@vegandiet:
A. You called me a d!ck in your first post directed at me. That is an insult.
A.You called me a liar first, and I just stated the obvious. I said you were being a d!ck. There's a distinct and obvious difference. And, again, you were. To coin your attitude; I know these distinctions are hard for you to comprehend.
B. And never manages to do any significant damage. In the showing drawn by John Romita Jr. you just posted Spider-man is able to do a minimal amount of damage to Hulk, pry himself from Hulk's grip at one point, is able to take a few blows from Hulk and keep fighting, and his webbing at one point takes the Hulk a decent bit of time to tear off. The second showing is from Ultimate Marvel, so it has no bearing here. The third showing is tow panels from different stories. One of which is just a back up story where Spider-man explains his powers. The other one is from a storyline in which the Hulk is amped by a Gamma virus, and is one of Spider-man's better showings against the Hulk, as he is able to knock both Hulk and Samson down with a tackle and throw the Hulk off his feet. And in the specific panel you posted there, where Hulk body slams Spider-man, Spidey recovers pretty quickly. By the next page, he's on his feet and back in the fight. Compare that to his fight in the Conway era, where after being tagged once, he's down for the count. Thanks for giving more credence to my point. Do you want to cite more things out of context? Because it's been working fabulously at proving my points for me.
B. Nah. The over all template is exactly the same. Your drive-by commentary notwithstanding. Spider-Man "survives" the Hulk. Until he doesn't, then is saved by plot. The other details do add and detract to a "degree", but overall basic plot lines remain as they were. No one reinvented the wheel. His speed, agility and spider-sense let him survive. His strength levels are pretty much irrelevant against Hulk (though impressive all the same to varying degree), and we all know the ultimate outcome. Again, as already stated, writing gets more sophisticated over time. Art work details encounters more vividly. But Spider-Man remains with his high points and low points throughout his career.
C. You don't have to read the comics you're talking about? Really? Lunacy.
C. I will read the book from cover to back, when I feel that A. it looks like an interesting read and / or B. I truly think it will add to the context of what the panels outlining the fight itself are delineating. In the showings in question, I don't have hard copies or digital copies, nor am I interested in having them. So I was unable to connect the fights to a book cover and issue number as all I had access to were the panels themselves. All I'm interested in are the feats for now - as I'm treating all that is said herein quite loosely and very cursorily and nothing you've stated detracts or matters all that much. I really do not take this, or you, nearly seriously enough to study these eras from top to bottom. I don't even care whose "right or wrong" ... I'm just killing time at a slow day in the office.
Funny thing about that '66 feat you're touting. It's not in the 70s. I know this is hard for you, since you apparently hate to read so much you refuse to read the actual comics you're citing, but you're going to need to read what I actually write. The 70s era was Spider-man's low period power level wise. I'm not saying showings in that era need to be entirely ignored. I'm saying they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as I would say if someone posted a Wolverine showing from the Cornell era or from an issue written by Ennis.
D. I could agree that he had lower end showings, some less than flattering creative periods, but not that it was his low level "power" wise. I have been reading thanks. Just making a distinction between treatment of a character, and their power levels is all. As I've been making since the out set.
D. Look. I get it. You're embarrassed that I proved my point, but it's rather bad form for you to promise to acquiesce when shown proof, then refuse to do so. Concrete proof is in front of your face that Spider-man was written at a lower level in the 70s than in the 80s. The power creep theory for Wolverine may not work, but it is ridiculously clear to anyone who isn't plugging their ears and throwing a tantrum that, on average, the Spider-man from the 80s onwards is written as more powerful than the Spider-man from the 70s era.
E. Yes. So embarrassed. The anonymity of the internet has me oh so exposed. And my heart breaks at what all the adolescent teens will think of my online persona forever more. Lol. I actually haven't even considered the bottom half of your previous post yet, or the feats you highlighted. It would require I actually start to sift through far more 70's material on Spider-Man than I truly care to to be perfectly honest. If I cared to, and if I cared to take the time, I could cherry pick low end feats highlighting a very mediocre Peter Parker from the 80's, 90's and onward. That's fact. So your point remains very circular, is little more than a blanket comment taken on a whole. But I do agree Parker has some distinct low end showings from the 70's. But then again, also from the 80's as well ... also from the 90's, and the, well, hopefully you get the point.
on average, the Spider-man from the 80s onwards is written as more powerful than the Spider-man from the 70s era.
F. Finally, posting a few showings does not mean you've come anywhere near proving the "on average" to be close to the absolute truth. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, as you have most definitely proven you've got far more Spider-Man comics from that era in your possession than I do, and I have come to respect that you do appear to know your Spider-Man stuff fairly well.
Thanks for taking the time to give honest answers in a debate format, and not just tit for tat scathing remarks coupled with opinion and little else. That's something.
Log in to comment