Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic

> Mephisto ran in the Surfer's own title, which would be appropriate for a
> sequel to this film, ie. a spin off movie, in which the FF would have
> nothing more than a cameo.

Straczynski has already written the script for a Silver Surfer movie. He
mentioned it in his last email blog thingy.

"The news seems to be everywhere now, and Fox hasn't said anything about NOT
commenting on it so...yes, I'm writing the Silver Surfer movie. (Have
written, actually, being the more correct form...the script has already been
turned in.) "
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:32 GMT, Agent Smith
<agent-smith.TakeThisOut@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

>iarwain <iarwain_8.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:1182880665.619494.227890@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of
>>> introducing another such important character would overshadow the
>>> Surfer.
>>
>> ********************
>>
>> Galactus is supposed to overshadow the Surfer, nature of the Beast.
>> But that doesn't prevent the Surfer from being one of the coolest
>> comic book characters ever, does it? So why worry about it?
>>
>>> However, the one thing that I will not accept is the absence of the
>>> Ultimate Nullifier, as the Maguffin that chases Galactus away.
>>
>> I agree with this. The way the Surfer beat Galactus was as
>> disappointing as the failure of Galactus to appear. Here you have one
>> of the best comic book stories ever written, with a perfect ending,
>> all ready for you. Yet they cast that aside in favor of something
>> that didn't really even make sense.
>
>I'm sorry, but the Surfer doesn't get to beat Galactus. That wrecks the
>entire power structure of the mythos, and means that the Surfer is never
>imprisoned on Earth.

Be that as it may -- and I don't mean to sound condescending, honestly
-- these are "Movie Universe" versions of the characters... and in the
Movie Universe, Spider-Man has organic webshooters, Wolverine is tall,
Batman wears disappearing eye makeup, and Lex Luthor is a frustrated
realtor. Given that the FF probably won't have the legs, in franchise
terms, of a James Bond or a Dirty Harry, the filmmakers seem to be
taking a done-in-one approach: Batman's villains die at the end of the
movie, and in this case, Galactus is removed as a threat rather than
have him come back again and again and again.

>> As for the Punisher not making an appearance, that didn't bother me at
>> all.
>> More glaring is the absence of the Watcher, but I even accepted that
>> he would not be appearing due to the condensed nature of films. I
>> figured they would probably just have the Surfer retrieve the Ultimate
>> Nullifier from Galactus' ship for Reed, and that would end it.
>
>Now that I think of it, this could have been the perfect opportunity to
>introduce The Watcher. Instead of being a giant, he can keep his true
>form secret for a few movies, like Galactus, and adopt the guise of an
>average, nondescript bald guy.
>
>When things are at their darkest, and it looks like Reed Richards might
>lose the fight, a soft voice from the shadows, beneath a crumbling brick
>wall, down a darkened alley, says "Pssst. C'mere. I have something that
>might help you."
>
>Soon Johnny is dodging the Bands of Un-Life, as he flies through the
>dimension of the Ultimate Nullifier, and the ending follows the
>traditional path, with Galactus punishing the Surfer by imprisoning him
>on Earth. It may appear to be Deus ex Machina, but in fact, The Watcher
>is an important member of the FF pantheon, and the sooner they can
>introduce him, the sooner they can get the mythos back on track.

Wouldn't movie audiences regard this as a cheat -- and a cheap one, at
that? Remember, there are more of them (general ticket buyers) than
there are of us (comics readers), and to introduce the Ultimate
Nullifier begs for its use in subsequent films -- not because that's
what was done in the comics, but because Roger Ebert and Gene Shallit
and whoever else writes those columns will be asking, "Hey, doesn't
Reed have that gizmo that beat Galactus? Are you telling me he's not
going to use it against Doctor Doom? Or the Mole Man? Or etc. etc.?"

>The Surfer is only allowed to defeat Galactus in a universe where
>methodically wrecks perfect stories. And why the hell not have Galactus
>appear as he's supposed to? Why not just adapt the comic, as written,
>and be rid of the obnoxious cloud?

I'd like to say it's to avoid giving the movie a Mighty Morphin Power
Rangers vibe, but I just don't have an answer to this... except to say
that having the FF face a giant Galactus in New York is probably going
to draw a comparison to "Ghostbusters" from some quarters. Yes,
somebody will think it's clever to compare the Devourer of Worlds to
the StaPuft Marshmallow Man.

>Sure the story would race forward at breakneck speed, but that's what
>audiences want. Open by introducing the Watcher, make him surround the
>planet with asteroids, and have Galactus unleash the Punisher on the FF.
>Who needs the friggin' army, because they should be busy in New Mexico,
>chasing after the Hulk.
>
>I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid ingredient.
>What a pack of losers.

I think there must still be some "comics: fun for all ages!" mindset
lurking in the background, even with the darker tone of some films
(and the R rating on the Blade trilogy). This encounter should have
been more "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds" but either TPTB
didn't want to feel like they'd copied those ideas (then why choose
this particular story?!?), or they were thinking, "Oh, it's a COMIC
BOOK MOVIE!" by which some asshat *STILL* thinks the best idea would
have been for Reed to whip up some "Bat Anti-Galactus Spray".

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

> I had hoped and anticipated that they would simply show the giant Galactus shrugging off attacks by FF and SS, and then leave it as a cliffhanger.

****************

I would have been happy with this, but just think about how angry a
lot of people would be if there were no real ending, just a
cliffhanger. Think about how angry a lot of people were that there
was no real ending to Fellowship of the Ring.

I agree it makes no sense for the movie Surfer to have the power to
destroy Galactus, or he could have used it at any time. Actually, in
the movie there is no suggestion that Galactus turned Norrin into the
Surfer - he just said his service keeps his planet safe. Someone who
had never read comics could reach the conclusion the Surfer already
had his powers when Galactus the cloud found him.

Surely these moviemaker types must have realized they would be
inflaming a huge number of comic book readers with these changes to
Doom, Galactus, and the Surfer (although aside from his beating
Galactus I had no problem with the way the Surfer was presented). I'm
sure they thought "oh, a few fanboys will be upset, but that doesn't
amount to anything". Actually, I think it does amount to something
when it comes to word of mouth on the film. I still maintain the best
comic based films have been those that have respected the source
material. What are they going to do with the Watchmen to change it
all around?
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Eminence <grey.eminence.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
> Wouldn't movie audiences regard this as a cheat -- and a cheap one, at
> that? Remember, there are more of them (general ticket buyers) than
> there are of us (comics readers), and to introduce the Ultimate
> Nullifier begs for its use in subsequent films -- not because that's
> what was done in the comics, but because Roger Ebert and Gene Shallit
> and whoever else writes those columns will be asking, "Hey, doesn't
> Reed have that gizmo that beat Galactus? Are you telling me he's not
> going to use it against Doctor Doom? Or the Mole Man? Or etc. etc.?"

Well, not really. The Ultimate Nullifier isn't much of a weapon
against Doctor Doom, because Doom wouldn't be likely to put himself in a
position where Reed would use it against him. It destroys everything,
after all. You can use it against Galactus, because then you're
negotiating from a believable position of desperation -- "you're gonna
destroy our planet anyway, so it's not like we've got anything to lose."
(Which is how Reed used it at the time.) But it's really no good against
someone who wants to, say, destroy the world and die in the process,
because the Nullifier will just save that guy some time. And it's no good
against someone who wants to conquer the world -- unless he believes that
you're crazy enough to use it, of course, but considering the people
involved, that's not very likely. (Assuming, naturally, that Reed couldn't
use the Nullifier selectively and simply blip Doom himself out of
existence or something, but to date, Reed hasn't had that kind of
control.)
Explaining all this wouldn't be particularly difficult in movie
terms; one comparison to a world-destroying doomsday weapon would do it.
Everyone knows the bomb, after all. Or Galactus could simply do what he
did in the comics: promise to get the hell out of Dodge if Reed hands the
Nullifier over.
(Not that I've seen either one of the FF movies, and I'm in no
real hurry to do so. There's little chance that they'll do it for me. That
said, it's worth adding that I have no problem with things changing in
movie adaptations, as long as the changes work.)

- Mikki
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On 28 Jun 2007 13:42:17 GMT, watchman.DeleteThis@iki.poxonyourspam.fi wrote:

>In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Eminence <grey.eminence.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>> Wouldn't movie audiences regard this as a cheat -- and a cheap one, at
>> that? Remember, there are more of them (general ticket buyers) than
>> there are of us (comics readers), and to introduce the Ultimate
>> Nullifier begs for its use in subsequent films -- not because that's
>> what was done in the comics, but because Roger Ebert and Gene Shallit
>> and whoever else writes those columns will be asking, "Hey, doesn't
>> Reed have that gizmo that beat Galactus? Are you telling me he's not
>> going to use it against Doctor Doom? Or the Mole Man? Or etc. etc.?"
>
> Well, not really. The Ultimate Nullifier isn't much of a weapon
>against Doctor Doom, because Doom wouldn't be likely to put himself in a
>position where Reed would use it against him. It destroys everything,
>after all. You can use it against Galactus, because then you're
>negotiating from a believable position of desperation -- "you're gonna
>destroy our planet anyway, so it's not like we've got anything to lose."
>(Which is how Reed used it at the time.) But it's really no good against
>someone who wants to, say, destroy the world and die in the process,
>because the Nullifier will just save that guy some time. And it's no good
>against someone who wants to conquer the world -- unless he believes that
>you're crazy enough to use it, of course, but considering the people
>involved, that's not very likely. (Assuming, naturally, that Reed couldn't
>use the Nullifier selectively and simply blip Doom himself out of
>existence or something, but to date, Reed hasn't had that kind of
>control.)
> Explaining all this wouldn't be particularly difficult in movie
>terms; one comparison to a world-destroying doomsday weapon would do it.
>Everyone knows the bomb, after all. Or Galactus could simply do what he
>did in the comics: promise to get the hell out of Dodge if Reed hands the
>Nullifier over.

I have this story in the Essentials, but haven't stopped long enought
to read it, so my argument may be too mired in ignorance to stand.
Guess I have something else to do tonight <g>

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

arromdee.RemoveThis@green.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote in
news:f60g49$523$1@blue.rahul.net:

> What the movie should have done was simply have the Nullifier be a
> piece of equipment from Galactus's ship, and have the Surfer
> betray Galactus by stealing it and giving it to Reed. That way
> you still have the Surfer saving the world by opposing Galactus,
> and it's a more believable way than having the Surfer having
> enough power to physically destroy Galactus himself.

There is nothing _in the movie_ (stress deliberate) to say that the
Surfer had not the power to destroy Galactus. All of the people
arguing that that is impossible are arguing from comics power levels.
One can argue that logically, if some entity makes another entity its
herald, the former should have enough common sense not to make the
latter its equal. But such is not spelled out in the movies, and
there's nothing to stop the movie Galactus from having done so.

Rob Kerr
--
"It's impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making
some other Englishman despise him."
-- G.B.S., "Pygmalion"
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On 28 Jun 2007 13:42:17 GMT, watchman DeleteThis @iki.poxonyourspam.fi wrote:

> Explaining all this wouldn't be particularly difficult in movie
>terms; one comparison to a world-destroying doomsday weapon would do it.
>Everyone knows the bomb, after all. Or Galactus could simply do what he
>did in the comics: promise to get the hell out of Dodge if Reed hands the
>Nullifier over.

Frankly it was a pretty cheesy ending in the original comic.

But there's really no way out when you have to trump ultimates.

The problem with this FF4 was we never got to the ultimates, which is
half the fun.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

Eminence <grey.eminence.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in
news:kuf7839njakmt2pgi5elkfsmf6pbkc0gul@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:32 GMT, Agent Smith
> <agent-smith.DeleteThis@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>>iarwain <iarwain_8.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1182880665.619494.227890@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of
>>>> introducing another such important character would overshadow the
>>>> Surfer.
>>>
>>> ********************
>>>
>>> Galactus is supposed to overshadow the Surfer, nature of the Beast.
>>> But that doesn't prevent the Surfer from being one of the coolest
>>> comic book characters ever, does it? So why worry about it?
>>>
>>>> However, the one thing that I will not accept is the absence of the
>>>> Ultimate Nullifier, as the Maguffin that chases Galactus away.
>>>
>>> I agree with this. The way the Surfer beat Galactus was as
>>> disappointing as the failure of Galactus to appear. Here you have
>>> one of the best comic book stories ever written, with a perfect
>>> ending, all ready for you. Yet they cast that aside in favor of
>>> something that didn't really even make sense.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but the Surfer doesn't get to beat Galactus. That wrecks
>>the entire power structure of the mythos, and means that the Surfer is
>>never imprisoned on Earth.
>
> Be that as it may -- and I don't mean to sound condescending, honestly
> -- these are "Movie Universe" versions of the characters... and in the
> Movie Universe, Spider-Man has organic webshooters, Wolverine is tall,
> Batman wears disappearing eye makeup, and Lex Luthor is a frustrated
> realtor. Given that the FF probably won't have the legs, in franchise
> terms, of a James Bond or a Dirty Harry, the filmmakers seem to be
> taking a done-in-one approach: Batman's villains die at the end of the
> movie, and in this case, Galactus is removed as a threat rather than
> have him come back again and again and again.

Yeah, that organic webshooter decision was also a glaring mistake, and your
other points are similarly easy to debate away. I expect all the Marvel
franchises to have legs equal to Batman and Superman, and now that they're
here, they'll never leave. Notice that Hollywood's DC franchises are also
expanding at breakneck speed, with Supergirl, Jor-El and Green Arrow being
regular characters on Smallville and a talk of a JLA movie.

All we really need are Green Lantern, The Atom and Hawkman, and the ark
will be fully populated. 'Course, I gotta thing for Tina from the Metal
Men, and not the Metropolis robot Tina, but the new look, mod chick. She
can polish my jewelry any time, if you know what I mean.

>>The Surfer is only allowed to defeat Galactus in a universe where
>>methodically wrecks perfect stories. And why the hell not have
>>Galactus appear as he's supposed to? Why not just adapt the comic, as
>>written, and be rid of the obnoxious cloud?
>
> I'd like to say it's to avoid giving the movie a Mighty Morphin Power
> Rangers vibe, but I just don't have an answer to this... except to say
> that having the FF face a giant Galactus in New York is probably going
> to draw a comparison to "Ghostbusters" from some quarters. Yes,
> somebody will think it's clever to compare the Devourer of Worlds to
> the StaPuft Marshmallow Man.

I'm sure that issues of scale would deflect any expected comparisons to the
StaPuff Toilet Paper Man, and there's just something low rent about the
Power Rangers villains that should prevent that comparison. The Ranger
villain costumes were soooo low budget that they clearly weren't intended
to be taken seriously, a tone that should be easy enough to override, maybe
with some flashy CGI surface detailing, assisted by Galactus' pompous and
haughty attitude.

The pink costume, however, must go.

>>Sure the story would race forward at breakneck speed, but that's what
>>audiences want. Open by introducing the Watcher, make him surround
>>the planet with asteroids, and have Galactus unleash the Punisher on
>>the FF. Who needs the friggin' army, because they should be busy in
>>New Mexico, chasing after the Hulk.
>>
>>I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid ingredient.
>>What a pack of losers.
>
> I think there must still be some "comics: fun for all ages!" mindset
> lurking in the background, even with the darker tone of some films
> (and the R rating on the Blade trilogy). This encounter should have
> been more "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds" but either TPTB
> didn't want to feel like they'd copied those ideas (then why choose
> this particular story?!?), or they were thinking, "Oh, it's a COMIC
> BOOK MOVIE!" by which some asshat *STILL* thinks the best idea would
> have been for Reed to whip up some "Bat Anti-Galactus Spray".

I see it more as a garden-variety, professional hubris, of which Hollywood
has a seemingly infinite supply. For all their wild, roller coaster,
action writing, few people, inside Hollywood or out, are capable of the
megalomaniacal insight required to see Stan worthy of the Pulitzer.

"I can make it better," the narcissistic jackhammers tell themselves, and
then spend a (couple of) hundred million making it worse. They're like
runaway trains, Frankenstein monsters storming out of control, stomping and
thrashing, destroying the litle girl, the laboratory and the village
outside. They get a bug in their bonnet, and there's no stopping them
until their energy is spent, giving rise to the phrase "one man wrecking
machine."

It's just human nature. They all do that.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

TheWatcherUatu <groups RemoveThis @videlicet.org> wrote in news:1182970325.753082.93830
@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 27, 1:34 pm, JLB <barn... RemoveThis @shentel.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2:14 pm, TheWatcherUatu <gro... RemoveThis @videlicet.org> wrote:
>> > Wait--what? When did Galactus have a herald named Punisher? The
>> > closest thing to that that I can think of is Terrax the Tamer.
>>
>> > jgb- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>> It wasn't a Herald, it was a machine sort of thing kept in his big
>> planet/ship thing as I recall.
>
> Ah. I did not know that. Thanks.

You gotta get the Essential series amigo, because if you haven't read
Lee/Kirby, you haven't lived. They're only $5 on ebay.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

"Ian Salsbury" <Ian RemoveThis @salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:5efv8mF36nso9U1@mid.individual.net:

>
>> Mephisto ran in the Surfer's own title, which would be appropriate
>> for a sequel to this film, ie. a spin off movie, in which the FF
>> would have nothing more than a cameo.
>
> Straczynski has already written the script for a Silver Surfer movie.
> He mentioned it in his last email blog thingy.
>
> "The news seems to be everywhere now, and Fox hasn't said anything
> about NOT commenting on it so...yes, I'm writing the Silver Surfer
> movie. (Have written, actually, being the more correct form...the
> script has already been turned in.) "

There are plenty of scripts written for movies that never get made. I'm
not sure exactly where is the point of know return, but the writing
stage happens well before it.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

Derek Janssen <ejanss RemoveThis @nospam.comcast.net> wrote in
news:PIidnR_FN-6RPR_bnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Agent Smith wrote:

>> The one that surprised me was Man-Thing, which wasn't half bad,
>> although the tone was completely different from the comic.
>
> So...they finally showed that on Sci-Fi Channel?

I rented it.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

RogerM <roger.mckay.DeleteThis@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4690D148.333A5240@ns.sympatico.ca:

> Agent Smith wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that organic webshooter decision was also a glaring mistake,
>
> You bet. If they are organic (Natural) they belong on his butt!
> Everything in the movies is a cheat.

I don't know what that means, but Flash Thompson was also completely
wrong. Not that it doesn't also happen routinely in the comics, but am
I the only one who sees that his Spider sense never works in a fight,
but only when it's necessary to advance the plot. It it really happened
like it's supposed to, opponents would never lay a glove on him, and
he'd win every fight walking away. He could battle Superman to a
standstill, with no wussy power boost from Luthor.

>> and your
>> other points are similarly easy to debate away. I expect all the
>> Marvel franchises to have legs equal to Batman and Superman, and now
>> that they're here, they'll never leave. Notice that Hollywood's DC
>> franchises are also expanding at breakneck speed, with Supergirl,
>> Jor-El and Green Arrow being regular characters on Smallville and a
>> talk of a JLA movie.
>>
>> All we really need are Green Lantern, The Atom and Hawkman, and the
>> ark will be fully populated. 'Course, I gotta thing for Tina from
>> the Metal Men, and not the Metropolis robot Tina, but the new look,
>> mod chick. She can polish my jewelry any time, if you know what I
>> mean.
>
> Metal Men! Wow, I don't see MM references very often. Loved them as a
> teen. Assuming it's the same group I'm thinking of.

Do you like science?

>> >>The Surfer is only allowed to defeat Galactus in a universe where
>> >>methodically wrecks perfect stories. And why the hell not have
>> >>Galactus appear as he's supposed to? Why not just adapt the comic,
>> >>as written, and be rid of the obnoxious cloud?
>> >
>> > I'd like to say it's to avoid giving the movie a Mighty Morphin
>> > Power Rangers vibe, but I just don't have an answer to this...
>> > except to say that having the FF face a giant Galactus in New York
>> > is probably going to draw a comparison to "Ghostbusters" from some
>> > quarters. Yes, somebody will think it's clever to compare the
>> > Devourer of Worlds to the StaPuft Marshmallow Man.
>>
>> I'm sure that issues of scale would deflect any expected comparisons
>> to the StaPuff Toilet Paper Man, and there's just something low rent
>> about the Power Rangers villains that should prevent that comparison.
>> The Ranger villain costumes were soooo low budget that they clearly
>> weren't intended to be taken seriously, a tone that should be easy
>> enough to override, maybe with some flashy CGI surface detailing,
>> assisted by Galactus' pompous and haughty attitude.
>>
>> The pink costume, however, must go.
>>
>> >>Sure the story would race forward at breakneck speed, but that's
>> >>what audiences want. Open by introducing the Watcher, make him
>> >>surround the planet with asteroids, and have Galactus unleash the
>> >>Punisher on the FF. Who needs the friggin' army, because they
>> >>should be busy in New Mexico, chasing after the Hulk.
>> >>
>> >>I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid
>> >>ingredient. What a pack of losers.
>> >
>> > I think there must still be some "comics: fun for all ages!"
>> > mindset lurking in the background, even with the darker tone of
>> > some films (and the R rating on the Blade trilogy). This encounter
>> > should have been more "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds"
>> > but either TPTB didn't want to feel like they'd copied those ideas
>> > (then why choose this particular story?!?), or they were thinking,
>> > "Oh, it's a COMIC BOOK MOVIE!" by which some asshat *STILL* thinks
>> > the best idea would have been for Reed to whip up some "Bat
>> > Anti-Galactus Spray".
>>
>> I see it more as a garden-variety, professional hubris, of which
>> Hollywood has a seemingly infinite supply. For all their wild,
>> roller coaster, action writing, few people, inside Hollywood or out,
>> are capable of the megalomaniacal insight required to see Stan worthy
>> of the Pulitzer.
>>
>> "I can make it better," the narcissistic jackhammers tell themselves,
>> and then spend a (couple of) hundred million making it worse.
>> They're like runaway trains, Frankenstein monsters storming out of
>> control, stomping and thrashing, destroying the litle girl, the
>> laboratory and the village outside. They get a bug in their bonnet,
>> and there's no stopping them until their energy is spent, giving rise
>> to the phrase "one man wrecking machine."
>>
>> It's just human nature. They all do that.
>
> They all cheat. Like Jackson did with LoTR.

Sure, but I was referring to the reasons why. Jackson had to shoehorn a
fifteen hundred pages of Nobel Prize worthy text into nine hours, and
it's a miracle that he pulled it off. Just yesterday I was pondering
how much film stock was wasted recording Liv Tyler veering her horse at
steep angles around obstacles, for no useful reason at all, except
putting eye candy onto the screen.

The one thing that annoys me most about Hollywood is that THEY'RE ALL
FAGS!!! And by "FAGS!!!" I also mean that in the sense that het-men use
it to deprecate each other. GRAAAAAAhHHH!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:00:18 GMT, Agent Smith
<agent-smith.TakeThisOut@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

>RogerM <roger.mckay.TakeThisOut@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:4690D148.333A5240@ns.sympatico.ca:
>
>> Agent Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, that organic webshooter decision was also a glaring mistake,
>>
>> You bet. If they are organic (Natural) they belong on his butt!
>> Everything in the movies is a cheat.
>
>I don't know what that means, but Flash Thompson was also completely
>wrong. Not that it doesn't also happen routinely in the comics, but am
>I the only one who sees that his Spider sense never works in a fight,
>but only when it's necessary to advance the plot. It it really happened
>like it's supposed to, opponents would never lay a glove on him,



Someone is trying to punch me and my spider-sense is tingling. I must
be in danger! Of course I'm in danger! Someone's trying to punch me!
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic