I do read Spider-Man stuff and think that Anwar's generally accurate as far as that's concerned.
No, he's not. The character as he's described it is a gross mischaracterization, a problem he's been called out on repeatedly by others, whether talking about Spider-Man, Batman, or any other character..
I actually agree that the MCU doesn't have that many enemies, so I'm not entirely sure where Anwar is getting that opinion.
From nowhere. He's exhibiting hyper-defensive Marvel fan behavior not because of real, widespread (as he imagined) attacks, but he has convinced himself that all things Marvel are flawless, and even a casual opposing view is seen as some fantasized campaign of hate.
With characters that have changed drastically over the years, I'd be pretty careful about judging whether someone "knows" the character or not. Case in point, the Spider-Man I know and love is not the one that's been in use since 2007.
When one is making sweeping judgements about the entire history of a character--as he does in this thread, it is clear that agenda--not facts--drive his statements, which are divorced from any real knowledge about the characters. I've even named writers directly responsible for growth in Batman
and other characters dating back more than a hall century, but there's no true reply, as it would require the guy to actually
know about the writers and their work--the comics--to have a valid, evidence-based view of the matter.
That did not happen. It does not matter; he seems to prefer flame wars more than analysis, so where is this going?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Garfield Spider-Man movies. I've seen a lot of arguments over which of the original two Spider-Man series were the best, and the Garfield ones have some very spirited support
Not enough to keep that franchise alive, or a hold on public demand. Additionally, Garfield's near ready-for-the-asylum version of Parker was not even a shadow of the comic's best interpretations of the character.
Also, by all accounts, both DC and Marvel have had their share of hits and flops over the years. The interesting question is why Marvel has had a string of hits, and DC is only experiencing marginal success now?
"Marginal?" That is a word reserved for films that barely earn above their production/marketing budget. The DC films are far above that.
Avengers got 91% on Rotten Tomatoes (pro critics) and 91% from viewers who shared their opinions. It's not the most scientific analysis, but it does argue that the movie is far more than a 1 dollar bin junk video.
No, it means that there is a part of the population that easily swallows whatever kiddie-type thing is slapped together and served. For example, the infamous "Boy Band" period in music produced highly successful acts/songs, but they were quickly derided and forgotten as they hold no creative or cultural value. Certain films suffer the same fate--sooner or later.
