary Jane being a jailbait to the characters' funny-looking eyes to... Sigh. I rest my case.
 
And speaking of voices, I tried convincing myself that Spec might not be that bad a watch, with its incredible storyline, but as I sat through the first episode just now, as I listened to Josh Keaton's kiddish voice, my mind kept tracing back to how both Peter Parker and Spider-Man looked like in his highschool days in the comics. And then, I tried fitting that image with Keaton's voice. It was a horrible experience. I just couldn't imagine the macho Spidey with that kind of voice.
 
And then there was yesterday, when I tried listening to the Black Cat's voice in BehindTheVoiceActors.com. It was like it was playtime with Spider-Man, I don't know what's going on, and that's definitely a poor choice of voice for the Black Cat I read in ASM #194. Again, I tried fitting that voice on the comic book counterpart, and I see an adolescent girl jumping around in a cat suit, pretending to be a passionate adult filled with love and lust. Sure, her lines worked, but her overall image and outlook... terrible.

" The way I see it, there are two different set of Spider-Fans:
1) The ones who feel Spidey's true place belongs to the "Amazing Spider-Man" series rather than all the spin-offs and Ultimate whatnot
2) The ones who see Spider-Man as a symbol that could be reincarnated in various forms, whether as Ben Reilly, Spider-Man Noir, or Ultimate Spider-Man.
 
I'd believe the second group of individuals might be the ones who see "The Spectacular Spider-Man" animated as a masterpiece of some sort, while dissing it out at the '90s animated series. Whereas, on the other hand, the first group would probably see TAS as a comic book come alive, staying as true to the ASM comic as the production crew's resources allowed it to, while seeing Spec as a blatant form of Alternate Universe Spider-Man.
 
Because, let's be honest with ourselves here, there are several points to show that Spec clearly looks and feels different from the Peter Parker we knew and love from the old days, back in the 60s/70s/80s, from the adolescent appearance crafted for realism to their voices not fitting their characters suitably at all (in fact, all the hype over Josh Keaton and the respective VAs in Spec came from their fanboyism of the great storyline, nothing to do with the voices) to the alteration of the costumes to Dr. Octopussy being more of a wimp than he originally was to Gwen not looking like Gwen to Mary Jane being a jailbait to the characters' funny-looking eyes to... Sigh. I rest my case.  And speaking of voices, I tried convincing myself that Spec might not be that bad a watch, with its incredible storyline, but as I sat through the first episode just now, as I listened to Josh Keaton's kiddish voice, my mind kept tracing back to how both Peter Parker and Spider-Man looked like in his highschool days in the comics. And then, I tried fitting that image with Keaton's voice. It was a horrible experience. I just couldn't imagine the macho Spidey with that kind of voice. "

" @InnerVenom123:Erm, you forgot about Gwen's glasses, genius. You know, the biggest, most significant thing that make Gwen not look like Gwen? That she looks like a bookworm, front of the class anti-social nerdbrain? Remember that what made the original Gwen so cool was that she was the first of the 'cool kids' to actually like Peter Parker. Not Flash, not Harry, Gwen. That's what made her so cool, because for the first time, a popular girl who looks like she's supposed to do cheerleading took a liking to Peter Parker. Weak? I think not.   "

" @InnerVenom123:   And yes, Octopus being a wimp in the first place is my case, because people had problems with Electro's origin in TAS as well, so I thought I should bring up Octo's origin in Spec, too. Octavius was an egoistical maniac who got into an accident because of his pride, not because someone bullied him into it. Making him sympathetic in this case is really anti-climatic. "

" @InnerVenom123: And wow, instead of trying to defend my case, you actually just dropped it off with a comment your smug of a brain seemed to think of as so revolutionary a remark. I must've really creamed you there.    "

" @InnerVenom123: So, let's see, what else. Ah yes, Mary Jane, the girl too hot for Peter Parker. I don't have a problem with Mary Jane's appearance in Spec. Otherwise, I wouldn't have called her a jailbait. I would've called her what I labeled Kirsten Dunst in the Spider-Man movies - fugly. As in fucking ugly. No. My problem with MJ in Spec is that she looks too young, and the hot-factor is both awkward and unsuitable for a girl her appearance, hence the term, 'jailbait.' TAS didn't do a very good job for Mary Jane, either, but at least she seemed old enough to spend a night over with Peter wearing a rubber. Being 16, should 'sex' be a subject for the Spider-Man comics? God, no. But what makes Mary Jane Mary Jane was her hot-factor back in the '60s, how she seemed too good to be true for Peter Parker (and still is now, in the modern day). Spec failed to establish that kind of image we've all seen back then, and failed to give us the kind of feeling we felt when we first laid our eyes on the super-spicy MJ in those early days of Peter Parker.  Being able to so successfully establish the same kind of mystery factor the Green Goblin had, I'm surprised Spec failed on this department. Then again, the identity revealed in Spec isn't that breathtaking anyway.  "

" @InnerVenom123:  Okay, last but not the least, the funny eyes, Gawd, the horrible funny eyes. This one, I'd like to pair it with another flaw of the show, which is the overall animation. I don't know why the team chose to make the whole darn show look so... just plain weird. It's not the superb graphics we see in the MTV series or Ultimate Alliance. It's not the clean and sleek classic 1-D animation we see in TAS. It's definitely not live action. So why make Spec look so, cartoonish? I mean, the least they could do is incorporate some of the art styles as seen in the comics (preferably the classic style of the comics, not the over-exaggerated style of the modern age). And the funny eyes really bothered me a lot. I can't take those visages seriously.  I mean it's WEIRD AS FUCK! Those f-king eyes! Gawd I can't stand it! LoL It's like staring into a black hole, or staring into the eyeholes of somebody who just had his eye sockets burned out by the Ghost Rider.  Ah yes, before I forgot. It seems like you ignored my point about the voices for some reason. In fact, many people who I've went against while criticizing Spec seemed to ignore my points about CDB and Spec's choice of voices. Do I see a pattern here? "

I liked the show. I've never been a hardcore fan of Spiderman, but it wasn't a bad show. Although X-Men the Animated Series was way better.

You're thinking of character designs. Animation is the movement of the characters, and in Spec, it was great. That's why they made them look simpler, so it would be easy to animate.

@InnerVenom123

She was too cool for him in the show. And she can't be hot by Peter's point of view? He's a teenager. How can that subject not pop up?

I do get frustrated when people don't know the comics and only know their information from the cartoon. 'Y'mean Electro wasn't Red Skull's kid in the comics?" Hell no. "Didn't Mary Jane get replaced with a clone made of water?" HELL NO! "

As a kid I loved this show so much. Watched it ALL the time, but now I just can't seem to enjoy it as much as I do 'Batman: The Animated Series'. God I love that show.

" I thought that looked pretty well for someone who later spawned a Carnage symbiotic which is red in color.
 
So, anyway, for the sake of ranting, I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote in another forum:
 Spectacular's script was right on the spot, but I never really gotten to like how they made slight alterations to certain artistic aspects that made Spec look more like a spin-off like Ultimate Spidey is to Amazing. Gwen's glasses for example. And then there was the Goblin outfit, of which its color tones look like the original Goblin outfit, but is never as true to it as the '90s version. And then there are several animation aspects that make the overall look feel... different, whether it's the way Peter or MJ look (more preteen-ized), their eyes being more cartoonish than ever, or, the biggest problem I have, how the outfits of several other villains (Doc Ock and Electro, just to name a few) look more upgraded. Like Raimi's Spidey organic webbing upgraded.

Hammerhead is the only one that looks better than his '90s incarnations, without a doubt, and Silver Sable looks great, too. And the scripting is, once again, very polished and decent (contrary to the outfits, the jokes are a welcoming upgrade). But somehow, it doesn't feel like the old first hundred issues of Amazing Spider-Man I have read. As I said, it feels more like Ultimate Spidey, or the first 10 or 12 issues of Untold Tales of Spider-Man, especially with how much 'younger' and 'kiddier' the animation has been set to.

But alas, I grew up in the '90s, so my favorite incarnation is a natural one. TAS has some problems, but I'm just as amazed (pardon the pun) at how it also managed to fit those little comic book references and 'wink-winks' in the series when I watch it in my current age, just as the '67 Spider-Man series had. I'm sure Spectacular also have this, but with the reasons given above, Spec to TAS feels like Nolan's Batman compared to Burton's. It's all about the atmosphere. 
 
Regarding Spider-Man not hitting anyone in the show. To be fair, Spider-Man is not exactly the strongest superhero in the Marvel universe. Besides, it's not the Spider-Man we're watching/reading for, it's the Peter Parker. And I felt the characterization was decently done.
 
The Hydro Man arc never really interested me. He feels like a punk to me more than a villain. So, it was a poor choice. The reason they couldn't use Sandman, btw, was because he was gonna be used in a canceled James Cameron Spider-Man movie, along with Electro and, I presume, Gwen Stacy.
 
Consider this: Given what they had to handle with, with the studio barking at them not to include adult stuff (not sure whether if Spec is just as censored), they get an A for effort. Yes, I got annoyed at the lack of punches, too, but if anything, he was definitely not shown to be a wimp. Want to know why? If you refer to my answer and refute to your point about Spider-Man incompetence, I wrote that Spider-Man is not the strongest superhero in the Marvel universe. Now, what did I mean by that, I wonder? Maybe because he's also Peter Parker, Science Genius, not to mention having a lot of BRAINS to work with than brawn.

If you notice throughout the series, Spidey often worked out the problems with his brain. Like when he led the Secret Wars as a leader. Or when he solved the whole time-dimensional accelerator problem The Spot had (Kingpin: "Spider-Man is a scientist?!"). Or how about the Spider Slayers arc, when he clogged the Black Widow's jet-engines with web-fluid, or when he, in the second-half of that arc, used liquid oxygen to remove the bomb attached to his wrist (among other wise moves). Or how about he defeated DORMAMMU himself (with Venom and Iron Man's distractions, yes, but like I wrote, he's the brains of this operation) by closing up the portal with, once again, his scientific knowhow. Or how about... ah, you get the point.

In fact, when reading the old ASM comics (and please do note that I am referring to the old 184 issues of ASM here), I realized just how weak Spidey can be when battling real villains, only lucking out, have an over-egoistical villain, or using his brains to achieve the ultimate victory. That's what's so 'amazing' about Spider-Man, that he is, time and time again, able to beat the bad guys without using pure strength. For he is... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! (And yes, I hadtta say that) And don't go telling me that raw strength makes Spider-Man amazing. What makes Iron Man 'Invincible?' It's not his armor, clearly. It's his heart. And what makes a monstrous thing like The Hulk 'Incredible?' It's his everlasting struggle to be consumed by his bloodlust for rage, anger. I think it's rather true to form here that Spider-Man is not doing a lot of fighting more than thinking. But you can't say he never fought a villain before in this show, or that he never got in a fight on his own before. Remember Venom in the first season?

One problem, I'll admit, is the number of superhero cameos. I think the creators were so eager to focus on the 'team-up' aspect of Spider-Man that he was left seemingly upstaged, perhaps to show how many friends he has in the Superhero world.

Also, I really love the co-stars of the other superheroes that teamed up with Spidey (a nice wink to Marvel Team-Up). And Venom was just badass compared to Spec's version, having even adapted the anti-hero aspect of Venom. Yes, the '90s retconned Venom was a poor choice, but blame the adapted material, not the adaptation for being true to form. At least the whole 'attaining the black suit' story was altered to a more realistic form. And I felt they made it really fun by including the three lamest villains of all and made them cool, The Spot, The Rocket Racer, and even (dare I say it) The Big Wheel, even to the part where he couldn't pull a brake on the mechanical wheel (I lol'd).

Finally, I don't really like 'spins' of any kind on Spider-Man. Spider-Man's original material is good enough. Don't alter Electro's classic costume (yes, they later changed the origin of Electro, this is due to the canceled 'James Cameron movie' I mentioned above, but I don't really mind this one much because they kept the original costume). Don't change the way Green Goblin looks. You might as well change the way Spider-Man looks (oops, too late for that).

Alas, there are quite a few things I don't like about TAS myself as well, most of which include the abovementioned censoring problems, but until something that could top the 'comic comes alive' look in TAS, I'm gonna stick with the '90s, for now. I don't have high hopes for Disney's Ultimate, considering I don't really prefer the comic over ASM.
 
Lastly, regarding Josh Keaton. I like how Christopher Daniel Barnes made Spider-Man seem like a potential senior hero in the superhero career, especially in his voicing of Spider-Man Noir in Shattered Dimensions. Josh Keaton's Ultimate Spidey sounded like he's still a grasshopper GreenHorn in the career, which is fine for USM, but CDB's version is suitable for the Spider-Man that is today, when he's grown up and married in his middle age (or 23-25, whatever).

Even in the series, he didn't sound exactly like so young you couldn't take Spider-Man seriously. I thought the whole point of Marvel superheroes being amazed that Spider-Man is a kid is probably because 1) he don't act like one in serious moments, 2) he doesn't have the physique of a teenager, and 3) he sounds older than he looks. But the last one is really a theory, because you can't listen to comics (unless you count those audio-comics back in the day).
 
One more personal note from myself that's not copy-pasted: I don't understand why people could appreciate the classic 1967 Spider-Man animated series, overlooking its much more corny sound effects and campy but vintage graphics, but still be bothered by the cheesy laser sound effects in the '90s series, unable to appreciate it as an aspect of the decade and unable to appreciate the overall '90s look in the animated series. "

" @InnerVenom123:Erm, you forgot about Gwen's glasses, genius. You know, the biggest, most significant thing that make Gwen not look like Gwen? That she looks like a bookworm, front of the class anti-social nerdbrain? Remember that what made the original Gwen so cool was that she was the first of the 'cool kids' to actually like Peter Parker. Not Flash, not Harry, Gwen. That's what made her so cool, because for the first time, a popular girl who looks like she's supposed to do cheerleading took a liking to Peter Parker. Weak? I think not.   And yes, Octopus being a wimp in the first place is my case, because people had problems with Electro's origin in TAS as well, so I thought I should bring up Octo's origin in Spec, too. Octavius was an egoistical maniac who got into an accident because of his pride, not because someone bullied him into it. Making him sympathetic in this case is really anti-climatic. And wow, instead of trying to defend my case, you actually just dropped it off with a comment your smug of a brain seemed to think of as so revolutionary a remark. I must've really creamed you there.   So, let's see, what else. Ah yes, Mary Jane, the girl too hot for Peter Parker. I don't have a problem with Mary Jane's appearance in Spec. Otherwise, I wouldn't have called her a jailbait. I would've called her what I labeled Kirsten Dunst in the Spider-Man movies - fugly. As in fucking ugly. No. My problem with MJ in Spec is that she looks too young, and the hot-factor is both awkward and unsuitable for a girl her appearance, hence the term, 'jailbait.' TAS didn't do a very good job for Mary Jane, either, but at least she seemed old enough to spend a night over with Peter wearing a rubber. Being 16, should 'sex' be a subject for the Spider-Man comics? God, no. But what makes Mary Jane Mary Jane was her hot-factor back in the '60s, how she seemed too good to be true for Peter Parker (and still is now, in the modern day). Spec failed to establish that kind of image we've all seen back then, and failed to give us the kind of feeling we felt when we first laid our eyes on the super-spicy MJ in those early days of Peter Parker.  Being able to so successfully establish the same kind of mystery factor the Green Goblin had, I'm surprised Spec failed on this department. Then again, the identity revealed in Spec isn't that breathtaking anyway.  Okay, last but not the least, the funny eyes, Gawd, the horrible funny eyes. This one, I'd like to pair it with another flaw of the show, which is the overall animation. I don't know why the team chose to make the whole darn show look so... just plain weird. It's not the superb graphics we see in the MTV series or Ultimate Alliance. It's not the clean and sleek classic 1-D animation we see in TAS. It's definitely not live action. So why make Spec look so, cartoonish? I mean, the least they could do is incorporate some of the art styles as seen in the comics (preferably the classic style of the comics, not the over-exaggerated style of the modern age). And the funny eyes really bothered me a lot. I can't take those visages seriously.  I mean it's WEIRD AS FUCK! Those f-king eyes! Gawd I can't stand it! LoL It's like staring into a black hole, or staring into the eyeholes of somebody who just had his eye sockets burned out by the Ghost Rider.  Ah yes, before I forgot. It seems like you ignored my point about the voices for some reason. In fact, many people who I've went against while criticizing Spec seemed to ignore my points about CDB and Spec's choice of voices. Do I see a pattern here? "

" @darth_spidey195:
1. Yes, the dialogues were bad, but that has nothing to do with the VA's voice. But, I have to give Keaton some credits as well. After contemplating, and after someone reminded me that Spectacular was based on Peter's early high school days, I guess his young voice justify Peter's age accurately, and there wasn't much fault in that portrayal. Nevertheless, CDB still did a fine job in voicing both his quips and his dramatic moments. Scripting issues aside, Barnes knew how to manipulate his voice to different situations effectively, and his voice is especially pleasant to listen to in the scenes with Spidey (probably because Spider-Man is naturally more sprightly than Emo Pete). Whether it's soft depressive tones with sympathy for his Aunt May or deep, sore-throat harsh tones when he donned the black suit and turned violently insane (BEST. SCENES. EVER, in the whole show), CDB scored it well very effectively.
 
Not to be one-sided, I have also wrote (above) that Keaton's voice suits very well for the Ultimate Spider-Man incarnation, especially as a newbie hero both ASM/USM Spidey was in the early days. It just gets kinda weird when I see a fully grown adult Spider-Man in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 with his voice. *shrugs* I guess it does differ with each comic reader's views on Spider-Man's character, because I always saw him as a more serious hero with humor thrown into it. Like a child acting like a child-sounding adult... if that makes any sense. I mean, he's Spider-Man, so when he says things like, "I won't let you kill that man!" while saying things like, "Oh, gee, Chuckles, ya think ya could be any louder than Alicia Keys?" I feel that CDB's voice was able to sound like a grown man who could still have some childish humor to him.
 
Oh, and before I forgot: 
@ngroove:
Yes, she was ugly. :P But once again, that's to each reader's opinion. Like I wrote: Denise. Richards. Just compare their faces. ('70s incarnation of MJ). Nevertheless, I respect Raimi's filmmaking taste. He wanted to make MJ a 'girl next door' rather than 'dumb party girl that's more than meets the eye,' and I understand that.
 
Anyway, where was I.

2. It's not horrible. It's vintage. Like Afro Hair and Go-Go Boots. Spectacular's Doc Ock is based on Spider-Man 2's Alfred Molina's modernized Doc Ock (in terms of appearance anyway), not the classic vintage Doc Ock. But no, I'm not a nostalgic fool. I understand the need to modernize things. TAS did this properly with Chameleon and I have no complains, especially when they added the espionage aspect. It's Octo's personality that I am irked about. Different is good when done passionately. (On an unrelated note) Different is bad when it's done for the sake of being different (note the reboot Spider-Man costume). In Spectacular's case, however, I understand where they were going with Octavius' personality, so at least they tried. I felt sympathy at some point, too. But, like I wrote, it's anti-climatic and wasn't what made Octavius Octaviusly awesome. Not to mention somewhat contrived. A mad scientist who was an egomaniac from the start vs. a sympathetic doctor who became mad by accident? I think I've made my case.
 
Hm. Octaviusly.
 
3. Well, I don't know. Venom wasn't really redesigned to the point where it would be so obvious to notice the red-and-blue shades, considering they are existed only on the outlines of his body. His symbiotic suit was still full black. I only really noticed that in a screenshot my media center acquired, on a still-frame. But, at the least, they kept his scary-face. With Spectacular's 'simplistic' animation, it's hard to achieve the same gritty appearance. Tell me if this resembles the monstrous, demonic creature you knew in the '90s.
 
No, I actually don't hate the organic web-shooters that much. I only used it as an example. I prefer the organic ones, actually. Spider-Man without natural spider webs just sound weird to me, even though I know the reason why Stan 'The Man' Lee didn't put it in (his anal)... *awkward silence* Yeah... had to say anal. Anal.
 
4. Yes, Spider-Man was more brains than brawn in TAS, and that somewhat bugged me (pardon the pun) as well. But, like you towards the web-shooters issue, I'm impartial towards this as well, because of the reasons I've given. Spidey is more brains than brawn. Just kinda hoped that the censorship department didn't take over so much like a baaaaaad diarrhea. Ah well, that's the era I grew up in. Sue me.
 
5. I still haven't gotten to that Electro arc in my rewatch... and I personally don't anticipate to from people's descriptions of Electro - if not for The Red Skull's appearance. Still, didn't he make Electro outta the Super Soldier Serum or something? I have no clue, but if it is, it's not that so bad a move that makes it the utterly most horrendous move in the whole history of Spidey. That mantle belongs to Joe Q. At least Electro's story has some very lowly amount of redeeming values.
 
6. Yeah, I forgot how the exposure to sex in the American media is much more than the amount of exposure we get in Asian media... (no, that's not the reason why we have small dicks... which we don't) Not that it's a bad thing, of course. I mean, who doesn't love sex. Yipee. (Not being sarcastic.)
 
7. Well, I've explained what my view of Spidey is like in regards to CDB's voice in Point 1, so maybe you could care to explain yours as well. :D Because all I got is that Keaton makes a good young Spidey. I don't know.
 
8. I didn't say they were absent, btw. I mentioned that "I'm sure Spectacular also have this."
 
And again, like many Keaton's fans, you haven't explained why his voice is so great, where I've even went on to explain why I find Keaton's voice was... well, decently portrayed. :P
 
9. Whoa, didja just take a lash on the comics? Far out. :P
 
I'll admit, Gwen kinda acted like a Marcy Kane, April (forgot her last name, reporter in the Daily Globe), and Cissy Ironwood... Waitaminute. What am I saying!? She isn't anything like those bitches! Admit it. There was a special scent around her personality when you first read about Gwen Stacy. It's #31, which is around the time Steve Ditko was around, so I wasn't surprised. Ditko probably came up with the character for all we know, and there's a lot of originality in Gwen that's not contrived (c'mon, it's the late 1960s). She was the popular kid who was not a bitch. A popular kid that's actually human? Far out.
 
But yes, her Mary-Sue establishment was an obstructing factor... and it would soon be rendered as not that unique as well later. Writing a perfect character is easy. But back in around #31 or so, in Peter's high school (or college?) days when he was kicked around by bullies? She was a whole entire attraction booth on her own.
 
I'd also agree that the best thing about her was her demise, but not in the way you put it. The best thing about her was not because she was Peter's biggest failure, but because her death was the daring ravage of the pure. If "The Night Gwen Stacy" died were to occur in the gritty '90s, she would've been raped. 
 
Nevertheless, I'm not putting down Spectacular's Gwen through these statements, but rather, trying to point out that the comic Gwen wasn't that bad, just as how I was trying to point out the '90s TAS wasn't that horrendous. But I digress. I noticed the whole Liz and Gwen relationship that occurred in Spec myself, too, and I loved it when I first watched it, too. Like I wrote, I have no problems with the script. The design has nothing to do with the script - nor do the characters. The characters do build up the script, but you could have anyone else playing out a hard-to-get act Spec Gwen tried to pull in the cartoon just as well. Get Mary Jane to do it. Make her the geek and nerd. Now that will be a change we never expected. Of course, there's the whole "different can be good and bad" argument all over again... 10. I think there was an article in ComicVine ("Is The Hulk the strongest of'em all?") where someone commented, "I love how people would compare how one thing is better than the other. Those are the people I label as 'fanboys'." Now, I am blatantly not the best representative to quote that, but I think it is fair to say that you can't really put a score to outrank either TAS or Spectacular. Each were created in different times, as were the '67 Spider-Man animated series. "