Too Soon!?

[DACMAN]

It seems like everyone here loves movies about Spidey. But not everyone loves the idea of a reboot mostly because some feel it is too soon. I think they are dead wrong. Even more so if you look at the other reboots and how long they had in between films.


Star Trek-7 years
Batman-8 years
HULK-5 years
James Bond-4 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Die Another Day (2002) Casino Royale (2006)
Spider-Man-5 years


Spider-Man seems to fit just fine in there. In fact, as a Spidey fan I say the film can't come fast enough. Not to mention Raimi really painted himself into a corner story wise with killing off every villain and making a train wreck of Peter and MJ's relationship by the end of Spider-Man 3. But any way, do you think it is too soon?

[Deaths Head II]

Raimi didn't paint himself into a corner at all. Peter and MJ trying to repair their relationship would have made for an interesting story. And Raimi may have killed all the villains up until that point (save for Sandman), but there are still plenty of villains from the comics that would have been interesting to see on screen. The Lizard being the biggest one, but I could easily imagine an awesome film centered around someone like Mysterio.

As for your list, Star Trek and James Bond didn't start 10 years ago. A reboot for those franchises is a big deal because they went decades on the same continuity. Spider-Man went 3 films before a reboot. With Star Trek and James Bond it doesn't matter how long the last movie came out, it matters that they restarted a long lasting series. With Spider-Man that's not the case at all. That's why it feels like "A reboot already?"

Hulk is also a bad example because I don't think it worked for that film at all. Soooo many of the people I know still remembered the original film. Some thought the new one was a sequel while others just thought "I already saw a Hulk movie in theaters and it sucked." The memories of the first film were fresh in everyone's mind and I'm pretty sure that was a factor in it's lackluster box office.

[DACMAN]

Those are all very good points actually. So let's hope people didn't hate Spider-Man 3 enough not to come see this new Spidey movie.

[Doc Ock]

Yes, I think a reboot is way too soon, I can't stress the way enough! Raimi's films were very successful, so it would make sense to continue that series. Its not like it failed like Ang Lee's Hulk, which I thought was ok but cannot deny it failed in the Box Office(I think). 2012 will mark 10 years since the first film, a reboot should happen 5-10, 15,20, or even 30 years from now! (in my opinion) I think things would of been better with a Spidey 4 and maybe 5 and 6 then a reboot down the line.

[SpeterMan3]

I know a lot of people who liked Spider-Man 3. Even if some thought it was bad (comic-wise) they still liked it in itself. I think the fact that it is a reboot may turn some people off, because it is just too soon.

[Avengers-Report]

The difference is the reboot is planned now, which is going to be 2 years, not 5 years. I know the gap might be 5 years, but the actual time spent on the reboot is much different.

[SpeterMan3]

Especially since we were waiting for almost three years for 4 to start and expecting just about another year or so.

[Avengers-Report]

Exactly, and the plans for the reboot just sound awful. Combine that with the short time and the answer is yes, I am very worried.

[chaseter]

It seems like everyone here loves movies about Spidey. But not everyone loves the idea of a reboot mostly because some feel it is too soon. I think they are dead wrong. Even more so if you look at the other reboots and how long they had in between films.


Star Trek-7 years
Batman-8 years
HULK-5 years
James Bond-4 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Die Another Day (2002) Casino Royale (2006)
Spider-Man-5 years


Spider-Man seems to fit just fine in there. In fact, as a Spidey fan I say the film can't come fast enough. Not to mention Raimi really painted himself into a corner story wise with killing off every villain and making a train wreck of Peter and MJ's relationship by the end of Spider-Man 3. But any way, do you think it is too soon?


WTF? He killed 3 1/2 villains. I forgot Spider-Man only had 5 or so villains:dry: There were still a good 5 or so villains that he could have used from Spidey's rogues gallery. Do you even read some of the stuff you post?:huh:

[Ajendo]

Personally, I'm just not a big fan of Raimi's vision. I understand and appreciate that the films were successful but the film's vision and story handeling were an enormous dissapointment for me. I'm looking foward to the reboot and this new direction we're being steered in and hope we get a more enjoyable and exciting series of movies.

[El Payaso]

It sounds certainly too soon. But after the first three I'm more than prepared to watch something different. I just hope it's better than the originals (at least 1 and 3).

[sauronthegreat]

Maybe there are a lot of villains left, but Raimi used the biggest three and killed them off.
I am not saying that they weren't done right, but they were done and served their purpose in the franchise. But it's undeniable that Ock's character was changed. In way film Octopus was a hybrid of Ock, Lizard and Scorpion in my opinion. And after him it would be a risk to use the Lizard or the Scorpion only after one sequel, without changing their characters as well. In a way Ock's arc resembled the Lizard's and the fights he had with Spidey (on the side of the buildings) was action I would have expected more from the Scorpion than Ock, but it was masterfully done.
As only villain interesting and unique, who could hold a film in my opinion, would have been Mysterio.
Or if Raimi went in direction to use his idea he had for SM3 in part 4, and use the Vulture and instead Sandman use Electro. Vulture as a puppeteer controlling the more powerful and unstable villain. That would have been cool to see.

As for the reboot, I don't think it's too soon. The trilogy is done and it will always be there and respected by a lot of people. And it's time to restart the franchise, with a lot of new energy and creative ideas. Put a solid foundation for the future installments.

[spidey-dude]

too late imo - spidey 1 and 2 were good films but I could never stand tobey mguire as peter parker, peter parker was a bit of a nerd yeah but tobey played him as an absolute gimp! he wasnt portrayed as the everyman that peter has for the last 40 years but a total loser I couldnt connect on any level with the peter parker portrayed in raimis films and I cant wait for this reboot

[©KAW]

It wasn't soon enough, I would have rebooted after the first film. They're weak renditions of Spider-Man. No matter how much Sam Raimi expressed his love for Spider-Man, his movies seem as though he knew little to nothing about the character.

[DACMAN]

Don't you remeber he had Spider-Man painted on his bed room wall when he was a kid. :whatever:



I don't think he ever read the comics or anything. I know Maguire said he did.

[DACMAN]

WTF? He killed 3 1/2 villains. I forgot Spider-Man only had 5 or so villains:dry: There were still a good 5 or so villains that he could have used from Spidey's rogues gallery. Do you even read some of the stuff you post?:huh:

First off, there's no reason to be a jerk. Second, he killed 4/5. And finally, I could not be happier they threw Raimi's Spider-Man 4 out the window after it came out that we WOULD be getting the Vulturess. Raimi was way to quick to throw the original material out the window and way to quick to make up his own crap. Once he made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer I was so done with him. When anyone thinks they shouldn't have reboot it, you need to say to them is "Vulturess" and that should be the end of the discussion.

And as far as when it comes out, I think anyone who doesn't want a Spidey movie as soon as possible isn't a real Spidey fan. Someone actually said up top maybe it needs another 30 years. WHATEVER! You people actually want to be 30 years older before you can go see another Spidey film! That's not a true Spidey fan. Period.

[Dangerous]

The reboot is the best idea since Stan Lee had the idea for the character back in '62.

I just hope to hell it ain't based on Bendis' god awful USM comic.

[DACMAN]

They already said it is. We normally agree on everything, but I gotta disagree with you on this one. I thought Ultimate Spider-Man 1-133 and Ultimate Spider-Man Requiem were amazing through and through. In fact I think the best moment in any comic book I ever read took place in Ultimate Spider-Man Requiem when JJJ finally sees Spider-Man is a true hero. It was powerful stuff.

Well either that or when Peter unmased in Civil War.

[Dangerous]

Heh, yea you love USM and I hate it.
That's about the only thing we disagree on.

I know USM must have had some good elements, heh, but I'd prefer the new film to take the best elements from everything; - all the different comics instead of just one, TV shows, videogames etc, rather than limit itself to a single interpretation of Spidey. Somebody else's interpretation at that.

BTW- can you provide a link to an official confirmation from Sony or Marvel that SM2012 will be based on USM?
I thought it was only rumor at this stage?

Even if it is based on USM, I'm thinking (hoping) it can't be any worse than the Raimi films, and it would also theoretically mean Marvel is one step closer to getting the rights back and making 'The Amazing Spider-Man' movie.

...

[Eggyman]

The way I see it, it'll depend on how much people have enjoyed the previous films. Let me put it this way, normally when I break up with a girl I try to leave it 6 months before getting attatched again... but once I went out with this girl who was absolutely useless and a horrible girlfriend. When I broke up with her I wanted a new girlfriend straight away because I felt I hadn't had one. Or one that wasn't worth mentioning.

[Dangerous]

I've had a few of those heheh.

[Dragon]

Maybe there are a lot of villains left, but Raimi used the biggest three and killed them off.


You guys seems to forget that Marvel killed them off long before Raimi did.

[FaT_tONle]

This sets a bad precedent when it's done this soon. BB set the precedent but it was a full 8 years and people had waited patiently. Punisher and Hulk continued in the same vain but failed critically in some aspects and financially in almost every aspect. Spiderman will obviously be a lot more successful by name alone, but it could continue a bad precedent for CB films. Does this allow Fox to launch hap-assed DD and FF reboots within 3 years just to meet a deadline? That's what Sony is doing here, scrambling to meet the deadline and make the most money. Creativity and artistic drive will be compromised for that reason alone.

And as far as when it comes out, I think anyone who doesn't want a Spidey movie as soon as possible isn't a real Spidey fan. Someone actually said up top maybe it needs another 30 years. WHATEVER! You people actually want to be 30 years older before you can go see another Spidey film! That's not a true Spidey fan. Period.

:facepalm:... what a bone head statement... :dry:

[TheSlag]

This sets a bad precedent when it's done this soon. BB set the precedent but it was a full 8 years and people had waited patiently. Punisher and Hulk continued in the same vain but failed critically in some aspects and financially in almost every aspect. Spiderman will obviously be a lot more successful by name alone, but it could continue a bad precedent for CB films. Does this allow Fox to launch hap-assed DD and FF reboots within 3 years just to meet a deadline? That's what Sony is doing here, scrambling to meet the deadline and make the most money. Creativity and artistic drive will be compromised for that reason alone.




God I hope so.

F4 and DD both deserve sooo much better than what they got. Especially F4.

If anything, it has been too long for a reboot in BOTH those franchises.

And Rebooting SM in 2012 gives them more than enough time to do it right.

[Doc Ock]

WHATEVER! You people actually want to be 30 years older before you can go see another Spidey film! That's not a true Spidey fan. Period.

Now that isn't very nice! There is no such thing as a true fan of ANYTHING. What the heck would you define as a "true" Spidey fan?!

[FaT_tONle]

Now that isn't very nice! There is no such thing as a true fan of ANYTHING. What the heck would you define as a "true" Spidey fan?!

Someone who mostly agrees with DacMan ^^^.

God I hope so.

F4 and DD both deserve sooo much better than what they got. Especially F4.

If anything, it has been too long for a reboot in BOTH those franchises.

And Rebooting SM in 2012 gives them more than enough time to do it right.

Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

[Ajendo]

The way I see it, it'll depend on how much people have enjoyed the previous films. Let me put it this way, normally when I break up with a girl I try to leave it 6 months before getting attatched again... but once I went out with this girl who was absolutely useless and a horrible girlfriend. When I broke up with her I wanted a new girlfriend straight away because I felt I hadn't had one. Or one that wasn't worth mentioning.

Loool.

Anyway, I love USM and think it's been consistently good for most of its run thus far. However, I think USM maybe the foundation of the tone the films are looking for but the studio will try and utilise a combination of what makes spidey work from across all mediums.

[Ajendo]

Someone who mostly agrees with DacMan ^^^.



Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

A 5 year break isn't exactly being burnt out. Consider that all things are new.

[Bruce Malone]

To say casino royale is a reboot is kinda stretching things. I guess you can argue that every bond sequel is a reboot since aside from quantum they never actually reference the past movie.

[Deaths Head II]

They have some loose continuity here and there, specifically the characters. Like James' Russian friend from Goldeneye appearing in The World is Not Enough.

[chaseter]

First off, there's no reason to be a jerk. Second, he killed 4/5. And finally, I could not be happier they threw Raimi's Spider-Man 4 out the window after it came out that we WOULD be getting the Vulturess. Raimi was way to quick to throw the original material out the window and way to quick to make up his own crap. Once he made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer I was so done with him. When anyone thinks they shouldn't have reboot it, you need to say to them is "Vulturess" and that should be the end of the discussion.

And as far as when it comes out, I think anyone who doesn't want a Spidey movie as soon as possible isn't a real Spidey fan. Someone actually said up top maybe it needs another 30 years. WHATEVER! You people actually want to be 30 years older before you can go see another Spidey film! That's not a true Spidey fan. Period.

1. Green Goblin
2. Doc Ock
3. Venom
3.5 Goblin Junior

How is that killing 4/5:huh:

Raimi didn't create the Vulturess...Sony did. Sony also helped to ruin SM3. So, have fun thinking Sony isn't going to **** things up again!

[SpeterMan3]

Four villains out of five?

[El Payaso]

1. Green Goblin
2. Doc Ock
3. Venom
3.5 Goblin Junior

How is that killing 4/5:huh:

That's killing 5/5

[The Joker]

I think he means out of the five villains used, Raimi killed four of them?

[SpeterMan3]

I think he means out of the five villains used, Raimi killed four of them?
Yeah, I think so...

[TheSlag]

Not really. Why can't Sony just honestly ask Disney for a realistic extension and allow both studios to show some sensibility? Spidey ain't showing up in Avengers, or Iron Man 3, or any Marvel movies in the near future. Even if Disney got it back they would sit on his films for the time being. Waiting a couple more years won't affect the BO in anyway. It will only help it for that matter. People were burned out from Jane's Punisher and Lee's Hulk, and it hurt the reboots' box office. I am convinced of that. If they were doing a sequel I can understand the rush, but the public needs more time between reboots to avoid burn out.

SM3 2007. Reboot 2012. 5 years. More than enough time.

And as far as shooting the reboot, they already have their script(s) to shoot from, and have been thinking about this possibility for a while it sounds like, so again, plenty of time.

[chaseter]

That's killing 5/5
Read my first response to him. He complained that Raimi painted himself into a corner because he killed off too many villains. I responded by saying there are still a good amount of villains left. The 3/4 is me saying 3 or 4 or 5/6 is 5 or 6.

The quality of future movies have nothing to do with how many villains he killed off when there are still quite a few great villains left. How stupid:dry: And by the way, if you want to argue semantics, the proper term for killing 4 out of 5 villains is by typing 4:5.:o

Goblin junior wasn't a villain anyways.

[TheSlag]

/\... LOL.. wow, someone is getting a little defensive and "touchy" here. :woot:

Raimi did kill off 4 of the 5 villains in the film. It's just too bad IMO that he did not do us a favor by making it 5/5.. Oooops.. My bad 5:5 (LOL) and killin the damn flyin Sandy One. :woot:

[Bruce Malone]

They have some loose continuity here and there, specifically the characters. Like James' Russian friend from Goldeneye appearing in The World is Not Enough.

So did Casino with M. To me CR was more a prequel than a reboot. With it showcasing bond before he attained 00 status. Either way every time a new bond takes over, the franchise as a whole has its tone or style changed.

As for the thread yes 5 years is too short. Raimis/Tobey's spiderman is still fresh in ppl's minds. The only 5 year gap btw hulk franhcises hurt the TIH imo wang's version still being in ppls mind and thinking TIH was a sequel.

[chaseter]

He did kill 4 of the 5 villains he used. That wasn't the point. The point Dac was making is that somehow made Raimi a horrible film maker in regards to future Spider-Man films.

So sorry for me getting defensive when people use asinine points.

Jon Favreu is 1:1 in the villain killing department. Iron Man 2 must suck:dry:

[Spider-ManHero12]

This was defenitely WAYYY too soon, IMO.

[TheSlag]

No, his point was that Sam had painted himself into a corner with the killing of 4/5 villans, anad to a degree he has for future films in this franchise.

And if John F. continues that trend of killing villains, he will do the same to that franchise (limit potential for future films).

But you seemed to be more upset with his 4/5 vs. your 4:5.

I think Sam had painted himself into a corner with his overuse of villains in SM3, which is shared blame with Sony no doubt (still does not forgive his killing off of Venom in SM3, or poor lack of use overall, or Making Sandy Uncle Ben's killer (another personal attachment to Peter)).

This, left him with *yawn* Vulture and worse *throw up* Vulturess (possibly).

DEFINITELY Must "NOT" See Villains in my book.

[Dragon]

Obviously, since Sony intends to make a Venom film, Venom isn't dead. And as the comics have shown, dead rarely means dead. (Although Venom should remain dead).

[chaseter]

No, his point was that Sam had painted himself into a corner with the killing of 4/5 villans, anad to a degree he has for future films in this franchise.

And if John F. continues that trend of killing villains, he will do the same to that franchise (limit potential for future films).

But you seemed to be more upset with his 4/5 vs. your 4:5.

I think Sam had painted himself into a corner with his overuse of villains in SM3, which is shared blame with Sony no doubt (still does not forgive his killing off of Venom in SM3, or poor lack of use overall, or Making Sandy Uncle Ben's killer (another personal attachment to Peter)).

This, left him with *yawn* Vulture and worse *throw up* Vulturess (possibly).

DEFINITELY Must "NOT" See Villains in my book.

So, painting yourself into a corner by killing off 4 villains does what for future films? Please explain to me what Dac was trying to get across. Please explain what painting yourself into a corner means in regards to future films. Please tell me.

Why would anyone want to see the same villain over and over again when there is a list of great rogues waiting to get screen time? Why would you want to see Doc Ock get a trilogy treatment and cause Mysterio to never be in a movie?


Yeah, Vulture was the only villain left in Spidey's Rogues Gallery.:dry:

[Mrpaul]

As long as it's done well, I think most of us care about that

[TheSlag]

So, painting yourself into a corner by killing off 4 villains does what for future films? Please explain to me what Dac was trying to get across. Please explain what painting yourself into a corner means in regards to future films. Please tell me.

Why would anyone want to see the same villain over and over again when there is a list of great rogues waiting to get screen time? Why would you want to see Doc Ock get a trilogy treatment and cause Mysterio to never be in a movie?


Yeah, Vulture was the only villain left in Spidey's Rogues Gallery.:dry:

Have you ever thought that some villains are good enough to keep around for future films, or good enough/powerful enough to keep for more than one? Like Joker in TDK, or how GG1 should of been in Spider-Man. Or Venom should of been for SM3/SM4. It makes the story more epic, and in the case of Gobin, adds to his rightful place as Spidey's arch enemy. Heck, Raimi cheated us out of the Goblin Legacy.

And no one is saying just cause you do not kill off a villain does NOT mean you have to see him in every film, or over and over again as you try to imply.

But killing off villains DOES limit your storylines, and can lead to Limited choices like it looked SM4 was going towards.

And yes, Spidey has more villains, although limited Grade A villains (probably only Lizard remains in that category IMO). But just because you have the greatest villains in Comics, does not mean you should disprepect and lmiit their potential by ALWAYS killing them off.

That should be the exception, where it stands out more. You then have more options down the line.

[chaseter]

Have you ever thought that some villains are good enough to keep around for future films, or good enough/powerful enough to keep for more than one? Like Joker in TDK, or how GG1 should of been in Spider-Man. Or Venom should of been for SM3/SM4. It makes the story more epic, and in the case of Gobin, adds to his rightful place as Spidey's arch enemy. Heck, Raimi cheated us out of the Goblin Legacy.

And no one is saying just cause you do not kill off a villain does NOT mean you have to see him in every film, or over and over again as you try to imply.

But killing off villains DOES limit your storylines, and can lead to Limited choices like it looked SM4 was going towards.

And yes, Spidey has more villains, although limited Grade A villains (probably only Lizard remains in that category IMO). But just because you have the greatest villains in Comics, does not mean you should disprepect and lmiit their potential by ALWAYS killing them off.

That should be the exception, where it stands out more. You then have more options down the line.

This was originally going to be 6 films. I can name you 10+ villains that I would like to see at some point in a Spider-Man film before a reboot occurs and they start all over. So, when you call for villains to come back that we have already seen and cause great villains to never be on the big screen, then of course that is going to piss people off. Also, people whined that SM3 had too many villains, which it did. You can't have it both ways. You can't have all the big name villains come back and also give screen time to other Rogues. Batman also has a ton of great villains. Would it piss people off to have Joker come back every movie to take the spot light from other villains? You bet. It is redundant to a point of annoyance. The only reason to keep Spidey villains alive would be the formation of the Sinister Six...which I don't think can work in a live action movie. Not to mention how ridiculously expensive it would be for cgi and pay checks. I doubt it ever happens. As someone mentioned, dying means nothing in the comic world. You could easily bring back Doc Ock. Would I have wanted that to happen? No. His story was so great in SM2 I wouldn't want to see them bastardize it like they did with the death of Uncle Ben.

Your grade of villains is your opinion. Not everybody shares that opinion. There are people that like Mysterio more than Lizard or Electro more than Green Goblin.

[TheSlag]

This was originally going to be 6 films. I can name you 10+ villains that I would like to see at some point in a Spider-Man film before a reboot occurs and they start all over. So, when you call for villains to come back that we have already seen and cause great villains to never be on the big screen, then of course that is going to piss people off. Also, people whined that SM3 had too many villains, which it did. You can't have it both ways. You can't have all the big name villains come back and also give screen time to other Rogues. Batman also has a ton of great villains. Would it piss people off to have Joker come back every movie to take the spot light from other villains? You bet. It is redundant to a point of annoyance. The only reason to keep Spidey villains alive would be the formation of the Sinister Six...which I don't think can work in a live action movie. Not to mention how ridiculously expensive it would be for cgi and pay checks. I doubt it ever happens. As someone mentioned, dying means nothing in the comic world. You could easily bring back Doc Ock. Would I have wanted that to happen? No. His story was so great in SM2 I wouldn't want to see them bastardize it like they did with the death of Uncle Ben.

Your grade of villains is your opinion. Not everybody shares that opinion. There are people that like Mysterio more than Lizard or Electro more than Green Goblin.

There you go again implying that I am saying the same villain should be in EVERY film. READ! that is not what I am saying.

And yes, every fan has their A-List, but IF you took a poll, you would see the Mass Majority would agree on the A-Villains. And sorry, but most of those below the A-list villains cannot carry a movie on their own.

But, answer me this, what makes GG (in Raimi's verse), Spider-Man's arch enemy, say as opposed to Doc Ock, or Hell, Even Sandman (guess Sandy gets that honor here, since HE killed Uncle Ben and is a super powered villain (in case your gonna try to throw on the wall that the burglar should be))?

[sauronthegreat]

Even though someone likes Electro or Mysterio more than the Green Goblin, he cannot deny the fact that the Goblin is Spidey's arch nemesis, what Joker is to Batman.
Raimi just messed with the gradation of the franchise, that's why SM4 had such troubles with the villains. It is anti climatic to have the Vulture as the main villain, and use all the new and breathtaking special effects on him, after you had the Goblin in the first film and killed him off. You cannot finish a franchise with a villain like Vulture or Rhino, because they cannot posses a greater threat to Spidey than the Goblin. Who would be interested to see the Shocker or Scorpion after seeing Octopus and Venom. To use those villains you would have to have a great story for a film, and it appears the writers and Raimi found themselves in a dead end on that front.
I also think that only Mysterio would have been a villain who could bring something new to the old franchise. I would have also liked to see Electro or Lizard, but I guess we'll have more chance seeing them in the new franchise, and before Venom or the Goblin.

[Jack Phantom]

Personally, this is too soon for a complete do-over origin story back to high school approach like the studio has outlined. The other actors' faces and the storylines are still too fresh in the mindstream mind, in my opinion. Perhaps it would have worked better if it weren't such a drastic shift in timeframe and such.

Beyond the time factor, what really concerns me is that this film's budget is so low compared to the other films...this sort of movie and story naturally uses an expensive amount of effects - how do you pay actors worth their salt (even a cast of unknowns will want a decent paycheck and contract signing on to this franchise), pay for effects shots and marketing on the 80 million dollar budget the studio says is allocated?

The complete reboot, time frame and budget are enough to make most scratch their heads and wonder.

[Chris Wallace]

I sitll think they're jumping the gun here.

[VenomVsSpidey]

No, his point was that Sam had painted himself into a corner with the killing of 4/5 villans, anad to a degree he has for future films in this franchise.

And if John F. continues that trend of killing villains, he will do the same to that franchise (limit potential for future films).


:doh: So will Nolan. Bats is 2:5. So will Damn Near every other Comic Movie out there. The Lesson? You're a bad guy? Well then you are most likely dead.

[weezerspider]

:doh: So will Nolan. Bats is 2:5. So will Damn Near every other Comic Movie out there. The Lesson? You're a bad guy? Well then you are most likely dead.

Nolan has killed 2 outta 4. Thats exactly 50%. Thats actually fairly high. Plus Ras could return. His character is all about resurrections. And if you say Joker isn't returning because there won't be a recast, thats not Nolan's fault. He didn't see that coming.

[Deaths Head II]

Villains in super hero films have died and always will die. They make one film revolving around the villain and then they move on to other ones.

[weezerspider]

For everyone saying its too soon, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? When the movie is released in 2012, it will be five years since the last Spiderman movie and TEN, yes TEN years since the first origin movie. Thats plenty of time in-between origins and in-between series.

[Doc Ock]

For everyone saying its too soon, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? When the movie is released in 2012, it will be five years since the last Spiderman movie and TEN, yes TEN years since the first origin movie. Thats plenty of time in-between origins and in-between series.

Different people, different opinions. ;)

[weezerspider]

Different people, different opinions. ;)

lol True true. I'm not trying to come off as a jerk, I just find it hard to believe theres THAT many people who thinks its too soon.

[Doc Ock]

lol True true. I'm not trying to come off as a jerk, I just find it hard to believe theres THAT many people who thinks its too soon.

Well alot of people were expecting three more Spidey films. Plus many people love the first three movies and say Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man and still watch the films often. A reboot so soon is going to cause confusion in my opinion.

[weezerspider]

Well alot of people were expecting three more Spidey films. Plus many people love the first three movies and say Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man and still watch the films often. A reboot so soon is going to cause confusion in my opinion.

I loved the first two films, enjoyed the third for the most part and didn't really have any beefs with Tobey or Raimi. To me, it just seemed Raimi had lost his creative juices for Spiderman. As far as causing confusion, I think if they market it right it will be fine. Honestly, I don't care if the average Joe is confused as long as the movie is good. The addition of Marc Webb has me excited.

[Deaths Head II]

For everyone saying its too soon, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO WAIT?

Until the rights revert to Marvel and we can have a Spidey film set in the same universe as the other Marvel films. :awesome:

[FaT_tONle]

For everyone saying its too soon, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? When the movie is released in 2012, it will be five years since the last Spiderman movie and TEN, yes TEN years since the first origin movie. Thats plenty of time in-between origins and in-between series.

I don't even want them to wait to a point where Disney can find a loophole and snag it back. But can we give it the full decade? Or close to that? How about 2015-2016? That's the right time frame for it. A person who enjoyed Spiderman at say, age 13, will only be 23 by this reboot. There are times when films you loved as a kid still feel as if you watched them yesterday a good decade after. But I blame Disney for this just as much as Sony. If Disney is trying to recouperate that 5 billion investment overnight they are lost, and Sony obviously has no choice but to move ahead. I'd give Sony an extension knowing that they have been successful with this franchise, but they probably don't even need it considering they were already prepared for it.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Nolan has killed 2 outta 4. Thats exactly 50%. Thats actually fairly high. Plus Ras could return. His character is all about resurrections. And if you say Joker isn't returning because there won't be a recast, thats not Nolan's fault. He didn't see that coming.

:doh: counted scarecrow twice. but still moral of the story = villians will not always live

[©KAW]

No we can't wait a decade. The franchise was going no where (running around in circles). Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten were all over paid for mediocrity. SM4 would have cost Sony a 100M on these three leeches alone. And Raimi was also getting a cut of the box office he didn't deserve, Tobey was getting part of the DVD sales he didn't deserve--nether of them cared about Spider-Man only about the money he made for them. The franchise was starving for new blood, the repetitiveness of Raimi was grueling, he lacked a clear vision for the series. Waiting would have made things worst.

[VenomVsSpidey]

No we can't wait a decade. The franchise was going no where (running around in circles). Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten were all over paid for mediocrity. SM4 would have cost Sony a 100M on these three leeches alone. And Raimi was also getting a cut of the box office he didn't deserve, Tobey was getting part of the DVD sales he didn't deserve--nether of them cared about Spider-Man only about the money he made for them. The franchise was starving for new blood, the repetitiveness of Raimi was grueling, he lacked a clear vision for the series. Waiting would have made things worst.

All I have to say Is :

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2535/trlhtl.jpg

[©KAW]

So everyone who thinks Raimi's movies were mediocre is trolling, eh, stop acting like Sam's minion and get back on topic?

[VenomVsSpidey]

So everyone who thinks Raimi's movies were mediocre is trolling, eh, stop acting like Sam's minion and get back on topic?

and yet, you state it as fact that the films were s***, they sucked, they didn't care about spider-man, it was all for money.:dry: so, yes, I'll stop being sam's minion the second you quit trolling.

Kthnxbye.

[LegendaryCaleb]

i dont think it was trolling...kinda just seemed like his opinion...and it was against raimi so you said he was trolling...

[TheSlag]

Nolan has killed 2 outta 4. Thats exactly 50%. Thats actually fairly high. Plus Ras could return. His character is all about resurrections. And if you say Joker isn't returning because there won't be a recast, thats not Nolan's fault. He didn't see that coming.

Ahhh, common sense and a logical non biased opinion about things. YOU HAVE NO HOPE OF SURVIVING HERE! LOL

Well said. :up:

[TheSlag]

No we can't wait a decade. The franchise was going no where (running around in circles). Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten were all over paid for mediocrity. SM4 would have cost Sony a 100M on these three leeches alone. And Raimi was also getting a cut of the box office he didn't deserve, Tobey was getting part of the DVD sales he didn't deserve--nether of them cared about Spider-Man only about the money he made for them. The franchise was starving for new blood, the repetitiveness of Raimi was grueling, he lacked a clear vision for the series. Waiting would have made things worst.

So true. If anything the franchise was digressing.

[MikeFrost]

and yet, you state it as fact that the films were s***, they sucked, they didn't care about spider-man, it was all for money.:dry: so, yes, I'll stop being sam's minion the second you quit trolling.

Kthnxbye.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IVI5W8Eg3Gs/SI8lYL-M6jI/AAAAAAAAABE/hJEyACF7rNQ/s320/YouMad.jpg

[Dangerous]

No we can't wait a decade. The franchise was going no where (running around in circles). Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten were all over paid for mediocrity. SM4 would have cost Sony a 100M on these three leeches alone. And Raimi was also getting a cut of the box office he didn't deserve, Tobey was getting part of the DVD sales he didn't deserve--nether of them cared about Spider-Man only about the money he made for them. The franchise was starving for new blood, the repetitiveness of Raimi was grueling, he lacked a clear vision for the series. Waiting would have made things worst.

Preach!

[SpeterMan3]

Y6Jvlp3vT1E

[Rodrigo90]

Poor Michael...I hope that Murray gets life.

[DACMAN]

Personally, this is too soon for a complete do-over origin story back to high school approach like the studio has outlined. The other actors' faces and the storylines are still too fresh in the mindstream mind, in my opinion. Perhaps it would have worked better if it weren't such a drastic shift in timeframe and such.

Beyond the time factor, what really concerns me is that this film's budget is so low compared to the other films...this sort of movie and story naturally uses an expensive amount of effects - how do you pay actors worth their salt (even a cast of unknowns will want a decent paycheck and contract signing on to this franchise), pay for effects shots and marketing on the 80 million dollar budget the studio says is allocated?

The complete reboot, time frame and budget are enough to make most scratch their heads and wonder.



Not after seeing Spider-Man 3. Everyone knew these movies were headed to Batman and Robin territory. Not to say Spider-Man 3 was as bad as B and R, it was just a sign that it was headed in that direction.

And as far as budget, I kind of agree. I'd like to see a bigger budget for better special effects, but Raimi and co were blowing the budget up by asking for the numbers they were. Look at it this way, Twilight was under 40 million to make. Spidey will be twice that. But then again the SFX in twilight sucked.

[DACMAN]

:doh: So will Nolan. Bats is 2:5. So will Damn Near every other Comic Movie out there. The Lesson? You're a bad guy? Well then you are most likely dead.

2/5 is a HECK of a lot better than 2/2 by the second film. Not to mention Spidey's biggest enemy, the Green Goblin was one of the two. Nolan saved the Joker because he knew there are so many storied to tell with that guy. Raimi on the other hand was too simple a story teller to think like that. Make a villain, kill a villain, make a villain kill a villain...

[DACMAN]

and yet, you state it as fact that the films were s***, they sucked, they didn't care about spider-man, it was all for money.:dry: so, yes, I'll stop being sam's minion the second you quit trolling.

Kthnxbye.

He's right, you are trolling. He was giving his point of few, and you are calling him a troll for it. You need to just leave if your going to act like this. He made some great points and instead of talking about them you just called him a troll.

[DACMAN]

No we can't wait a decade. The franchise was going no where (running around in circles). Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten were all over paid for mediocrity. SM4 would have cost Sony a 100M on these three leeches alone. And Raimi was also getting a cut of the box office he didn't deserve, Tobey was getting part of the DVD sales he didn't deserve--nether of them cared about Spider-Man only about the money he made for them. The franchise was starving for new blood, the repetitiveness of Raimi was grueling, he lacked a clear vision for the series. Waiting would have made things worst.

Best. Post. Ever.

[Deaths Head II]

2/5 is a HECK of a lot better than 2/2 by the second film. Not to mention Spidey's biggest enemy, the Green Goblin was one of the two. Nolan saved the Joker because he knew there are so many storied to tell with that guy. Raimi on the other hand was too simple a story teller to think like that. Make a villain, kill a villain, make a villain kill a villain...

The Green Goblin legacy was always a bigger threat to Peter then Norman as an individual ever was. And Raimi focused on that for all three films.

[DACMAN]

:doh: counted scarecrow twice. but still moral of the story = villians will not always live

And forgot Zsasz all together. Who never died. Whatever. The point is everytime someone says something other than "RAIMI IS THE BEST" you call them a troll, which ironically makes you a troll. Everyone keeps making great points and all you do is post stupid pictures and troll. Knock it off.

[DACMAN]

The Green Goblin legacy was always a bigger threat to Peter then Norman as an individual ever was. And Raimi focused on that for all three films.

That's actually a good point. Take note venomvsspidey. This is how you discuss and not troll.

But I got to disagree. Norman was always a bigger threat. Norman has been around for decades while Harry was only the Goblin for like a decade. But I know what you're saying. The legacy of the Goblin was present in all three films.

[VenomVsSpidey]

And forgot Zsasz all together. Who never died. Whatever. The point is everytime someone says something other than "RAIMI IS THE BEST" you call them a troll, which ironically makes you a troll. Everyone keeps making great points and all you do is post stupid pictures and troll. Knock it off.

Zsasz was just a cameo. He had a whole what..3 minutes of screentime? So I don't really count him as a villain to battyboy.

and I ain't trolling, and for you to call me a troll, when you do In fact, troll...:huh:

[chaseter]

Not after seeing Spider-Man 3. Everyone knew these movies were headed to Batman and Robin territory. Not to say Spider-Man 3 was as bad as B and R, it was just a sign that it was headed in that direction.

And as far as budget, I kind of agree. I'd like to see a bigger budget for better special effects, but Raimi and co were blowing the budget up by asking for the numbers they were. Look at it this way, Twilight was under 40 million to make. Spidey will be twice that. But then again the SFX in twilight sucked.

HAHA. You continue to fail to see that Sony, Arad, and Zirskin were the ones that meddled with SM3 and SM4 and you think the reboot is going to be the best thing ever.:hehe: Guess what! Sony, Arad, and Zirskin ARE STILL THERE.:dry:

Also, Dacman whining about other people trolling is the funniest thing ever. The irony of it all.

[Doc Ock]

I don't understand why we all must be so hostile to one another, but as I said the first three Spidey films are fresh in many minds and people continue to watch them to this day, especially kids. I told some of my family members who liked the Spidey films that it was being rebooted and they simply went "What the heck! Thats foolish!" Of course I thought the same thing, I did expect a reboot to eventually happen, but not so soon....I was expecting Spider-Man 4. Sony annoys me....

[©KAW]

HAHA. You continue to fail to see that Sony, Arad, and Zirskin were the ones that meddled with SM3 and SM4 and you think the reboot is going to be the best thing ever.:hehe: Guess what! Sony, Arad, and Zirskin ARE STILL THERE.:dry:

Also, Dacman whining about other people trolling is the funniest thing ever. The irony of it all.And you fail to see, or to comprehend, that Sam Raimi was this franchise biggest problem. Who decided to give us organics, or made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, who decided to make Mary Jane a droll, depressing, unkempt and jealous little twit, who decided to turn Peter Parker into Peter Pan who never grows up or evolve, who decided to turn Spider-Man into a mute with no personality--who's loved by the public and giving his own parade and a key to the freakin' city, Sam Raimi?

Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin are indeed the other 40% of the Spider-Man franchise infection, I'll give you that. But at least it has a chance of survival having cut the other 60% that is Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten.

Wouldn't it be nice if someday we can find cure for Spidey, by getting rid of the other 40% of his infection (Arad/Ziskin Disease), so we can see Spider-Man make a full recovery.

These message has been brought to you by DR. KAW.

[Chris Wallace]

Well alot of people were expecting three more Spidey films. Plus many people love the first three movies and say Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man and still watch the films often. A reboot so soon is going to cause confusion in my opinion.

One of my many problems.

[DACMAN]

People weren't that confused when they rebooted HULK, Batman, or James Bond. And Bond even has those continuity errors and people still don't care.

[DACMAN]

HAHA. You continue to fail to see that Sony, Arad, and Zirskin were the ones that meddled with SM3 and SM4 and you think the reboot is going to be the best thing ever.:hehe: Guess what! Sony, Arad, and Zirskin ARE STILL THERE.:dry:

Also, Dacman whining about other people trolling is the funniest thing ever. The irony of it all.

Right. Cause when I point out someone is trolling it's me "whining." Dude your such a jerk it isn't even funny. Seriously. You need to back off. Because you know what? You just said I troll. Does that mean you're "whining"? Now THAT'S ironic.

But to get back on topic, Sony the film studio is not a person so I don't know why you included Sony with Arad and Ziskin. Do you not understand that Sony is a company and not an actual entity?

[©KAW]

People weren't that confused when they rebooted HULK, Batman, or James Bond. And Bond even has those continuity errors and people still don't care.
Exactly, it's just more idiotic excuses from those who can't see anything beyond Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Well, they better get use to Spider-Man without Sam Raimi because he's not coming back, thank goodness. :hehe:

[Chris Wallace]

People weren't that confused when they rebooted HULK, Batman, or James Bond.

Sorry, not true.

[Doc Ock]

One of my many problems.

Very true, I'm just not open minded to see all the problems outright. :O

People weren't that confused when they rebooted HULK, Batman, or James Bond. And Bond even has those continuity errors and people still don't care.

I doubt that. Plus some people consider The Incredible to Hulk to be a sequel to Hulk. Bond is Bond......but I remember many people being upset of Pierce Brosnan leaving 007 and people complaining they didn't understand Casino Royale because they didn't realize it was a reboot....a reboot for Bond made sense though as Bond had already been ongoing for about 40 years, i'm surprised it wasn't rebooted sooner. Batman, that was different, after two not so stellar films (Forever and Batman & Robin) I think a reboot made sense.

[DACMAN]

Double Post

[DACMAN]

Very true, I'm just not open minded to see all the problems outright. :O



I doubt that. Plus some people consider The Incredible to Hulk to be a sequel to Hulk. Bond is Bond......but I remember many people being upset of Pierce Brosnan leaving 007 and people complaining they didn't understand Casino Royale because they didn't realize it was a reboot....a reboot for Bond made sense though as Bond had already been ongoing for about 40 years, i'm surprised it wasn't rebooted sooner. Batman, that was different, after two not so stellar films (Forever and Batman & Robin) I think a reboot made sense.

Bond is Bond isn't a good arguement. But the point still stands. People went to go see all those movies and they all did well. People, more than ever, understand what a reboot is. People aren't stupid. They'll figure out what's going on. And talking about Pierce Brosnan is pretty near sighted as far as the entire Bond series goes. They've thrown in how many different actors to play Bond at this point? Spider-Man really needed new blood. BAD. And I'd rather get a new Spider-Man movie sooner than later. I actually heard someone say they'd be ok with waiting another 30 years for a Spider-Man movie. That's crazy. Some of you people care WAY to much about how much the average movie goer is going to enjoy this movie, or whether or not they're going to be confused. WHO CARES?!!!!? As long as I enjoy the movie I couldn't care less. The sooner the better.

[Doc Ock]

Bond is Bond isn't a good arguement. But the point still stands. People went to go see all those movies and they all did well. People, more than ever, understand what a reboot is. People aren't stupid. They'll figure out what's going on. And talking about Pierce Brosnan is pretty near sighted as far as the entire Bond series goes. They've thrown in how many different actors to play Bond at this point? Spider-Man really needed new blood. BAD. And I'd rather get a new Spider-Man movie sooner than later. I actually heard someone say they'd be ok with waiting another 30 years for a Spider-Man movie. That's crazy. Some of you people care WAY to much about how much the average movie goer is going to enjoy this movie, or whether or not they're going to be confused. WHO CARES?!!!!? As long as I enjoy the movie I couldn't care less. The sooner the better.

I am the same way, but its not fair, I'm bitter over the reboot mainly because Sony screwed Raimi over. Will I give the reboot a try? Definitely! Will I be happy about. No. If the releases date of the reboot was the same date as Spider-Man 4 I bet Raimi would still be here and we would more on the way.

[TheSlag]

The Green Goblin legacy was always a bigger threat to Peter then Norman as an individual ever was. And Raimi focused on that for all three films.


What "Legacy"? If you mean the threat that the Goblin knew who Spider-Man was, heck in the Raimi verse, so does EVERY OTHER villain.

Doc Ock.. Check
Harry (surfer Doood) Check
Venom.. Check
Sandman.. Check

Not ONE villain did NOT know his secret identity.

The Goblin Legacy is a) knowing Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and b) making a loved one pay the ultimate price for it *SNAP*

I certainly HOPE they get that aspect right in the reboot, and limit those villains that KNOW who Spider-Man is, where it is more powerful when one finds out (Gobby).

[TheSlag]

He's right, you are trolling. He was giving his point of few, and you are calling him a troll for it. You need to just leave if your going to act like this. He made some great points and instead of talking about them you just called him a troll.

exSMACKly :up:

[Dragon]

What "Legacy"? If you mean the threat that the Goblin knew who Spider-Man was, heck in the Raimi verse, so does EVERY OTHER villain.

Doc Ock.. Check
Harry (surfer Doood) Check
Venom.. Check
Sandman.. Check

Not ONE villain did NOT know his secret identity.

With the exception of Sandman, all those guys learned his ID in the comics as well. Hell, at one point EVERYONE knew it.


The Goblin Legacy is a) knowing Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and b) making a loved one pay the ultimate price for it *SNAP*

I certainly HOPE they get that aspect right in the reboot, and limit those villains that KNOW who Spider-Man is, where it is more powerful when one finds out (Gobby).

The Goblin Legacy isn't much of a Legacy. It was never fully explored in the comics. Despite Gwen's death, Peter's life and approach to it didn't change at all. He continued to pursure relationships and be Spider-Man, which would have endangered them in the same way. And, since the Goblin's return, Peter has done nothing- NOTHING to make him pay for Gwen's murder. So what exactly is the importance of this legacy?

Since, again, a number of others have learned Peter's identity and no one else has been killed because of it, what difference does it make?

[DACMAN]

exSMACKly :up:

HAHAHAH! :D I said point of "few". That's funny.

[DACMAN]

Exactly, it's just more idiotic excuses from those who can't see anything beyond Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Well, they better get use to Spider-Man without Sam Raimi because he's not coming back, thank goodness. :hehe:

It's actually really annoying. Sometimes it feels like I'm on a Raimi fan site instead of a Spider-Man fan site. And for the most part I enjoyed the films, but I'm not a Raimi fan, I'm a Spider-Man fan and there are so many things he screwed up.

[DACMAN]

exSMACKly :up:

You make all kinds of great points. And then these guys just roll over them and call you a troll. I get the same thing. Instead of dealing with the issues we just get called names. These guys need to leave and go to some Raimi fan site already.

[TheSlag]

With the exception of Sandman, all those guys learned his ID in the comics as well. Hell, at one point EVERYONE knew it.

I assume you mean over many years and many stories which is not the same a movie timeline. I can only work off the years I read ASM, and I do not recall Doc Ock knowing who Spider-Man was, nor do I remember the Vulture, Kingpin, Scorpion, etc.




The Goblin Legacy isn't much of a Legacy. It was never fully explored in the comics. Despite Gwen's death, Peter's life and approach to it didn't change at all. He continued to pursure relationships and be Spider-Man, which would have endangered them in the same way. And, since the Goblin's return, Peter has done nothing- NOTHING to make him pay for Gwen's murder. So what exactly is the importance of this legacy?

Since, again, a number of others have learned Peter's identity and no one else has been killed because of it, what difference does it make?

Again, I can only judge from what I knew and read back during ASM. I do not know what "perverted" (it sounds storylines) have developed since, over the years.

And as far as Peter reacting to the death of Gwen Stacy, did you really expect them to write the story as "The Amazing Peter Parker"??? and have him quit being Spider-Man due to mourning? Really??? You think the sales of the comics would of been good? LOL :woot: Come on. Or you "really" think they were NOT going to write in another love interest? Really? Come on, you're more intelligent than that.

You seem to be blaming the lack of the Goblin Legacy impact on the writing on the character to cater to selling comics.

[TheSlag]

Since, again, a number of others have learned Peter's identity and no one else has been killed because of it, what difference does it make?

Oh, and one last point, it is important cause it takes Peter's story full circle, he lost his Uncle Ben when he refused to use his great power responsibly, while with Gwen, he lost the only girl he loved despite his great powers. If you do not think that is important, or could be very moving, that is your loss, not mine.

[TheSlag]

You make all kinds of great points. And then these guys just roll over them and call you a troll. I get the same thing. Instead of dealing with the issues we just get called names. These guys need to leave and go to some Raimi fan site already.

Yes, I get tired of seeing them throw out the "You're a troll if you have a critical view of all things Raimi", or posting troll pictures.

Like you said, all without debating the issue. Comes off as childish (one could say trollish) behaivor. :cwink:

[chaseter]

Right. Cause when I point out someone is trolling it's me "whining." Dude your such a jerk it isn't even funny. Seriously. You need to back off. Because you know what? You just said I troll. Does that mean you're "whining"? Now THAT'S ironic.

But to get back on topic, Sony the film studio is not a person so I don't know why you included Sony with Arad and Ziskin. Do you not understand that Sony is a company and not an actual entity?

I didn't say you troll in that post. But, you can say other people troll but when it is implied back to you then you get offended:dry::dry::dry:

Do you want me to look up and list every exec and producer at Sony film studios and post all of their names instead of just saying Sony?:huh: Sony is an entity:dry: HAHAHAHA. A corporation under law is an entity.:hehe:

[chaseter]

And you fail to see, or to comprehend, that Sam Raimi was this franchise biggest problem. Who decided to give us organics, or made Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, who decided to make Mary Jane a droll, depressing, unkempt and jealous little twit, who decided to turn Peter Parker into Peter Pan who never grows up or evolve, who decided to turn Spider-Man into a mute with no personality--who's loved by the public and giving his own parade and a key to the freakin' city, Sam Raimi?

Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin are indeed the other 40% of the Spider-Man franchise infection, I'll give you that. But at least it has a chance of survival having cut the other 60% that is Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten.

Wouldn't it be nice if someday we can find cure for Spidey, by getting rid of the other 40% of his infection (Arad/Ziskin Disease), so we can see Spider-Man make a full recovery.

These message has been brought to you by DR. KAW.

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2874/epicwinh.jpg

[Doc Ock]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.

Couldn't say it better myself. A year ago I might say Sony is ok, but now all I can say is ewww. :p I used to love Sony (and even FOX) but all that has disappeared faster than I ever thought it would.

[RustyCage]

Why would anyone want less Spidey films in the short amount of time we have in this life? :whatever: Waiting longer is both silly and a WASTE.

[chaseter]

So quantity > quality? You should look into the Twilight series.

I would rather have 2 great Spider-Man movies that I can watch over and over again that 4 mediocre or lame movies. I can watch SM2 every day for the rest of my life...it's that good. I would rather we get a movie every 3 years than every year or two because then you end up with movies like Transformers, Twilight, etc...They rush to get those movie out as quick as they can...and they are mediocre.

[Dragon]

I assume you mean over many years and many stories which is not the same a movie timeline. I can only work off the years I read ASM, and I do not recall Doc Ock knowing who Spider-Man was, nor do I remember the Vulture, Kingpin, Scorpion, etc.

I didn't say anything about The Vulture or Kingpin. But Ock (Just prior to his death in the Clone Saga), The Goblin and Venom all knew his ID in the comics. And of course it would be over many years and storylines. As for the films, we won't be getting hundreds of them. So these things happening is a condensing of the ENDLESS storyline of Spider-Man from the comics.

The point here is that you and others are condemning Raimi for revealing Peter's ID and killing villains as being blasphemy, when all of this is in the source material.

Again, I can only judge from what I knew and read back during ASM. I do not know what "perverted" (it sounds storylines) have developed since, over the years.

And as far as Peter reacting to the death of Gwen Stacy, did you really expect them to write the story as "The Amazing Peter Parker"??? and have him quit being Spider-Man due to mourning? Really??? You think the sales of the comics would of been good? LOL :woot: Come on. Or you "really" think they were NOT going to write in another love interest? Really? Come on, you're more intelligent than that.

First off, Peter has quit being Spider-Man (Too many times in fact) for lesser reasons. He's quit because he was simply tired of it. He's quit because MJ nagged him into it. But I'm not suggesting he should have quit. I'm saying this Legacy that you're going on about isn't really that. It didn't really affect Peter's life in any big way. He still did the same things he would've done had the Goblin never existed.

But further, as I'd said, Peter has since learning of the Goblin being alive, done nothing to gain justice for Gwen (Either via revenge or the law). So if this Legacy is of such import, where are the ramifications?

You seem to be blaming the lack of the Goblin Legacy impact on the writing on the character to cater to selling comics.

Well, I am blaming the writing (What else would you blame?) but I'm also pointing out that this legacy that you're trumpeting that we were "robbed" of isn't a big deal anyway. It's just another storyline, that can be taken or left behind.

Oh, and one last point, it is important cause it takes Peter's story full circle, he lost his Uncle Ben when he refused to use his great power responsibly, while with Gwen, he lost the only girl he loved despite his great powers. If you do not think that is important, or could be very moving, that is your loss, not mine.

He didn't come full circle because of it. Full Circle means you're back where you started. That wasn't the case with Peter at all.

If anything, he'd come full circle with the death of Captain Stacy. With Cap, he lost another father-figure, due to direct action on his part. He used an untested formula to break Ock's psionic connection to his tentacles, which resulted in Cap's death. Thus his inaction killed Ben, his action killed Cap.

Gwen's death is a whole other equation and was never dealt with in the writing at all.

It has nothing to do with "Snap". According to Conway and Thomas, producers of the story, Gwen would have died whether Peter netted her or not. So there was nothing he could have done or not done to save her. Thus it has nothing to do with his powers or lack thereof.

Further, the scenario itself was BS. As the movies have so brilliantly displayed, Spidey's webbing isn't like rope. It's a flexible material which stretches and bungees. It would have to, otherwise Spidey would regularly wrench his arms from their sockets while web-swinging. So there'd have been no whiplash when he netted Gwen. And even if there were, one that would have resulted in her neck breaking is almost impossible. What's always puzzled me is that no one thinks to blame the impact with the Goblin's flyer (It always annoys me when people refer to it as a glider, since its jet-propelled). It's a hard metal device with sharp edges, capable of supporting a thousand pound load at least, that was flying at top speed (Fast enough to reach Gwen before super-fast Spidey could). In reality, it's likely such a hit would've cut Gwen in two.

So Spidey's guilt in her death has nothing to do with what happened on the bridge. His guilt, is in that he was always too cowardly to simply reveal his secret to her. What problem would telling her the truth have caused him? She wouldn't have snitched on him, And it would've saved the stress of constantly lying to her about his disappearances. But Gwen had no idea that she was walking with a target on her back, thus couldn't make her own decision about whether or not to distance herself from Peter. But again, this was never explored.

And as I'd mentioned, Gwen's death did nothing to change Peter's life and wasn't really the point of it. Gerry Conway simply wanted to:

1. Spark sales (Which failed, sales dropped)
2. Get rid of Gwen and link Peter with MJ (Big deal, since Marvel was constantly trying to get rid of MJ afterwards).

It had nothing to do with a Legacy or coming full circle.

[spider-neil]

So quantity > quality? You should look into the Twilight series.

I would rather have 2 great Spider-Man movies that I can watch over and over again that 4 mediocre or lame movies. I can watch SM2 every day for the rest of my life...it's that good. I would rather we get a movie every 3 years than every year or two because then you end up with movies like Transformers, Twilight, etc...They rush to get those movie out as quick as they can...and they are mediocre.

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

[DACMAN]

Great point. Be ready to get called a troll.

[DACMAN]

Why would anyone want less Spidey films in the short amount of time we have in this life? :whatever: Waiting longer is both silly and a WASTE.

Ex-freaken-actly!

And in my opinion anyone that wants less Spider-Man films isn't really a fan of Spider-Man. One of them actually said we should have a break from the films for 30 years! 30 years!!! This site is infected by Raimi fans. But what I really love is at the end of the day they can kick and scream all they want. We still win, and Raimi is not coming back, Tobey isn't coming back and neither is :barf: Kirsten.

[david icke]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

LOTR was one big movie that was released in 3 parts as the post-production was worked on inbetween releases.
They had the story and screenplay already written out and planned, not to mention all the roles cast for all 3 sections before shooting even started.
It's an entirely different situation to folk rush releasing sequels.

Tbh, I though they should have taken 3yrs with Spider-man 2, it turned out fine, but suffered a little from not having much in the way of Spider-man action. There's only two really developed set-pieces in that one showcasing Spidey's powers.

with less of a budget and a less experienced director, I wonder how a rushed spider-man movie will turn out.

edit: I mean, everyone knows that they stared filming the spidey/Ock train fight before they even had a script fully written for 2, so I think we can safely say that we will not be getting anything as developed and extensive as that in this new movie.

edit: I am just hoping for getting something akin to the 1st X-Men movie, spot-on characterisation and good interactions, with some classy action scenes, getting the most they can out of the limited budget. I am also hoping that the budget will be more than this 80mil rumour.

But, as a rule these movies should not be rushed, I think 3yrs between films is the right amount of time for them generally.

As said, SM2 has only two extensive Spidey action scenes, and it also suffers from what a lot of sequels do, doing re-heat beats from the original, mainly in the middle section. What a sequel has to do is find it's own flavour, and be a different kind of movie from the 1st one, while still maintaining the same rules for the universe, and tone. Best example of this is TDK to BB.
3yrs is the right development time for this kind of thing.

[TheSlag]

I didn't say anything about The Vulture or Kingpin. But Ock (Just prior to his death in the Clone Saga), The Goblin and Venom all knew his ID in the comics. And of course it would be over many years and storylines. As for the films, we won't be getting hundreds of them. So these things happening is a condensing of the ENDLESS storyline of Spider-Man from the comics.

The point here is that you and others are condemning Raimi for revealing Peter's ID and killing villains as being blasphemy, when all of this is in the source material.

No, the point is we have had 5 villains (GG1, GG2(surfer Dood), Ock, Venom, Sandman in the movies so far (3) and Sam is 5 for 5 on who has known Spidey's identify. As well as MJ, Various NY'ers, and Aunt May (it appears) all know as well. THAT is not a good track record.



First off, Peter has quit being Spider-Man (Too many times in fact) for lesser reasons. He's quit because he was simply tired of it. He's quit because MJ nagged him into it. But I'm not suggesting he should have quit. I'm saying this Legacy that you're going on about isn't really that. It didn't really affect Peter's life in any big way. He still did the same things he would've done had the Goblin never existed.

But further, as I'd said, Peter has since learning of the Goblin being alive, done nothing to gain justice for Gwen (Either via revenge or the law). So if this Legacy is of such import, where are the ramifications?

Yes, Peter has quit over MANY comic arcs, this is the movies which is only 3 to this point. There is a big difference in the implied time spans in both, as well as differences in the mediums (for example why in novels you can go into so much further character development that movies cannot afford the time, nor the patience of the viewing audience).

And I am not going to take away from the greatness that is Gwen Stacy's death arc, simply because at the time the writers wanted Gwen out, and MJ in, and thus chose to write it without the mourning or Spidey quiting. :whatever:



Well, I am blaming the writing (What else would you blame?) but I'm also pointing out that this legacy that you're trumpeting that we were "robbed" of isn't a big deal anyway. It's just another storyline, that can be taken or left behind.

The writing was simply a plot device to write out Gwen and introduce MJ more to the forefront. Yes, it was poor writing, but just because it was poor writing to not have a more significant impact on Peter's (written) life at the time (as a means to intro MJ more as the MAIN love interest), does not diminish the impact of the story, as it HAS PROVEN to be as the arc is a classic that is revered now.



He didn't come full circle because of it. Full Circle means you're back where you started. That wasn't the case with Peter at all.

Yes, full circle was probably a poor choice of words, but it still furthered the story that even with his powers, he cannot save all. Just as powerful, if not more than the Uncle Ben storyline.

If anything, he'd come full circle with the death of Captain Stacy. With Cap, he lost another father-figure, due to direct action on his part. He used an untested formula to break Ock's psionic connection to his tentacles, which resulted in Cap's death. Thus his inaction killed Ben, his action killed Cap.

I can agree with that, but regardless, we did not get that storyline in Raimi's version either, along with the additional story of Gwen, the love of his life blaming Spider-Man for the death of her father. Pity.

Gwen's death is a whole other equation and was never dealt with in the writing at all.

It has nothing to do with "Snap". According to Conway and Thomas, producers of the story, Gwen would have died whether Peter netted her or not. So there was nothing he could have done or not done to save her. Thus it has nothing to do with his powers or lack thereof.

You are taking this all way too literal, with the SNAP. The point was simply, even with powers, he could not save the girl he loved, whether you think Gwen died from the snagging of the webbing or not, the storyline is still greatness. She paid the ultimate price for him being Spider-Man.

Further, the scenario itself was BS. As the movies have so brilliantly displayed, Spidey's webbing isn't like rope. It's a flexible material which stretches and bungees. It would have to, otherwise Spidey would regularly wrench his arms from their sockets while web-swinging. So there'd have been no whiplash when he netted Gwen. And even if there were, one that would have resulted in her neck breaking is almost impossible. What's always puzzled me is that no one thinks to blame the impact with the Goblin's flyer (It always annoys me when people refer to it as a glider, since its jet-propelled). It's a hard metal device with sharp edges, capable of supporting a thousand pound load at least, that was flying at top speed (Fast enough to reach Gwen before super-fast Spidey could). In reality, it's likely such a hit would've cut Gwen in two.

Again, way too literal, and missing the point. The point again being, she died because Peter "was" Spider-Man despite his powers.

So Spidey's guilt in her death has nothing to do with what happened on the bridge. His guilt, is in that he was always too cowardly to simply reveal his secret to her. What problem would telling her the truth have caused him? She wouldn't have snitched on him, And it would've saved the stress of constantly lying to her about his disappearances. But Gwen had no idea that she was walking with a target on her back, thus couldn't make her own decision about whether or not to distance herself from Peter. But again, this was never explored.

Neither here nor there in the point I was making.

So I guess you're saying movie Peter was a coward for not telling MJ too then? And for not telling Aunt May, and not telling JJ (since heck, he would be at risk too). Heck EVERYONE who he had any contact with would be at risk in this scenerio then.

And as I'd mentioned, Gwen's death did nothing to change Peter's life and wasn't really the point of it. Gerry Conway simply wanted to:

1. Spark sales (Which failed, sales dropped)
2. Get rid of Gwen and link Peter with MJ (Big deal, since Marvel was constantly trying to get rid of MJ afterwards).

It had nothing to do with a Legacy or coming full circle.

The after effect (as shown by the arc is so treasured now) did, but I agree the "intended" effect failed, and THUS explains why the story was written as such, and that is what you're main argument is. That because Peter was NOT written as mourning, it was NOT significant. Wrong. That was simply the way it was written at the time for the reasons you listed, as well as I did above. And as you said, it failed. But it still is a significant story arc in Spider-Man Mythos. A Legacy, if you will. (intended or not) :woot:

[TheSlag]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

Great Point! Yes, quantity does not necessarially imply poor quality. :up:

[Dangerous]

This site is infected by Raimi fans. But what I really love is at the end of the day they can kick and scream all they want. We still win, and Raimi is not coming back, Tobey isn't coming back and neither is :barf: Kirsten.

I freakin love it too!
I feel like yelling 'Suck it Raimi fans!' but if I did that, I might get in trouble.

I vividly recall sitting in the movie theater in 2002 at the age of 22 for the first showing of Spider-Man in Manchester/England. Watching trailers waiting for the film to start... I can't really put into words how excited I felt. It was as if my whole life had been building towards that day. Sounds pretty OTT but as a super fan of Spidey, it was literally the equivalent of a boxer walking down to the ring to face the world heavyweight champion, or the competitors of the men's 100 meters lining up for the Olympic final!

The moment I had dreamed about was finally here!

I became a Spiderfan at the age of 2 while watching 'Amazing Friends' and had collected the comics since the age of 10. I remembered all the film adaptation false starts, all the times it was said that Spider-man the movie was coming, particularly when James Cameron said after T2 his next film would be the ol' web head, in which Arnold would be Doc Ock! Weird. Alas it never happened.

So I'm sitting in the theater on my own at 11.00am on a Thursday waiting for the film... and then the black screen before credits that reads 'Spider-Man' in white.
Argghhh!!!! SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember watching it intently, it taking up my full attention. Mesmerized.
If someone had keeled over and had a heart attack a few seats away from me I probably would not have even noticed, let alone cared.

After the film, I walked out of the theater thinking (telling myself) it was great. How could it not be? It’s Spider-Man the movie!!! But the fact was there was a significant portion of discontent within me that would take two years for me to even acknowledge. I told myself that the film was a 10/10 or at the least a 9/10, but the fact was deep down inside, subconsciously, I thought much less of it than that. I just did not know yet.

There was stuff about the film which I thought was great- Willem Dafoe, the speech GG gives SM atop the Bugle, the webslinging scene at the end... Hmm that was about it.

But amongst the stuff that rubbed me up the wrong way, primarily those being 'It's all about a girl' (-No Raimi, you just missed the whole point of Spider-man! IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT A GIRL, IT'S ALL ABOUT PETER PARKER!), The 'Green Goblin' costume- FAIL, the horrible raised webbing/ padded suit/ painted on muscles Spidey costume, Kirsten Dunst- Mary Jane?!, .....

Amongst it all…. The main thing that really ticked me off was Tobey Maguire.
As PP in all 3 films he had no backbone, came off like a total drip and wuss with zero personality. In effect NOTHING like PP, and as Spidey had the same weak voice and none of the webslinger's trade mark humor.

It wasn't until after watching SM2, that I could finally admit all these things to myself. SM2 played out like some lams ass MTV movie and the only good bit was the train fight at the end. What the heck was all that stuff about making Octavius into this likable normal guy at the beginning? We never saw any of that in the comics and those scenes were boring as hell to watch and only served to dilute the character and fluff out the film.

It was a bitter pill to swallow; - that the films I had waited my whole life for, had Spidey miscast amongst many other crappy issues. Like making the focus of the series a corny movie-ized romance story.

NOW FINALLY IT IS OVER!

NOW FINALLY WE HAVE A SECOND CHANCE TO SEE SPIDEY PORTRAYED CORRECTLY IN A MOVIE.

So I'm pretty damn happy about the reboot and glad it's happening now rather than later. The main thing I am concerned about is the guy who gets cast as PP/SM playing those roles with more vibrancy, personality and backbone. If we can see Spider-Man's & Peter Parker's personality's portrayed correctly this time, the new film will be 10x better than Spider-Man 2002 by default.

[TheSlag]

LOTR was one big movie that was released in 3 parts as the post-production was worked on inbetween releases.
They had the story and screenplay already written out and planned, not to mention all the roles cast for all 3 sections before shooting even started.
It's an entirely different situation to folk rush releasing sequels.


Isn't that the case with the script they currently have with this reboot? I thought they said the script would cover two films.

And I would assume (surely Shirley :cwink:) they would be casting for this movie as well as future movies as well.

[david icke]

Isn't that the case with the script they currently have with this reboot? I thought they said the script would cover two films.

And I would assume (surely Shirley :cwink:) they would be casting for this movie as well as future movies as well.

They have to cast and book the actors for seperate films, there will be new roles to cast in the second one, they will not be booking anyone upfront for that now. The 1st movie could be a disaster of course.

TLOTR was one big movie that had a shooting time of almost two years iirc. It's entirely different from prepping one movie for 6months, shooting the movie in 6 months, and then doing 3months post-production, everyone going off to do other work, or taking a break, and then coming back to do the same.
Whichever way you look at it, it's an entirely different situation, TLOTR is not 3 different movies, it's one movie that was released in 3 parts.

[david icke]

If we can see Spider-Man's & Peter Parker's personality's portrayed correctly this time, the new film will be 10x better than Spider-Man 2002 by default.

I am hoping that the characterisation will be spot-on in the new movie, I think it's the only thing that has potential to outshine the Raimi movies. Because, at this point, with hearing rumours of an 80mil budget, there is reason to believe that the movie will not fell as epic as the earlier movies, less Spider-man action and big New York scenes.
It's the characterisation that this movie is depending on, if that is sub-par we will probably be getting a spider-man film on a level of the 2nd FF film. If the rumours are true about that budget(I hope not) I think we will be getting a spider-man movie on that level of spectacle, ie only one major set piece that is well executed and truly exciting, with a smattering of little ones.
The new movie will most likely be like two or three eps of Smallville stuck together with better sfx, lots of high school/romance stuff, and a little superhero action here and there.

edit: but, to go back to your point that i quoted...even if the movie has spot-on characterisation...if it does not have convincing, iconic spider-man poses, physics and action, it will fail as a Spider-man movie.

[TheSlag]

I understand that, but I think they could take the same approach with the Reboot. Shoot the two movies (or 1 if you prefer) back to back, but distributing as two separate movies/release dates.

Similar to what they did with LOTR's 3 releases.

They have the script for two movies, or what will be shot as two movies.

[david icke]

I understand that, but I think they could take the same approach with the Reboot. Shoot the two movies (or 1 if you prefer) back to back, but distributing as two separate movies/release dates.

Similar to what they did with LOTR's 3 releases.

They have the script for two movies, or what will be shot as two movies.

I think money seems to be an issue here with Sony though, part of the reason they wanted rid of Raimi i suspect.
an 80mil budget is pretty ridiculous for a tried and tested blockbusting franchise like this.
They will want to test the water with the first movie i think.
I wouldn't want an inexperienced director handling two movies back to back either, he has only done one movie before, and it wasn't an action or sci-fi type.
I would prefer they take their time with the first one and get right, take tehir time with all of them. Make them all feel different to some extent.

[TheSlag]

I understand your point, but to me, if they have the script and the ability to shoot basically two movies at once, that in itself would save them quite a bit of the cost of shooting movies to begin with.

And I completely agree that to an extent, money was a driving factor in this decision. Cost savings. I can understand that to a point, since this is a business for Sony, as long as the end product does not suffer from it.

As far as the reported 80 million budget goes, I take that (do not know mind you) the 80 million figure is just the ball park figure they want for making the movie itself. Not the total investment in the flim itself.

i.e.... Distribution costs, copies cost, advertising, distribution, etc. would all be more, or added to that figure is the way I took it.

And of course that 80 million ball park figure is just that, a ball park figure, that could easily increase (or for that matter.. decrease) once the filming starts.

I think Sony knows they have a cash cow with Spider-Man, and I doubt they will let $$ spent keep them from delivering quality in that aspect.


And IF they do as you posted earlier, basically give us what is basically several episodes of Smallville clumped together as the reboot, it would be the BIGGEST MISTAKE Sony has ever made.

I certainly "hope" nor think they will though. The movie is primarially about Spider-Man, not Peter Parker (or Clark Kent as Smallville *spit* is).

Thank God!

[©KAW]

Where did Dr. KAW get those statistics? May I see that report please?

Lets see, SM1 and SM2 were great movies, heralded by fans and critics as the greatest superhero movies to be created thus far, making tons of money, and generally well received. Yes, it is all Sam Raimi's fault. How dare he. How dare he make two movies that fans and critics adore. Bad Sam Raimi. But, when Sony/Arad/Zirskin, the supposed 40%, interject and force new characters and plot lines on him...he is suddenly a bad film maker and not apt to handle the job. We see this again with SM4. Yet somehow a few people on here live in a dream world where they think Sam was the entire problem and the world is now better off and the reboot will be HAXORZ AWESOMEZ. Oh to be naive. I guess it was all Brett Ranter's fault that X3 sucked? Lets blame Wolverine on Gavin Hood right? He did it all.You wanna see the report, check the Press Release of Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten not coming back. If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan. Sam Raimi was always a cheesy film maker, watch 'Evil Dead' or "Dark Man' simply too much cheese in his action films. The man can't control his cheese.

Yeah, so the problem is mostly Sam Raimi followed by his two stooges...Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin. Combined they don't know squat about Spider-Man...the films are proof of that.

[Deaths Head II]

If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan.

Because Sony isn't Warner Bros?

[Deaths Head II]

You make all kinds of great points. And then these guys just roll over them and call you a troll. I get the same thing. Instead of dealing with the issues we just get called names. These guys need to leave and go to some Raimi fan site already.

You know if you guys didn't have such a smug attitude and if you didn't say things like this you probably wouldn't be called trolls. Just saying.

[TheSlag]

Well, for me, cannot speak nor dare would for Dac, considering the "source", I wear the incorrect badge of "troll" with pride. :cwink:

And as for "smug attitude", I KNOW there are many more than me with greater knowledge of all things Spidey, but I think I can match anyone's passion for the subject. And if that implies "smug" to you, so be it.

[TheSlag]

Because Sony isn't Warner Bros?

Thank God! Considering what Warner Bros did (or allowed to be done) to the Batman (And Robin) franchise.

At least Sony, has not stooped to this level yet.

[The Joker]

Raimi claimed he had full creative control for Spider-Man 4 several months ago. Obviously that wasn't the case.

[spider-neil]

I freakin love it too!
I feel like yelling 'Suck it Raimi fans!' but if I did that, I might get in trouble.

I vividly recall sitting in the movie theater in 2002 at the age of 22 for the first showing of Spider-Man in Manchester/England. Watching trailers waiting for the film to start... I can't really put into words how excited I felt. It was as if my whole life had been building towards that day. Sounds pretty OTT but as a super fan of Spidey, it was literally the equivalent of a boxer walking down to the ring to face the world heavyweight champion, or the competitors of the men's 100 meters lining up for the Olympic final!

The moment I had dreamed about was finally here!

I became a Spiderfan at the age of 2 while watching 'Amazing Friends' and had collected the comics since the age of 10. I remembered all the film adaptation false starts, all the times it was said that Spider-man the movie was coming, particularly when James Cameron said after T2 his next film would be the ol' web head, in which Arnold would be Doc Ock! Weird. Alas it never happened.

So I'm sitting in the theater on my own at 11.00am on a Thursday waiting for the film... and then the black screen before credits that reads 'Spider-Man' in white.
Argghhh!!!! SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember watching it intently, it taking up my full attention. Mesmerized.
If someone had keeled over and had a heart attack a few seats away from me I probably would not have even noticed, let alone cared.

After the film, I walked out of the theater thinking (telling myself) it was great. How could it not be? It’s Spider-Man the movie!!! But the fact was there was a significant portion of discontent within me that would take two years for me to even acknowledge. I told myself that the film was a 10/10 or at the least a 9/10, but the fact was deep down inside, subconsciously, I thought much less of it than that. I just did not know yet.

There was stuff about the film which I thought was great- Willem Dafoe, the speech GG gives SM atop the Bugle, the webslinging scene at the end... Hmm that was about it.

But amongst the stuff that rubbed me up the wrong way, primarily those being 'It's all about a girl' (-No Raimi, you just missed the whole point of Spider-man! IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT A GIRL, IT'S ALL ABOUT PETER PARKER!), The 'Green Goblin' costume- FAIL, the horrible raised webbing/ padded suit/ painted on muscles Spidey costume, Kirsten Dunst- Mary Jane?!, .....

Amongst it all…. The main thing that really ticked me off was Tobey Maguire.
As PP in all 3 films he had no backbone, came off like a total drip and wuss with zero personality. In effect NOTHING like PP, and as Spidey had the same weak voice and none of the webslinger's trade mark humor.

It wasn't until after watching SM2, that I could finally admit all these things to myself. SM2 played out like some lams ass MTV movie and the only good bit was the train fight at the end. What the heck was all that stuff about making Octavius into this likable normal guy at the beginning? We never saw any of that in the comics and those scenes were boring as hell to watch and only served to dilute the character and fluff out the film.

It was a bitter pill to swallow; - that the films I had waited my whole life for, had Spidey miscast amongst many other crappy issues. Like making the focus of the series a corny movie-ized romance story.

NOW FINALLY IT IS OVER!

NOW FINALLY WE HAVE A SECOND CHANCE TO SEE SPIDEY PORTRAYED CORRECTLY IN A MOVIE.

So I'm pretty damn happy about the reboot and glad it's happening now rather than later. The main thing I am concerned about is the guy who gets cast as PP/SM playing those roles with more vibrancy, personality and backbone. If we can see Spider-Man's & Peter Parker's personality's portrayed correctly this time, the new film will be 10x better than Spider-Man 2002 by default.


SM2 is an awesome movie, its debateable whether it's an awesome 'spidey' movie (like it's debateable TDK is an awesome 'batman' movie) but as a movie it has depth, characterization, pacing, heart and most of all the action is amazing and what MAKES the action amazing is you care about there characters. it is easily (EASILY!!) one of the best superhero movies ever made and imho in the top TWO superhero movies ever made. a simply BRILLIANT movie.

[DACMAN]

I actually find myself agreeing with both of you.

[DACMAN]

Raimi claimed he had full creative control for Spider-Man 4 several months ago. Obviously that wasn't the case.

Which also points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea for the "Vulturess" :whatever: :barf:

[The Joker]

Which also points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea for the "Vulturess" :whatever: :barf:

I thought Raimi was a champion for Black Cat? There was whispers of her being in both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 back in the days.

[FaT_tONle]

Vulturess was probably the nail in the coffin that forced Raimi's hand to walk. I doubt it was his idea.

[Chris Wallace]

Vulturess was probably the nail in the coffin that forced Raimi's hand to walk. I doubt it was his idea.

This.

[david icke]

And IF they do as you posted earlier, basically give us what is basically several episodes of Smallville clumped together as the reboot, it would be the BIGGEST MISTAKE Sony has ever made.

I certainly "hope" nor think they will though. The movie is primarially about Spider-Man, not Peter Parker (or Clark Kent as Smallville *spit* is).

Thank God!

Well, this has been my fear since that 80mil budget rumour surfaced.
That's not enough for a Spider-man heavy movie as it takes a lot of sfx to realise him properly onscreen.

I know we are on the same page when it comes to not wanting it to be 'all about a girl', but I fear it will be just like that too, even though it will not be declared as honestly as the Raimi film's set out their stall, yeah, at least they were honest about that.
But, a movie featuring teenagers, what does it focus on? Any movie with teens as the leads, esp set in a high school.
Less shots of New York, more school corridors, another fear that came with that budget rumour.

I want to see more of Pete's girlfriends taking centre stage in the movies, but I think i would prefer to see a more faithful to the books MJ done(who is not attending the same high school, have her the outsider who May wants Pete to meet, like the books, good storyline), than a Liz Allen who was a pretty generic teen movie gf.
Betty Brant? forget it, we will hardly see the bugle i imagine , like the Raimi movies, and i understand that, it can only be used when relevant.
edit: Gwen Stacey? Maybe, but i think they will go for MJ again.

[Deaths Head II]

Well, for me, cannot speak nor dare would for Dac, considering the "source", I wear the incorrect badge of "troll" with pride. :cwink:

And as for "smug attitude", I KNOW there are many more than me with greater knowledge of all things Spidey, but I think I can match anyone's passion for the subject. And if that implies "smug" to you, so be it.

When I mean "smug", I mean comments like "we won, you lost", "you guys aren't true Spider-Man fans" and "Raimi fans should just leave this forum."

It's really annoying and extremely antagonistic.

[Chris Wallace]

Extremely.

[Dangerous]

SM2 is an awesome movie, its debateable whether it's an awesome 'spidey' movie (like it's debateable TDK is an awesome 'batman' movie) but as a movie it has depth, characterization, pacing, heart and most of all the action is amazing and what MAKES the action amazing is you care about there characters. it is easily (EASILY!!) one of the best superhero movies ever made and imho in the top TWO superhero movies ever made. a simply BRILLIANT movie.

Good for you.
For me it sucked.
The only bit I liked was the train fight.

My top 5 superhero films-

1-TDK
2-BB
3-Iron Man
4-Superman The Movie
5-Batman

[TheSlag]

When I mean "smug", I mean comments like "we won, you lost", "you guys aren't true Spider-Man fans" and "Raimi fans should just leave this forum."

It's really annoying and extremely antagonistic.

You mean as opposed to the other side calling us "Idiots" or "Trolls" or posting pictures of "Trolling" or some other childish activity.

I agree with your points that NO ONE should be labeling the other side. I do not think there even should be "the other side". We are all Fans of Spider-Man.

That said, we will NOT always have the same opinion on all things Spider-Man. And that is fine, it does not mean one opinion is right or wrong, or even one opinion is better than another.

Along that line, I have no problem with anyone posting relevant points in either thread. I detest the "You're not part of the gang" so you cannot post here BS :whatever:

I do think that posting insults, or personal attacks, BY EITHER SIDE, is wrong. But posting releative comments regarding other posts is what this board is all about. Open Honest discussions about opinions.

[Dangerous]

I want to see more of Pete's girlfriends taking centre stage in the movies, but I think i would prefer to see a more faithful to the books MJ done(who is not attending the same high school, have her the outsider who May wants Pete to meet, like the books, good storyline), than a Liz Allen who was a pretty generic teen movie gf.
Betty Brant? forget it, we will hardly see the bugle i imagine , like the Raimi movies, and i understand that, it can only be used when relevant.
edit: Gwen Stacey? Maybe, but i think they will go for MJ again.

Interesting...

Personally I'd love to see MJ introduced as Aunt May's freinds' high flying niece instead of Parker's classmate, and her take more of a backseat role. Or just not be in this film. Also it would be great to see the romantic interests of SM2012 being Betty and Liz. TBH tho, I'd prefer if the romance was more in the form of subplots rather than being part of the core narrative.

I think if they go with unknowns that will free up some of the budget money so they don't have to pay top Hollywood salaries. Personally I'm optimistic about the reduced budget. It's early days.

[Deaths Head II]

You mean as opposed to the other side calling us "Idiots" or "Trolls" or posting pictures of "Trolling" or some other childish activity.

I agree with your points that NO ONE should be labeling the other side. I do not think there even should be "the other side". We are all Fans of Spider-Man.

That said, we will NOT always have the same opinion on all things Spider-Man. And that is fine, it does not mean one opinion is right or wrong, or even one opinion is better than another.

Along that line, I have no problem with anyone posting relevant points in either thread. I detest the "You're not part of the gang" so you cannot post here BS :whatever:

I do think that posting insults, or personal attacks, BY EITHER SIDE, is wrong. But posting releative comments regarding other posts is what this board is all about. Open Honest discussions about opinions.

Agreed.

[bunk]

I don't think it's too soon for Spidey, because I don't think the audience is at all tired of the character and what he brings. All the other franchises mentioned—Bond, Batman, ect—audiences were just tired of them so it made sense to wait a bit.

[TheSlag]

Interesting...

Personally I'd love to see MJ introduced as Aunt May's freinds' high flying niece instead of Parker's classmate

I believe that was what he was referring to. And I agree with you both on that point, I have always loved the storyline that leads up to the "Face it Tiger... You just hit the Jackpot". And I think it would play out great on the screen.

[TheSlag]

I don't think it's too soon for Spidey, because I don't think the audience is at all tired of the character and what he brings. All the other franchises mentioned—Bond, Batman, ect—audiences were just tired of them so it made sense to wait a bit.


I agree completely on the Spider-Man part, but again, I like others, are completely biased on that I am sure, as we are all Spider-Man fans here.

Also, I think the fans cannot wait for Batman's next installment, as the BB and especially TDK has fueled the fires again on that front.

Bond.. *meh*.. just my opinion.

[DACMAN]

Vulturess was probably the nail in the coffin that forced Raimi's hand to walk. I doubt it was his idea.

I'd think the other way around. He didn't write the script for this one like he did SM3. Everyone was saying Black Cat as the script was being written. After Raimi was handed the script and it called for "rewrites" all the sudden we were hearing about the Vulturess. We may never know but I think the Vulturess was all Raimi. It came after the rewrites started so to me that means it was Raimi and not the guy who wrote the script. Just a thought.

[DACMAN]

I believe that was what he was referring to. And I agree with you both on that point, I have always loved the storyline that leads up to the "Face it Tiger... You just hit the Jackpot". And I think it would play out great on the screen.

Can you imagine this new film ending with that? Geekasm straight up. Have the whole film leading up to that moment Peter opens the door. He keeps coming up with excuses not to see MJ the entire movie until he finally sees her at the very end and she drops that line. How awesome would that be!? I can't wait for this reboot!

[spider-neil]

Good for you.
For me it sucked.
The only bit I liked was the train fight.

My top 5 superhero films-

1-TDK
2-BB
3-Iron Man
4-Superman The Movie
5-Batman

1. TDK
2. SM2
3. STM
4. SM1
5. IM

the 80's batman doesn't even figure or me, I thought they were rubbish and BB is a riduclously overrated movie with poor pacing, weak action and an absolutely RUBBISH 3rd act. just my opinion as you are entitiled to your opinion of raimi's spidey movies.

[david icke]

I believe that was what he was referring to. And I agree with you both on that point, I have always loved the storyline that leads up to the "Face it Tiger... You just hit the Jackpot". And I think it would play out great on the screen.

Yeah Dangerous, by 'outsider' I meant MJ being outside of Pete's day to day life, not a part of the high school or Bugle circle.

and yeah, as Dacman suggested, it would be awesome to have that plotline played out only for us to see the Jackpot scene at the end.

Throughout the movie they could have her face obscured by plantpots etc like the books:hehe:

[TheSlag]

Can you imagine this new film ending with that? Geekasm straight up. Have the whole film leading up to that moment Peter opens the door. He keeps coming up with excuses not to see MJ the entire movie until he finally sees her at the very end and she drops that line. How awesome would that be!? I can't wait for this reboot!

I definitely agree with wanting to see that scene in the reboot, not so sure about it being at the ending, but maybe... hmmm...

[spider-neil]

if you filmed a movie back to back you could actually have the 'face it tiger' line at the end of the first movie without the actress feeling like she is only turning up to say one line.

so filming back to back you can have several plotlines on the go and flesh them all out making them feel natural and organic. you can flesh out curt conners, max dillon, EBJ, quinten beck, mat gargen over the course of three movies and when they change it will have more of an impact.

[Doc Ock]

I don't understand why everyone is so hostile with each other, it seems that having a different opinion is considered a crime or something.

[chaseter]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent
They were all filmed at once and someone who is passionate about it did those movies. Is Marc Webb a huge Spider-Man nerd? No. That is a great example and those were great movies but that is one example. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed at once like LOTR and those movies were pretty bad, Revolutions was terrible. Most movies that are produced quickly and released quickly are terrible. Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End is another example. I don't want a Spidey every year or two years. If this franchise is going to be good or great, you need time to do everything right.

Great point. Be ready to get called a troll.

Please Dacman...you have called people trolls or Raimi lovers as a derogatory term so quit whining about it.

You wanna see the report, check the Press Release of Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten not coming back. If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan. Sam Raimi was always a cheesy film maker, watch 'Evil Dead' or "Dark Man' simply too much cheese in his action films. The man can't control his cheese.

Yeah, so the problem is mostly Sam Raimi followed by his two stooges...Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin. Combined they don't know squat about Spider-Man...the films are proof of that.
I just lol'd that you think Sam Raimi knows nothing about Spider-Man or doesn't care about the character.:hehe:

[chaseter]

dbl

[chaseter]

Which also points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea for the "Vulturess" :whatever: :barf:

I thought Raimi was a champion for Black Cat? There was whispers of her being in both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 back in the days.

Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony then wanted Vulturess. Dacman doesn't know what he is talking about and continues to say that Raimi wanted Vulturess when he absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.

[bunk]

I agree completely on the Spider-Man part, but again, I like others, are completely biased on that I am sure, as we are all Spider-Man fans here.

Also, I think the fans cannot wait for Batman's next installment, as the BB and especially TDK has fueled the fires again on that front.

Bond.. *meh*.. just my opinion.

Yes, now Batman is a hot commodity. Rebooting a year after Batman & Robin would have been a poor decision. This is not the case with Spider-Man, they can reboot now and the studio can be in a good position to make money.

[DACMAN]

Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony then wanted Vulturess. Dacman doesn't know what he is talking about and continues to say that Raimi wanted Vulturess when he absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.

Give me a link then. You talk like this is a fact so I want to see a link that says that Raimi wanted the Black Cat but the people at Sony forced him to change Black Cat into the Vulturess. I'm calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. You talk like you know for sure what happend behind closed doors so I want to see a link.


And for the record I said that it "points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea" which means it was still speculation on my part. You talk like you know for a fact. Give me a link sparky.

[Dragon]

No, the point is we have had 5 villains (GG1, GG2(surfer Dood), Ock, Venom, Sandman in the movies so far (3) and Sam is 5 for 5 on who has known Spidey's identify. As well as MJ, Various NY'ers, and Aunt May (it appears) all know as well. THAT is not a good track record.

Okay.. To be clear I don't think the Raimi films have been perfect or even great. I think they've been fun, enjoyable romps. Good films about a great character. I don't think the definitive Spider-Man film has been made (Or will be anytime soon, given the people whose hands he remains in).

However, playing Devil's advocate, in terms of the Raimi-Spideyverse, what's the problem with these characters knowing his identity? Especially since 4 of them are dead anyway?

Yes, Peter has quit over MANY comic arcs, this is the movies which is only 3 to this point. There is a big difference in the implied time spans in both, as well as differences in the mediums (for example why in novels you can go into so much further character development that movies cannot afford the time, nor the patience of the viewing audience).

The movies have had a seperation time of several years. 2 was 2 years later. I dunno about 3. But time had clearly past. So, Peter suffering from battle fatigue and loneliness enough to quit is a legitmate idea.

And I am not going to take away from the greatness that is Gwen Stacy's death arc, simply because at the time the writers wanted Gwen out, and MJ in, and thus chose to write it without the mourning or Spidey quiting. :whatever:

Nor am I taking away from the greatness of those TWO ISSUES. But you're talking about a Legacy, which would involve more than one story arc.

The writing was simply a plot device to write out Gwen and introduce MJ more to the forefront. Yes, it was poor writing, but just because it was poor writing to not have a more significant impact on Peter's (written) life at the time (as a means to intro MJ more as the MAIN love interest), does not diminish the impact of the story, as it HAS PROVEN to be as the arc is a classic that is revered now.

Yes, full circle was probably a poor choice of words, but it still furthered the story that even with his powers, he cannot save all. Just as powerful, if not more than the Uncle Ben storyline.

I'm not denying that it's a classic storyline. I think killing Gwen was a major mistake, but still think those are two of the best issues in Spidey's history.

I can agree with that, but regardless, we did not get that storyline in Raimi's version either, along with the additional story of Gwen, the love of his life blaming Spider-Man for the death of her father. Pity.

You are taking this all way too literal, with the SNAP. The point was simply, even with powers, he could not save the girl he loved, whether you think Gwen died from the snagging of the webbing or not, the storyline is still greatness. She paid the ultimate price for him being Spider-Man.

But here's the problem. So, Peter can't save the woman he loves. What then?There's no where to go after this. Conway and Thomas hoped to spark sales by creating an atmosphere with Gwen's death, that "anything can happen" thus riveting fans. Kind of like Quesada's current day cheeseball attempts with events.

The thing is, we know that anything can't happen. We know that ultimately, Spidey will never die, the only truly startling thing that could follow. And killing another love interest will just be a retread. Gwen's death was only a gimmick. A great gimmick story-wise, but a gimmick nonetheless. Kind of like that Bugs Bunny/ Daffy Duck cartoon, where Daffy, frustrated by not being able to get the applause Bugs does, causes himself to explode. Then as his ghosty form flies off to thunderous applause and Bugs asks him for an encore Daffy says: "I can only do it once". That's Gwen's death.

And as I'd said, because Peter remains essentially the same after Gwen's death- He doesn't take a harder line with villains or refuse to get involved again for fear that another person will die- There's no real impact past those two issues.

And actually, Sam Raimi did take a stronger position after Spidey 1 by having him decide not to be with MJ for fear for her safety. The only problem is that in Spidey 2 he chose to have Peter continue to pal around with her, which still placed her in his proximity.

So I guess you're saying movie Peter was a coward for not telling MJ too then? And for not telling Aunt May, and not telling JJ (since heck, he would be at risk too). Heck EVERYONE who he had any contact with would be at risk in this scenerio then.

No, that's not what I'm saying. May will always be Peter's Aunt. And friends will be friends. In Gwen's case, by Peter intending to have her be with him, live with him, build a life with him, he was placing her directly in the cross-hairs. If she knew his secret, she could decide to walk away or face the danger as MJ did. But Gwen had no choice in the matter since she thought she was with a news photographer.

[chaseter]

Give me a link then. You talk like this is a fact so I want to see a link that says that Raimi wanted the Black Cat but the people at Sony forced him to change Black Cat into the Vulturess. I'm calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. You talk like you know for sure what happend behind closed doors so I want to see a link.


And for the record I said that it "points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea" which means it was still speculation on my part. You talk like you know for a fact. Give me a link sparky.

You talk like it is fact. Give me a link then so I can see. I am calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. So, when you say Raimi wanted Vulturess, post a link so we can see it Dac. You were the one making the claim in the first place. Lets see you back that claim up there Dac:whatever:

For the record, Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony said that she is too much like Catwoman and opted for Vulturess. That is where the conflict came in. Here is a link:
http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffeinated-clint-my-spider-senses

Now lets see some of your links Dac!

But, I am willing to make a bet with you. If I am right (Raimi wanted Black Cat and Sony wanted Vulturess), whenever we find out from a credible source, you must put in your signature in big black bold letters: "Chaseter Was Right." If you are right (Raimi wanted Vulturess) then I will put in big black bold letters: "Dacman Was Right." You must wear the signature until Spider-Man Reboot comes out in theatres. Deal?

That link also says that the reboot is more dark/Dark Knight-ish and that they are cutting out all the fluff and by fluff he goes on to say, less laughs. So Spider-Man will have less quips unlike what you wanted...awwww:(

[TheSlag]

Okay.. To be clear I don't think the Raimi films have been perfect or even great. I think they've been fun, enjoyable romps. Good films about a great character. I don't think the definitive Spider-Man film has been made (Or will be anytime soon, given the people whose hands he remains in).

However, playing Devil's advocate, in terms of the Raimi-Spideyverse, what's the problem with these characters knowing his identity? Especially since 4 of them are dead anyway?

Because it takes away from the storyline when a villain does discover his secret and can attack those he loves.


The movies have had a seperation time of several years. 2 was 2 years later. I dunno about 3. But time had clearly past. So, Peter suffering from battle fatigue and loneliness enough to quit is a legitmate idea.

I am not following the point you're trying to make. You will have to explain.



Nor am I taking away from the greatness of those TWO ISSUES. But you're talking about a Legacy, which would involve more than one story arc.

I have never seen a legacy defined as limited to more than one story arc. A legacy is being the villain that killed (or lead to the killing of) the only girl he loved after discovering his secret.



I'm not denying that it's a classic storyline. I think killing Gwen was a major mistake, but still think those are two of the best issues in Spidey's history.

So do I, so again, not sure why you're arguing about it here? You seem to only be taking exception that I call it the Goblin Legacy.



But here's the problem. So, Peter can't save the woman he loves. What then?There's no where to go after this. Conway and Thomas hoped to spark sales by creating an atmosphere with Gwen's death, that "anything can happen" thus riveting fans. Kind of like Quesada's current day cheeseball attempts with events.

The thing is, we know that anything can't happen. We know that ultimately, Spidey will never die, the only truly startling thing that could follow. And killing another love interest will just be a retread. Gwen's death was only a gimmick. A great gimmick story-wise, but a gimmick nonetheless. Kind of like that Bugs Bunny/ Daffy Duck cartoon, where Daffy, frustrated by not being able to get the applause Bugs does, causes himself to explode. Then as his ghosty form flies off to thunderous applause and Bugs asks him for an encore Daffy says: "I can only do it once". That's Gwen's death.

What the Hell?? You're actually comparing this to a Looney Tunes episode. LOL. You think it can only be done "once", as in Uncle Ben's death (I assume, kinda got laughing too hard to read with the Daffy Duck stuff), but I think it can (and should) be done more than once. Even though I disagree with the once, since Uncle Ben's death was about Spdiey NOT using his power's responsibly and his Uncle paying the price. Where Gwen's death is despite, or because he chose to use his great powers. Big difference in my book. And a very moving storyline that shoudl be told, as TDK has shown.

And as I'd said, because Peter remains essentially the same after Gwen's death- He doesn't take a harder line with villains or refuse to get involved again for fear that another person will die- There's no real impact past those two issues.

Again, ONLY due to the writing, and the purpose to write out Gwen to make MJ his main love interest. You're going in circles, we have already agreed on that.

And actually, Sam Raimi did take a stronger position after Spidey 1 by having him decide not to be with MJ for fear for her safety. The only problem is that in Spidey 2 he chose to have Peter continue to pal around with her, which still placed her in his proximity.

Neither here nor there in regards to the Goblin Legacy, and a whole nother discussion regarding the telling of the Spidey No More storyline by Raimi vs. the comic version.



No, that's not what I'm saying. May will always be Peter's Aunt. And friends will be friends. In Gwen's case, by Peter intending to have her be with him, live with him, build a life with him, he was placing her directly in the cross-hairs. If she knew his secret, she could decide to walk away or face the danger as MJ did. But Gwen had no choice in the matter since she thought she was with a news photographer.

And his friends "do" have a choice? Nope.

And as for his Aunt, he could move to another town to be Spider-Man, thus reducing the risk to his Aunt May. But agian, I do not understan why this has anything to do with a Goblin Legacy, and would be a very stupid (IMO) approach to take in the movies, where Peter either distances himself from every friend or loved one, or tellls EVERYONE he loves/likes his secret so as to NOT be cowardly (according to you), and let them make the decision on whether to continue being close to Peter.

Guess they could call the movie the Amazing Peter Parker then, no mask required. I know Raimi would LOVE it. :woot:

[Ajendo]

To say casino royale is a reboot is kinda stretching things. I guess you can argue that every bond sequel is a reboot since aside from quantum they never actually reference the past movie.

FRWL referenced Dr.No.
OHMSS referenced every other Bond film that came before it.
TMWTGG referenced LALD.
FYEO and TSWLM referenced OHMSS
DAD referenced FRWL and TB.

:woot:

[Dragon]

Because it takes away from the storyline when a villain does discover his secret and can attack those he loves.

It takes away from the story, and yet you're arguing in favor of a story where that very thing happens. :whatever:

I am not following the point you're trying to make. You will have to explain.

You mentioned the passage of time between Peter quitting in comics stories. I'm pointing out that there was a passage of time in the movies as well.

I have never seen a legacy defined as limited to more than one story arc. A legacy is being the villain that killed (or lead to the killing of) the only girl he loved after discovering his secret.

But you said above that such a thing takes away from the story.

And a Legacy is something that is left behind and impacts current events. Thus it would have to go beyond a single story.

So do I, so again, not sure why you're arguing about it here? You seem to only be taking exception that I call it the Goblin Legacy.

I take exception with its importance. You're saying its something that Raimi tobbed us of.

What the Hell?? You're actually comparing this to a Looney Tunes episode. LOL. You think it can only be done "once", as in Uncle Ben's death (I assume, kinda got laughing too hard to read with the Daffy Duck stuff), but I think it can (and should) be done more than once. Even though I disagree with the once, since Uncle Ben's death was about Spdiey NOT using his power's responsibly and his Uncle paying the price. Where Gwen's death is despite, or because he chose to use his great powers. Big difference in my book. And a very moving storyline that shoudl be told, as TDK has shown.

The cartoon reference was a simile. Just like Daffy's gimmick could only work once, so too could a gimmicky death like Gwen's. Got it?

So again- you argue above that villains shouldn't learn Peter's identity because it takes away from the story if his loved ones are placed in danger. But here you're arguing that it should be done not once- but MORE THAN ONCE :huh:

And Gwen didn't die because of Peter using his power responsibly. She died because he was irresponsible and selfish. Not the same as TDK where Rachel died to show Batman and Law-enforcement's powerlessness.

And okay.. Name the events in the FOUR DECADES since Gwen's death that have matched its impact.

Neither here nor there in regards to the Goblin Legacy, and a whole nother discussion regarding the telling of the Spidey No More storyline by Raimi vs. the comic version.

No, it actually shows a real impact of the Goblin Legacy. The Goblin endangered MJ, so Peter chose to distance himself from her. Hurting himself to protect her.

And his friends "do" have a choice? Nope.

And how many of his friends have died do to his being Spider-Man? None. MJ, Aunt May and Flash were injured and all quickly healed up, because they could only do it once.

And as for his Aunt, he could move to another town to be Spider-Man, thus reducing the risk to his Aunt May. But agian, I do not understan why this has anything to do with a Goblin Legacy, and would be a very stupid (IMO) approach to take in the movies, where Peter either distances himself from every friend or loved one, or tellls EVERYONE he loves/likes his secret so as to NOT be cowardly (according to you), and let them make the decision on whether to continue being close to Peter.

And...How many friends have been hurt in the movies due to his being Spider-Man? Harry chose to place himself in danger. And its still not the same as a woman sharing her life with Peter.

Guess they could call the movie the Amazing Peter Parker then, no mask required. I know Raimi would LOVE it. :woot:

Okay.:dry:.

[Dangerous]

1. TDK
2. SM2
3. STM
4. SM1
5. IM

the 80's batman doesn't even figure or me, I thought they were rubbish and BB is a riduclously overrated movie with poor pacing, weak action and an absolutely RUBBISH 3rd act. just my opinion as you are entitiled to your opinion of raimi's spidey movies.

… weird.

Batman & Batman Returns were amazing moody art rich takes on Bats..

And you can’t be serious about BB?!

Bale made Batman believable for the first time. In Bale you had a guy who you could accept as Batman/Bruce Wayne; - a guy who for the first time actually had the physique to be Batman and in the fight scenes you got an idea of the force behind Batman’s fighting style.

Scarecrow’s fear gas was amazing, as was the tumbler and the rest of the cast save Holmes. On the subject of the fight scenes which many fans seemed to miss the point of in terms of the way they were shot (so you could barely make out Batman as if you were one of the thugs getting a beat down, or a witness who is not quite sure what they are seeing in the dark) the best one was Batman’s first app against the drug dealers on the dock.

THAT WAS AMAZING, ONE OF THE BEST SCENES IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA. That sequence was perfect, you can’t see Bat’s and he picks off these guys one by one. It’s like a horror movie, Nolan totally nailed it there. Then the guy from the car catch’s a glimpse of this huge black mass kicking the crap out of them all. That shot is awesome. BB is by far the best Superhero film compared to anything that went before and I had to watch TDK a couple of times before I thought it was better.

[spider-neil]

… weird.

Batman & Batman Returns were amazing moody art rich takes on Bats..

And you can’t be serious about BB?!

Bale made Batman believable for the first time. In Bale you had a guy who you could actually believe to be Batman/Bruce Wayne; - a guy who for the first time actually had the physique to be Batman and in the fight scenes you got an idea of the force behind Batman’s fighting style.

Scarecrow’s fear gas was amazing, as was the tumbler and the rest of the cast save Holmes. On the subject of the fight scenes which many fans seemed to miss the point of in terms of the way they were shot (so you could barely make out Batman as if you were one of the thugs getting a beat down, or a witness who is not quite sure what they are seeing in the dark) the best one was Batman’s first app against the drug dealers on the dock.

THAT WAS AMAZING, ONE OF THE BEST SCENES IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA. That sequence was perfect, you can’t see Bat’s and he picks off these guys one by one. It’s like a horror movie, Nolan totally nailed it there. Then the guy from the car catch’s a glimpse of this huge black mass kicking the crap out of them all. That shot is awesome. BB is by far the best Superhero film compared to anything that went before and I had to watch TDK a couple of times before I thought it was better.

thread is going off at a tangent but I'll play along.

okay thought the TB 80's batman movies were plain boring and the s***maker batman movies were just plain ridiculous. batcard? bum cheek shot? seriously, wtf?

then we movie to BB, a solid movie but not a great movie.
you can't make out any of the action scenes, this first fight was fair enough as it was from the criminals POV but poor camera angles for the rest of the fights were unforgivable. nolan is great with characterization but I think he is a poor action director. and then 3rd act where the hero ISN'T the one to take down the major threat (the train) UNFORGIVABLE, that's like jimmy olsen disarming the bomb, robin taking down the penguin. POOR!

SM2 absolutely destroys BB both in terms of characterization, pacing and action. BB the best superhero movie up to that point? were going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I thought nolan pretty much fixed all the problems with TDK, he could have course followed the blue print of BB and have gordan take down the joker or 2 face that would have been aces.

[Dangerous]

okay thought the TB 80's batman movies were plain boring and the s***maker batman movies were just plain ridiculous. batcard? bum cheek shot? seriously, wtf?

I wasn’t talking about the Joel Schumacher films, I agree they are crap.


then we movie to BB, a solid movie but not a great movie.
you can't make out any of the action scenes, this first fight was fair enough as it was from the criminals POV but poor camera angles for the rest of the fights were unforgivable.

You missed the point.
This was done so as to make Batman fighting more like a panther attack, more bestial. You can’t quite make it out in the film as if you were witnessing it in real life. It was a deliberate move to play up the mysterious angle of Bats in that you can’t quite see him to make him more scary. Like how you couldn’t quite see the Alien in 1979.


nolan is great with characterization but I think he is a poor action director. and then 3rd act where the hero ISN'T the one to take down the major threat (the train) UNFORGIVABLE, that's like jimmy olsen disarming the bomb, robin taking down the penguin. POOR!

Why does everything have to be wrapped up into neat little parcels that fit the context of traditional hero roles such as him saving the day? Real life is not like that, heh. If you are dealing with terrorists in real life it is not going to end like a Hollywood movie with ‘the Mountie always getting his man’. Heh.


SM2 absolutely destroys BB both in terms of characterization, pacing and action.

Disagree it’s the other way round.
BB destroys SM2.
SM2 is a horrible chick flick with 5 minutes of cool Spidey action tacked on the end.
BB is a badass superhero movie that gives gravitas and believability to the idea of a vigilante.

[mothy]

i think it's too soon to reboot, but nevertheless, i am behind it as a fan of the character.

[spider-neil]

I wasn’t talking about the Joel Schumacher films, I agree they are crap.



You missed the point.
This was done so as to make Batman fighting more like a panther attack, more bestial. You can’t quite make it out in the film as if you were witnessing it in real life. It was a deliberate move to play up the mysterious angle of Bats in that you can’t quite see him to make him more scary. Like how you couldn’t quite see the Alien in 1979.



Why does everything have to be wrapped up into neat little parcels that fit the context of traditional hero roles such as him saving the day? Real life is not like that, heh. If you are dealing with terrorists in real life it is not going to end like a Hollywood movie with ‘the Mountie always getting his man’. Heh.



Disagree it’s the other way round.
BB destroys SM2.
SM2 is a horrible chick flick with 5 minutes of cool Spidey action tacked on the end.
BB is a badass superhero movie that gives gravitas and believability to the idea of a vigilante.

having batman take down the main threat would have been cliche but it would certainly have had more of an impact than JG taking down the train. I thought JG taking down the train and the lame arse batman RAG fight was a piss poor finish to an otherwise solid superhero movie but each to their own.

in regards to SM2 you saw a chick flick I saw the deconstruction of a superhero that was more more interesting and engaging that the origin of a masked vigilante, again each to their own. I thought peter's telling his aunt not to feel guilty for ben's death carried far more power than any line in BB and TDK for that matter but again each to their own.

I will conceed I think TDK is better than SM2 but BB? no chance. I can name name several superhero movies that are better than that totally average flick.

[Dangerous]

I thought it was really cool the way JG and Bats worked together as a team to stop the train.

I guess you would have preferred it to have been all Bats, but that would have been less realistic and more in the realm of- seen it all before/ cliched movie territory.

[spider-neil]

I thought it was really cool the way JG and Bats worked together as a team to stop the train.




I have no problem with supporting cast members helping the hero at the climax but the hero should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!) stop the main threat. it's cliche but its cliche for a reason. a good example would be lois taking taking down the bombs with a romote switch while superman takes down luther, the main threat is the bombs even though luther is the villian who launched them.

look at blade 3 (RUBBISH!) bow and arrow girl takes down dracula which makes blade completely redundant, piss poor directing.

[The Joker]

I have no problem with supporting cast members helping the hero at the climax but the hero should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!) stop the main threat.

He did. It was Batman who gave Gordon the Batmobile and told him what to do. It was Batman who neutralised Ra's on the train. All Gordon did was do just as you said, he helped. Just like how Harry helped save MJ, and take down Sandman and Venom in SM-3.

Arguably, it can even be said that the villains in the Spider-Man movies are the instruments of their own defeat. Goblin killed himself with his own glider, Ock willingly drowned himself destroying his reactor, Harry jumped in the way of Venom's attack and killed himself, Sandman willingly gave up fighting, and Brock jumped into the pumpkin bomb.

[TheSlag]

It takes away from the story, and yet you're arguing in favor of a story where that very thing happens. :whatever:

It takes away from it BECAUSE All the Villains KNOW his identity. So when ANOTHER finds it out, you say SO WHAT. Same Story, second (HELL 5th) verse in Raimi's case.



You mentioned the passage of time between Peter quitting in comics stories. I'm pointing out that there was a passage of time in the movies as well.

And I am pointing out that in the comics you have more time to go into things like more in depth character exploraton, becasue you have more of them than movies. (comics one every month or more, movies not)



But you said above that such a thing takes away from the story.

And a Legacy is something that is left behind and impacts current events. Thus it would have to go beyond a single story.

See above. I agree about the left behind, as the legacy of being the only villain to kill someone Peter loves is. As far as impacting current (or future), we have both stated that it was WRITTEN THAT WAY so as to usher Gwen out and usher in MJ as seamlessly as possibly. Your repeating yourself again.



I take exception with its importance. You're saying its something that Raimi tobbed us of.

That's your right to do.



The cartoon reference was a simile. Just like Daffy's gimmick could only work once, so too could a gimmicky death like Gwen's. Got it?

A simile that made me smile, at it's stupidity. Yes, I had it the first time Sparky. And I explained why I think it would NOT be the same, and why it WOULD work. You "Got It"? :whatever:

So again- you argue above that villains shouldn't learn Peter's identity because it takes away from the story if his loved ones are placed in danger. But here you're arguing that it should be done not once- but MORE THAN ONCE :huh

And Gwen didn't die because of Peter using his power responsibly. She died because he was irresponsible and selfish. Not the same as TDK where Rachel died to show Batman and Law-enforcement's powerlessness.

And okay.. Name the events in the FOUR DECADES since Gwen's death that have matched its impact.

I NEVER argued that, I said it took away from the impact of that story WHEN EVERY villain finds out his identity.



No, it actually shows a real impact of the Goblin Legacy. The Goblin endangered MJ, so Peter chose to distance himself from her. Hurting himself to protect her.

So why didn't Peter distance himself from MJ when Harry knew?



And how many of his friends have died do to his being Spider-Man? None. MJ, Aunt May and Flash were injured and all quickly healed up, because they could only do it once.



And...How many friends have been hurt in the movies due to his being Spider-Man? Harry chose to place himself in danger. And its still not the same as a woman sharing her life with Peter.

Says who that they can only "Do" it once. You? You're the great authority here? And as I have explained, there are big differences between Uncle Ben's death and Gwen Stacy's death which you conviently ignore.



Okay.:dry:.

I'm good. :cwink:

[Chris Wallace]

I don't understand why everyone is so hostile with each other, it seems that having a different opinion is considered a crime or something.

Welcome to the Hype.

[Reikowolf]

I would like the studio to take all the time they need to make a good and well produced movie.

Unfortunately, I'm sure it stipulates somewhere in their contract with Marvel that they must produce a movie after a certain amount of time or the rights revert.

I bet they also have a 'strike while the iron is hot' mentality and feel that if they don't make it now, interest will wain after 2yrs.

bleh, I'm just hoping it will be good.

[spider-neil]

He did. It was Batman who gave Gordon the Batmobile and told him what to do. It was Batman who neutralised Ra's on the train. All Gordon did was do just as you said, he helped. Just like how Harry helped save MJ, and take down Sandman and Venom in SM-3.

Arguably, it can even be said that the villains in the Spider-Man movies are the instruments of their own defeat. Goblin killed himself with his own glider, Ock willingly drowned himself destroying his reactor, Harry jumped in the way of Venom's attack and killed himself, Sandman willingly gave up fighting, and Brock jumped into the pumpkin bomb.


batman could (and should) have been the one in the car taking down the train, this would have rendered whatever RAG was doing on the train totally irrelavent. it was a sloppy and frankly anti climatic ending.
seriously remove batman from the climax with RAG doing what he was doing and JG taking down the train, what difference does it make to the ending? none, JG stops the main threat AND RAG. what RAG was doing on the train was irrelavent once they train was blown off the tracks so batman and RAG are a subplot in the climax. RAG he could have opperated the microwave machine remotely such was his irrelavence in the scene.

a villian taking themselves down in the attempt of trying to take down the hero is fine and in many ways poetic.

[TheSlag]

Welcome to the Hype.

LOL, so true, sadly so.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Welcome to the Hype.

:awesome::hehe:

[Doc Ock]

Welcome to the Hype.

Oh, its always like this. :csad: I'll survive.....I hope......:p

[david icke]

I definitely agree with wanting to see that scene in the reboot, not so sure about it being at the ending, but maybe... hmmm...

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.
Like Superman III, taking a break from Lois Lane and giving us Lana Lang for a movie. I know that came about because Kidder fell out with the producers, but it was good to have a break from that dynamic for a movie.

If she just showed up in person for one scene, I suppose it would be much like Sam Jackson showing up in Iron-Man, with a promise of a bigger role in further movies, and a well known actress would agree to it.

[TheSlag]

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.
Like Superman III, taking a break from Lois Lane and giving us Lana Lang for a movie. I know that came about because Kidder fell out with the producers, but it was good to have a break from that dynamic for a movie.

If she just showed up in person for one scene, I suppose it would be much like Sam Jackson showing up in Iron-Man, with a promise of a bigger role in further movies, and a well known actress would agree to it.

I agree, I am just wondering if it's best to wait to introduce MJ at the end of the first movie, or about half way through the first movie.

I like the idea of her and Gwen both being in Peter's life at some point in the first movie. Obviously with Gwen as the main love interest, but with MJ around and starting to show interest in Peter.

Either way I would be happy with. Heck, it just makes me happy to think about them getting it right. I Hope.

[Dragon]

It takes away from it BECAUSE All the Villains KNOW his identity. So when ANOTHER finds it out, you say SO WHAT. Same Story, second (HELL 5th) verse in Raimi's case.

So what? Villains also always attack Spider-Man. Commit crimes, threaten lives. That's the pattern of a superhero story. And the circumstances were all different. Osborn guessed Peter's identity. Peter revealed his identity to Ock in order to SAVE LIVES (Since everyone he loved would've been killed by the reactor). Harry unmasked Spidey. Brock saw Peter wrestling himself loose from the symbiote. Peter was simply unmasked in front of Sandman. And each situation resulted in different conclusions.

And I am pointing out that in the comics you have more time to go into things like more in depth character exploraton, becasue you have more of them than movies. (comics one every month or more, movies not)

Again, so what? In Spidey 2 Peter had had a sufficient and believable period of time in which to grow frustrated with his life as Spider-Man and want to quit. What's your point?

See above. I agree about the left behind, as the legacy of being the only villain to kill someone Peter loves is. As far as impacting current (or future), we have both stated that it was WRITTEN THAT WAY so as to usher Gwen out and usher in MJ as seamlessly as possibly. Your repeating yourself again.

You're the one who brought up the Goblin's legacy. I'm pointing out that it isn't much of a legacy if it doesn't alter Peter's life.

A simile that made me smile, at it's stupidity. Yes, I had it the first time Sparky. And I explained why I think it would NOT be the same, and why it WOULD work. You "Got It"? :whatever:

Obviously you didn't get it, since you're comparing Gwen's death to Ben's which isn't the same thing (No simile there). Ben's death was meant to be a lesson learned and the driving force behind Peter's mission. There's nothing to be learned from Gwen's death. And it hasn't been repeated, so your point is moot.

I NEVER argued that, I said it took away from the impact of that story WHEN EVERY villain finds out his identity.

But again, since every villain didn't learn his identity in the same way, nor did they have the same reaction to learning it, it doesn't take away from the story.
By your logic they shouldn't all throw punches at each other either,

So why didn't Peter distance himself from MJ when Harry knew?

Because at that point MJ had made her decision to stay with him and face the dangers.

Says who that they can only "Do" it once. You? You're the great authority here? And as I have explained, there are big differences between Uncle Ben's death and Gwen Stacy's death which you conviently ignore.

Ummm... I know the differences between Gwen and Ben's death which I stated above. That's why I haven't addressed them. They don't connect.

And yeah. I'm saying it can only be done once, because it HAS only been done once. You have yet to back up your assertion with any fact. Again- point to another death like Gwen's that stuck. Gwen's death was for shock value. There'd be no shock value if it happened coninually, not to mention no supporting cast for the audience to give a damn about.

[Dangerous]

I have no problem with supporting cast members helping the hero at the climax but the hero should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!) stop the main threat. it's cliche but its cliche for a reason. a good example would be lois taking taking down the bombs with a romote switch while superman takes down luther, the main threat is the bombs even though luther is the villian who launched them.

look at blade 3 (RUBBISH!) bow and arrow girl takes down dracula which makes blade completely redundant, piss poor directing.

Your references to other films are irrelevant because we are talking about the train scene in BB. NOT any other film.

You think the hero should always be the beginning and end of all when it comes to saving the day in superhero movies and should not be helped by anyone else.

Me, I thought Bats and Gordon working together to stop the train worked great and reminded me of their relationship in TDKR.

[Dangerous]

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.

Agree.

I'd prefer if MJ was introduced later on in the film and was not the most important gal in Pete's eyes. That should be Betty Brant or gorgeous Gwendoline.

[TheSlag]

So what? Villains also always attack Spider-Man. Commit crimes, threaten lives. That's the pattern of a superhero story. And the circumstances were all different. Osborn guessed Peter's identity. Peter revealed his identity to Ock in order to SAVE LIVES (Since everyone he loved would've been killed by the reactor). Harry unmasked Spidey. Brock saw Peter wrestling himself loose from the symbiote. Peter was simply unmasked in front of Sandman. And each situation resulted in different conclusions.

And each villain knowing his identity lessens the value of discovering his identity, and the threat to his loved ones. Raimi's approach of having 5 out of 5 villains know his idenity, for whatever reason is lazy writing and film making. Period.



Again, so what? In Spidey 2 Peter had had a sufficient and believable period of time in which to grow frustrated with his life as Spider-Man and want to quit. What's your point?

I do not understand your point as to how this is involved with a Goblin Legacy of the Goblin killing Gwen, since it did not happen in Raimi's Spider-Man. YOU brought up the point that it WAS NOT a Legacy and WAS NOT significant since Peter DID NOT QUIT being Spidey due to Gwen's death. Which we both know was NOT the intent of the writers. So blame the writers for wanting Gwen out and MJ in if you want. I was simply saying that the two mediums (film vs. comic) allow for more stories, more in depth exploration of subplots and charactes.. simply based on the fact that there are MANY more comic arcs than movies.



You're the one who brought up the Goblin's legacy. I'm pointing out that it isn't much of a legacy if it doesn't alter Peter's life.

A) so you DO admit it is a Legacy :woot: (Glad you finally saw the light there at least)

B) And AGAIN, we have both agreed that it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spidey, etc. due to it was a device to simply write out Gwen and bring MJ to the front. I think with ALL the stories remembering Gwen and her death, and devices to bring her back proves it's significance.

C) it's your opinion that it isn't much of a legacy, that is your right to your opinion. You seem to be up in arms that I "dare" *gasp* to think it is significant. :whatever:



Obviously you didn't get it, since you're comparing Gwen's death to Ben's which isn't the same thing (No simile there). Ben's death was meant to be a lesson learned and the driving force behind Peter's mission. There's nothing to be learned from Gwen's death. And it hasn't been repeated, so your point is moot.

Obviously you do not get it. I said Gwen's death is NOT like Uncle Ben's, other than the fact that two people died that he loved. YOU said it would not work MORE THAN ONCE, which I took to imply you're saying in Raimi's verse Uncle Ben died, so they DO NOT need to show Gwen dieing. IF that is NOW not what you are saying, please explain your "it won't work again". I now assume you're going to say it won't work in the movies, since they did it in the comics? SO, if that is the case, ANY good story that worked (or heck, not worked .. not sure with you any more) will NOT work in the movies then?

Like Spidey No More in SM2.. Yeah, that DID NOT work. You're right. NOT!



But again, since every villain didn't learn his identity in the same way, nor did they have the same reaction to learning it, it doesn't take away from the story.
By your logic they shouldn't all throw punches at each other either,

How in the Hell do you make the jump that they should NOT throw punches at each other? If you think each and every villain finding out his identity is a good thing, more power to you, but I believe you ARE in the minority when it comes to that.



Because at that point MJ had made her decision to stay with him and face the dangers.

Your complaint is that the significance of the Goblin killing Gwen Stacy is reduced because Peter did the Cowardly thing by NOT telling Gwen he was Spider-Man. That is the way it was written in the comics arc. If you think it would of been a better story to have him reveal to Gwen his identity, that is your opinion, I do not agree. And I think it would be silly to reveal himself to all his friends/loved ones so they could make the choice to be in his life so he can be Spider-Man. And I do not think it lessens the impact of the Goblin legacy of killing Gwen.



Ummm... I know the differences between Gwen and Ben's death which I stated above. That's why I haven't addressed them. They don't connect.

Already adressed above. I think they do connect, but are definitely differenent and both moving in their own right.

And yeah. I'm saying it can only be done once, because it HAS only been done once. You have yet to back up your assertion with any fact. Again- point to another death like Gwen's that stuck. Gwen's death was for shock value. There'd be no shock value if it happened coninually, not to mention no supporting cast for the audience to give a damn about.

It has NOT happended in Raimi's Spider-Man. Period. It should happen in the Reboot.

[The Joker]

batman could (and should) have been the one in the car taking down the train, this would have rendered whatever RAG was doing on the train totally irrelavent. it was a sloppy and frankly anti climatic ending.
seriously remove batman from the climax with RAG doing what he was doing and JG taking down the train, what difference does it make to the ending? none, JG stops the main threat AND RAG. what RAG was doing on the train was irrelavent once they train was blown off the tracks so batman and RAG are a subplot in the climax. RAG he could have opperated the microwave machine remotely such was his irrelavence in the scene.

What the heck are you talking about? Did you miss the part where Batman messed with the controls of the train so it wouldn't stop?

If Batman had been in the car taking out the tracks, Ra's could have simply stopped the train before it crashed.

a villian taking themselves down in the attempt of trying to take down the hero is fine and in many ways poetic.

That's ridiculous. Spider-Man has not actively and definitively defeated one villain for good by sheer heroism in the Spider-Man movies. They've all either killed themselves, surrendered, or turned good.

You find that poetic, but you criticize Jim Gordon aiding Batman in stopping the train in Begins, even though without Batman, Gordon wouldn't have been able to help, and that train would not have been destroyed. It was Batman's plan, Batman's equipment, and Batman who made sure the train was destroyed while keeping Ra's subdued.

You've got a double standard about this, spider-neil. Especially when you call every villain in the three Spidey movies actively defeating themselves poetic. I sincerely hope that in the reboot, we see Spidey take down some of his villains by sheer heroism at the end. No turning good, no killing themselves etc. Lets see Spidey walk away after having beaten a villain who's still alive and in custody.

[spider-neil]

What the heck are you talking about? Did you miss the part where Batman messed with the controls of the train so it wouldn't stop?

If Batman had been in the car taking out the tracks, Ra's could have simply stopped the train before it crashed.


the train had to get as close to the wayne hub as possible to cause a chain reaction, RAG stopping the train would have served no purpose.



That's ridiculous. Spider-Man has not actively and definitively defeated one villain for good by sheer heroism in the Spider-Man movies. They've all either killed themselves, surrendered, or turned good.

You find that poetic, but you criticize Jim Gordon aiding Batman in stopping the train in Begins, even though without Batman, Gordon wouldn't have been able to help, and that train would not have been destroyed. It was Batman's plan, Batman's equipment, and Batman who made sure the train was destroyed while keeping Ra's subdued.

batman may set it all up but it was gordan who pulled the trigger. if you like that then fine but I always want the big pay off from the hero after all I am paying to see that hero.

as for spidey' villians killing themselves I see no problem with that whatsoever just like I don't have a problem with villians dying as I want to see a new villian in each movie. people talk about there being a 'sinester 6', I think you couldn't even do 'tyrannical 3' without it being a mess on screen.



You've got a double standard about this, spider-neil. Especially when you call every villain in the three Spidey movies actively defeating themselves poetic. I sincerely hope that in the reboot, we see Spidey take down some of his villains by sheer heroism at the end. No turning good, no killing themselves etc. Lets see Spidey walk away after having beaten a villain who's still alive and in custody.


I have no expectation as to how the villians get taken down in the redboot as I didn't really have a problem with how they got taken down in the original trilogy.
I did have a problem with how RAG was taken down in BB

a) batman didn't take down the main threat
we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, that's how I saw it.

b) batman didn't attempt to save him
'I wont kill you but I don't have to save you'. what the HELL is 'THAT' all about?:doh:
some hero.

anyway I've said my piece on BB, this thread has been well and truly hijacked

[The Joker]

the train had to get as close to the wayne hub as possible to cause a chain reaction, RAG stopping the train would have served no purpose.

Yeah, you're right. The villain and the microwave emitter surviving would have served no purpose at all.

:dry:

batman may set it all up but it was gordan who pulled the trigger. if you like that then fine but I always want the big pay off from the hero after all I am paying to see that hero.

Oh you do, do you? Ok, if you want to go down that road, then we're REALLY going to have some fun. Lets start with how Spidey has had his ass saved by someone else in all THREE movies:

Spider-Man 1: The people on the bridge saved his ass from Goblin impaling him while he was holding the tram and MJ. So they deserve the credit for saving those kids, too. Not just Spidey. Wow, who does that sound like? Gordon helping Batman, maybe? :woot:

Spider-Man 2: Aunt May clobbering Ock with her umbrella saved Spidey from being impaled on Ock's tentacle spike.

Spider-Man 3: Harry saved Peter's ass TWICE in the final battle.

And as we've already discussed, he never even truly defeated his villains at the end either. They brought about their own downfall. Yeah mate, I can really see how love to see the hero excel solo in their own heroics :cwink:

as for spidey' villians killing themselves I see no problem with that whatsoever just like I don't have a problem with villians dying as I want to see a new villian in each movie. people talk about there being a 'sinester 6', I think you couldn't even do 'tyrannical 3' without it being a mess on screen.

I'm not talking about the villains being killed off. But they can survive and have a new villain in the next movie, you know.

I'm talking about how they bring about their own defeat. Not Spidey.

I have no expectation as to how the villians get taken down in the redboot as I didn't really have a problem with how they got taken down in the original trilogy.
I did have a problem with how RAG was taken down in BB

a) batman didn't take down the main threat
we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, that's how I saw it.

Your logic for that opinion is very flawed, IMO.

b) batman didn't attempt to save him
'I wont kill you but I don't have to save you'. what the HELL is 'THAT' all about?:doh:
some hero.

So? He didn't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either.

You can apply that to Spidey, too. Did you see him dive back into the water to try and find Ock? Did you see him make any attempt to save Brock, like web him back or anything?

No. The villains put themselves in these situations.

[spider-neil]

Yeah, you're right. The villain and the microwave emitter surviving would have served no purpose at all.

:dry:



the real question is what RAG was doing on the train in the first place. the train had to hit the wayne tower to cause a chain reaction so RAG was on the train knowing that for his plan to be a success he would have to crash. RAG stopping the train before it hit thereby surviving the crash would have meant the microway e wouldn't have had maximum effect.


Oh you do, do you? Ok, if you want to go down that road, then we're REALLY going to have some fun. Lets start with how Spidey has had his ass saved by someone else in all THREE movies:

Spider-Man 1: The people on the bridge saved his ass from Goblin impaling him while he was holding the tram and MJ. So they deserve the credit for saving those kids, too. Not just Spidey. Wow, who does that sound like? Gordon helping Batman, maybe? :woot:

Spider-Man 2: Aunt May clobbering Ock with her umbrella saved Spidey from being impaled on Ock's tentacle spike.

Spider-Man 3: Harry saved Peter's ass TWICE in the final battle.

And as we've already discussed, he never even truly defeated his villains at the end either. They brought about their own downfall. Yeah mate, I can really see how love to see the hero excel solo in their own heroics :cwink:

you seem to be missing my point entirely, I don't have an issue with the hero being saved, I don't have an issue with the hero being helped, I don't have an issue with villians killing themselves in an attempt to kill the hero. what I DO have a problem with is the hero not taking down the main threat (or what I percieve as the main threat)

i.e. STM - superman ISN'T the one to stop the bombs



I'm not talking about the villains being killed off.
I can see why it would piss people off the villian being killed but personally it doesn't bother me. batman and spidey have the biggest rogues gallery in comics (along with flash) so I couldn't care LESS of the villian is killed I want to see more villians.



So? He didn't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either.

You can apply that to Spidey, too. Did you see him dive back into the water to try and find Ock? Did you see him make any attempt to save Brock, like web him back or anything?

No. The villains put themselves in these situations.


the difference is in each case spidey wasn't in a position to save the villian or you can bet he would have.

SM1 - villian kills himself, nothing pete could have done

SM2 - villian kills himself, pete is saving MJ can't be in two places at once

SM3 - spidey pulls brock clear, brock is determined to reunite with venom nothing pete could have done.

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.

[weezerspider]

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.


You don't know Batman then. Thats very Batman. Bob Kane would have had a boner from that scene.

And you really are just showing your biased towards Spiderman over Batman. Jim Gordon blowing the bridge is just like Harry helping Spiderman and Ock helping Spiderman.

You want your hero to defeat the MAIN threat? Spiderman didn't do that in Spiderman 2. Ock did. The main threat was that the city was going to blow up. Ock stopped it from blowing up. Spiderman knocked Ock in his senses to lead him to doing it. Hmm..... Sounds JUST like BB. Jim Gordon SAVES the city, like OCK. LIKE Spiderman gave Ock the sense to save the city, Batman gave Gordon the tools to save the city.

I think Spiderman 2 is better than Batman Begins, but Batman not taking out the bridge is the worst excuse I've ever heard for BB's 3rd act being weak. Personally, I love the fact that Jim Gordon helped him. Nolan once again shows Batman's humanity. He's not superman. He needs hlep. Also Nolan said the underlining theme of BB is Bruce trying to find a father figure, whether its through Ras, Alfred or Gordon. Its very "poetic" if you will, that his father-figure helped him save Gotham.

[Deaths Head II]

Batman saving Joker in TDK shows that him letting Ras die is out of character.

Personally, I think the only reason they killed Ras off is because there was no other way to dispose of him. He knew Bruce's identity. You can't just throw him in jail and forget about him.

[El Payaso]

I can live with Gordon helping Batman in BB (better than having Robin doing it), but Scarecroiw being defeated by a girl ruined everything for me. And yes, Batman could (and should) have saved Ras but he didn't. Now that could be true to a certain take on the character - hey, I love Batman killing in the Burton's movies - but after all the speeches about him not killing in the very same movie that came off weird to say the least.

[The Joker]

the real question is what RAG was doing on the train in the first place. the train had to hit the wayne tower to cause a chain reaction so RAG was on the train knowing that for his plan to be a success he would have to crash.

What in the blue hell are you talking about, man? What on earth makes you think the train had to crash into the building? If it did that, it would be destroyed along with the microwave emitter. It just had to reach Wayne Tower, because that's where the central hub was for the water pressure.

And even if he had to crash into Wayne Tower, he would have stopped the train when he saw the tracks being blasted. But Batman messed with the controls, and he subdued Ra's, too. Batman was just as responsible as Gordon for stopping it. Batman even moreso, because it was his plan and his equipment that allowed Gordon to help.

you seem to be missing my point entirely, I don't have an issue with the hero being saved, I don't have an issue with the hero being helped, I don't have an issue with villians killing themselves in an attempt to kill the hero. what I DO have a problem with is the hero not taking down the main threat (or what I percieve as the main threat)

The villains ARE the main threat.

LOL! No offence, but this arguement is getting ridiculous. The villain was always the main threat in the Spidey movies. And they always ended up defeating themselves, not Spidey. Spidey didn't beat Goblin. Goblin killed himself. Spidey didn't drown the reactor, Ock did. Sandman surrendered. Harry turned good. Venom killed himself.

These were all the main threats, and Spidey is not the one who stopped them. You see why I'm calling BS on this double standard you have here regarding Begins?

I can see why it would piss people off the villian being killed but personally it doesn't bother me. batman and spidey have the biggest rogues gallery in comics (along with flash) so I couldn't care LESS of the villian is killed I want to see more villians.

I don't mind one or two villains getting killed. Harry and Norman had to die, IMO. Nolan let Joker and Scarecrow live, which is great. Shame Heath has passed away though. Magneto, Mystique, Juggernaut etc all survived in the X-Men movies. Even in the old Batman franchise, the villain survival rate was good, as Catwoman, Riddler, Ivy and Freeze all survived.

the difference is in each case spidey wasn't in a position to save the villian or you can bet he would have.

No, the difference in at least two of the cases is that he didn't even try. He could have tried to save Ock after he saved MJ. But he didn't even try. He didn't make any attempt to save Brock. He just shouted "EDDIE".

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.

:whatever:

You obviously don't know the Batman character if you think that was out of character. Batman did not break his "one rule". He did not kill Ra's.

Batman saving Joker in TDK shows that him letting Ras die is out of character.

Not at all. Batman threw Joker over the side of the building. He deliberately put his life in jeopardy. So it was his responsibility to save him, otherwise he'd be a murderer if he tossed him over the side and just let him die.

Personally, I think the only reason they killed Ras off is because there was no other way to dispose of him. He knew Bruce's identity. You can't just throw him in jail and forget about him.

Ra's Al Ghul knows Batman's identity in the comics, too. They could easily have had Ra's disappear and return in a future sequel. Not to mention all his members of the Society of Shadows didn't die, and they know Bruce is Batman, too.

They could easily bring Ra's back using the Lazarus Pit angle if they wanted.

[weezerspider]

I can live with Gordon helping Batman in BB (better than having Robin doing it), but Scarecroiw being defeated by a girl ruined everything for me. And yes, Batman could (and should) have saved Ras but he didn't. Now that could be true to a certain take on the character - hey, I love Batman killing in the Burton's movies - but after all the speeches about him not killing in the very same movie that came off weird to say the least.

Eh, not really. The character is developing. He becomes Batman and realizes how sick the world really is and, while he doesn't deliberately kill Ras, he lets him die. With Nolan, its all about escalation. In TDK, this escalation for Batman continues. The Joker again shows Batman the world is much sicker than he originally thought. Batman realizes what he has to do to stop Joker and its to break his one rule. Its to kill him. Batman doesn't plan on killing Ras(or letting him die). Its a heat of the moment kinda thing. Not really breaking that rule, but yes, its quite toeing the line. He throws Joker over the edge because he knows how to end the Jokers madness, but the escalation stops. Batman realizes his mistakes. He realizes what he's done wrong. He's realized allowing Ras to die was much to close to breaking his one rule than he ever originally intended to go. He saves Joker. We need to remember this is still a young Batman, and as I recall, in the original comics Batman killed. He developed into a character who did not kill. We've actually seen this transformation in Nolan's films. Could I be looking too much into this? Yes. In fact, I know I am.

[El Payaso]

Eh, not really. The character is developing. He becomes Batman and realizes how sick the world really is and, while he doesn't deliberately kill Ras, he lets him die. With Nolan, its all about escalation. In TDK, this escalation for Batman continues. The Joker again shows Batman the world is much sicker than he originally thought. Batman realizes what he has to do to stop Joker and its to break his one rule. Its to kill him. Batman doesn't plan on killing Ras(or letting him die). Its a heat of the moment kinda thing. Not really breaking that rule, but yes, its quite toeing the line. He throws Joker over the edge because he knows how to end the Jokers madness, but the escalation stops. Batman realizes his mistakes. He realizes what he's done wrong. He's realized allowing Ras to die was much to close to breaking his one rule than he ever originally intended to go. He saves Joker. We need to remember this is still a young Batman, and as I recall, in the original comics Batman killed. He developed into a character who did not kill. We've actually seen this transformation in Nolan's films. Could I be looking too much into this? Yes. In fact, I know I am.

Escalation goes like this:

I will NOT kill, I am not an executioner - Ahem, well, I'll let this one guy die even when I can save him - ahem again! I will NOT kill! Seriously. From now on. Well, except if someone's pointing a gun against a child. But that's it!

More than an escalation, it sounds like a pendulum.

[weezerspider]

Escalation goes like this:

I will NOT kill, I am not an executioner - Ahem, well, I'll let this one guy die even when I can save him - ahem again! I will NOT kill! Seriously. From now on. Well, except if someone's pointing a gun against a child. But that's it!

More than an escalation, it sounds like a pendulum.

:funny: well Joker could be right. Bats could be just as crazy as him.

[spider-neil]

The villains ARE the main threat.

the main threat is the thing that will cause most damage in that moment

bomb or luther - bomb
bizarro or luther - bizarro

even though luther is undeniably superman's main/arch nemesis



:whatever:

You obviously don't know the Batman character if you think that was out of character. Batman did not break his "one rule". He did not kill Ra's.


I've read batman for years but never read silver age batman or bob kane batman (where the character carried a gun) but what I HAVE seen is the NOLAN universe and IN the nolan universe joker establishes that batman isn't a killer 'you're going to have to break your one rule (not to kill' not only that the mob boss also establishes batman is no killer, after batman breaks his ankle the killer STILL refuses to spill the beans saying the criminals know he wont break his one rule so they are more scare of joker.

so with all due respect, to HELL with bob kane's batman in NOLAN'S batman universe its establisehd that batman doesn't kill and in that same universe batman CHOSES to let the villian die KNOWING if he doesn't save him he will plunge to his death. if not out and out murder its manslaughter.
in the NOLAN universe it is out of character.

[spider-neil]

also

SM2 -
two things

1. peter moved to take down the reactor and doc ock stopped him, spidey WAS going to be the one to take down the main threat. besides which I don't have a problem with a villian finding redemtion destroying their own creation, that would have been like RAG turning off the reactor which for me works better than a supporting creator taking down the main threat.

2. how exactly could spidey have saved doc ock?
peter turns to see MJ about to be crushed, saves her and then swings away with MJ in his arms as the doc dies. where was the oppertunity for spidey to save doc ock?


SM3

spidey makes the venom cage, pulls eddie clear knowing he was going to blow up the venom creature, throws the bomb and eddie and the creature die in the explosin, where was the oppertunity to save eddie. spidey is fast but he isn't THAT fast.

spidey is no way shape or form responsible for any of the villians deaths and he certainly doesn't CHOSE for them to die.

[Dragon]

And each villain knowing his identity lessens the value of discovering his identity, and the threat to his loved ones. Raimi's approach of having 5 out of 5 villains know his idenity, for whatever reason is lazy writing and film making. Period.

And yet somehow Spidey 1 & 2 are seen as classics of the genre and the trilogy is one of the highest grossing franchises of all time. Maybe Raimi should give classes on "lazy writing and flim making". ....Oh yeah.. Period.

I do not understand your point as to how this is involved with a Goblin Legacy of the Goblin killing Gwen, since it did not happen in Raimi's Spider-Man. YOU brought up the point that it WAS NOT a Legacy and WAS NOT significant since Peter DID NOT QUIT being Spidey due to Gwen's death. Which we both know was NOT the intent of the writers. So blame the writers for wanting Gwen out and MJ in if you want. I was simply saying that the two mediums (film vs. comic) allow for more stories, more in depth exploration of subplots and charactes.. simply based on the fact that there are MANY more comic arcs than movies.

Okay. "This exchange brought to you by Slag misreading my post". I said I WAS NOT suggesting that Peter should have quit. WAS NOT. NOT. I merely pointed out that he had quit for lesser reasons than Gwen's death. I said the Legacy WASN'T MUCH OF A LEGACY (I didn't say it wasn't a legacy)
because it did little to change Peter's life. YOU brought up the point that this legacy was something that Raimi robbed us of, simply by not showing Gwen being killed. If anything, Raimi, in having Peter refuse to link up with MJ, in dealing with Harry's hatred of Spider-Man and ultimately suffering and dying because of it, in the span of three films dealt with the Goblin legacy even more than the comics did.

A) so you DO admit it is a Legacy :woot: (Glad you finally saw the light there at least)

Another misread Slag. I've been calling it a legacy all along.

B) And AGAIN, we have both agreed that it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spidey, etc. due to it was a device to simply write out Gwen and bring MJ to the front. I think with ALL the stories remembering Gwen and her death, and devices to bring her back proves it's significance.

No, those devices just reflect that alot of people like Gwen and think her death was Conway being a dumbass.

C) it's your opinion that it isn't much of a legacy, that is your right to your opinion. You seem to be up in arms that I "dare" *gasp* to think it is significant. :whatever:

No. I'm up-in-arms in that you're making it like Raimi made a bad series of films because he didn't give us one where Peter is really sad about Gwen's death. Because the films feature pretty much every other aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Obviously you do not get it. I said Gwen's death is NOT like Uncle Ben's, other than the fact that two people died that he loved. YOU said it would not work MORE THAN ONCE, which I took to imply you're saying in Raimi's verse Uncle Ben died, so they DO NOT need to show Gwen dieing. IF that is NOW not what you are saying, please explain your "it won't work again". I now assume you're going to say it won't work in the movies, since they did it in the comics? SO, if that is the case, ANY good story that worked (or heck, not worked .. not sure with you any more) will NOT work in the movies then?

Like Spidey No More in SM2.. Yeah, that DID NOT work. You're right. NOT!

No.. Obviously.. ONCE AGAIN... You misread what I was saying. I wasn't comparing Gwen's death to Ben's in my initial post on the subject. And I wasn't even talking about the films. I was talking about the comics. I said that THOMAS and CONWAY (Comic book producers) via Gwen's death were trying to spark sales by creating an atmosphere where "anything can happen". I said further that this was a false premise, since it could only be done once. This had nothing to do with Ben's death.

Again- I'm saying- that Gwen's death was merely a gimmick. And not necessary in the films since they had no true life-altering impact on Peter. All we'd get on film is again- a few scenes of Peter being really sad (As if we need more) and kicking the Goblin's ass, and the Goblin killing himself (Which we got anyway).


How in the Hell do you make the jump that they should NOT throw punches at each other? If you think each and every villain finding out his identity is a good thing, more power to you, but I believe you ARE in the minority when it comes to that.

Based on how popular these films have been, no, I'd have to say you're in the minority. While, no, I don't think the villain needs to learn Peter's ID, nor should they always have a connection to him, the Spidey films have nonetheless been enjoyable movies, even with some sparks of greatness.


Your complaint is that the significance of the Goblin killing Gwen Stacy is reduced because Peter did the Cowardly thing by NOT telling Gwen he was Spider-Man. That is the way it was written in the comics arc. If you think it would of been a better story to have him reveal to Gwen his identity, that is your opinion, I do not agree.

No. That isn't my complaint. I said that people in analysing Peter's guilt in Gwen's death make the mistake of focusing on her neck breaking due to a webline that Peter fired, rather than looking at his true mistake, which was not revealing his secret to her and letting her know that she would be in constant danger by sharing her life with him. i say it was cowardice on Peter's part because, honestly, he had no good reason for not telling her.

And I think it would be silly to reveal himself to all his friends/loved ones so they could make the choice to be in his life so he can be Spider-Man.

So do I. I never suggested this, you did. Again, Peter's freinds have only rarely suffered for Peter's life as Spider-Man. If anything, Peter has suffered more for their problems than vice-versa. But, as Gwen's death shows, a woman in a love relationship with Spider-Man is a definite target of his enemies.


And I do not think it lessens the impact of the Goblin legacy of killing Gwen.

I never said Peter not revealing himself lessened the impact of her death.

It has NOT happended in Raimi's Spider-Man. Period. It should happen in the Reboot.

It didn't need to happen in the Raimi films, which stand-up pretty well without it. And looking at the direction the reboot seems to be going in: "Ultimate Spidey in the Twilght of The Dark Knight" I could give a rat's patootie what they do.

[Dangerous]

And looking at the direction the reboot seems to be going in: "Ultimate Spidey in the Twilght of The Dark Knight" I could give a rat's patootie what they do.

That's all just speculation right now, you can't tell me you aren't just a little excited at seeing brand spanking new Spidey on the big screen?

[Dragon]

That's all just speculation right now, you can't tell me you aren't just a little excited at seeing brand spanking new Spidey on the big screen?

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems. The fact that they're doing it on the cheap causes new concerns. The fact that they're placing him back in high school, suggests they're appealing to the Twilight crowd. The fact that Ziskin and Arad are still on the films, and IMO they were a much bigger part of the trilogy's problems than Raimi, gives me the shakes. And finally, hiring a director that has a track record dealing with angst stories and not with dealing with action-adventure seals the deal.

I have yet to hear something good about the reboot.

[Dragon]

Oh and let's not forget that Sony, the ones who wanted to give us "The Vultress", are running this asylum.

[Eggyman]

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems. The fact that they're doing it on the cheap causes new concerns. The fact that they're placing him back in high school, suggests they're appealing to the Twilight crowd. The fact that Ziskin and Arad are still on the films, and IMO they were a much bigger part of the trilogy's problems than Raimi, gives me the shakes. And finally, hiring a director that has a track record dealing with angst stories and not with dealing with action-adventure seals the deal.

I have yet to hear something good about the reboot.

Spider-Man will be in it :)

[Dragon]

Spider-Man will be in it :)

Knowing these folks, I'm not convinced of that yet either ;)

[The Joker]

the main threat is the thing that will cause most damage in that moment

And that's the villain. It's easy to turn off a bomb or the reactor. The obstacle is the villain in the way stopping the hero from doing that.

It's why it was too late for Spidey to simply unplug the reactor. Ock delayed him for too long fighting him.


I've read batman for years but never read silver age batman or bob kane batman (where the character carried a gun) but what I HAVE seen is the NOLAN universe and IN the nolan universe joker establishes that batman isn't a killer 'you're going to have to break your one rule (not to kill' not only that the mob boss also establishes batman is no killer, after batman breaks his ankle the killer STILL refuses to spill the beans saying the criminals know he wont break his one rule so they are more scare of joker.

Exactly. And he didn't break his one rule, because he did not kill Ra's. I don't know why you fail to see something so obvious.

Should Spider-Man be blamed for Norman's death because he didn't jump out of the way of the glider and let it hit him? Or should he be blamed for Eddie's death because he threw the pumpkin bomb? No. The villains put themselves in these situations. Just like Ra's did.

1. peter moved to take down the reactor and doc ock stopped him, spidey WAS going to be the one to take down the main threat.

No, he wasn't. The main threat was the multi armed bad guy not letting him unplug the reactor, as was shown when Ock's combatting Spidey caused it to be too late to unplug the reactor.

It was only when Ock was subdued did Spidey get a chance to try and stop it.

besides which I don't have a problem with a villian finding redemtion destroying their own creation, that would have been like RAG turning off the reactor which for me works better than a supporting creator taking down the main threat.

Yeah, I got that. You keep going on about how you love to see the hero stop the main threat, but then you say you like seeing the villain be the cause of their own defeat.

Like I said, you have a double standard.

2. how exactly could spidey have saved doc ock?
peter turns to see MJ about to be crushed, saves her and then swings away with MJ in his arms as the doc dies. where was the oppertunity for spidey to save doc ock?

He dives into the water to see if Ock was still alive after he gets MJ out of harm's way. But he didn't even try. He didn't even fish his body out of the water.

SM3

spidey makes the venom cage, pulls eddie clear knowing he was going to blow up the venom creature, throws the bomb and eddie and the creature die in the explosin, where was the oppertunity to save eddie. spidey is fast but he isn't THAT fast.

Of course Spidey is that fast. He's fast enough to react to a car being thrown at him, he's fast enough to out maneuver bullets etc.

Don't even try and sell the idea that he wouldn't have been fast enough to pull Eddie out of there. Eddie being a normal guy with normal speed, too.

[spider-neil]

And that's the villain. It's easy to turn off a bomb or the reactor. The obstacle is the villain in the way stopping the hero from doing that.

how on earth do you work out a villian is more of a threat than a bomb? so using your logic after superman takes off his kryptonite necklace he should have taken down luther THEN gone after the two missiles? WHAT?!




Exactly. And he didn't break his one rule, because he did not kill Ra's. I don't know why you fail to see something so obvious.
the difference is in that MOMENT batman choses to let RAG die. we are not talking about spidey in self defense back flipping out of the way of a glider, we are talking about a 'hero' weighing up the options and CHOSING not to save the villian, he could have EASILY have grabbed RAG and taken him to safety, he chose not to, the oppertunity was there and he passed, again, some hero.

Should Spider-Man be blamed for Norman's death because he didn't jump out of the way of the glider and let it hit him? Or should he be blamed for Eddie's death because he threw the pumpkin bomb? No. The villains put themselves in these situations. Just like Ra's did.
again, that's not a choice that's self defense and instinct.




No, he wasn't. The main threat was the multi armed bad guy not letting him unplug the reactor, as was shown when Ock's combatting Spidey caused it to be too late to unplug the reactor.

It was only when Ock was subdued did Spidey get a chance to try and stop it.


the main threat was doc ock the second the reactor was out of control the reactor become the main threat because the reactor if allowed to continue would have destroyed the city.




Yeah, I got that. You keep going on about how you love to see the hero stop the main threat, but then you say you like seeing the villain be the cause of their own defeat.

Like I said, you have a double standard.



how is that double standands? I like the theme of remdemption I also want the hero to take down the main threat. the two are mutually exclusive.


He dives into the water to see if Ock was still alive after he gets MJ out of harm's way. But he didn't even try. He didn't even fish his body out of the water.
he knew he was dead. after all he isn't a literal octopus.




Of course Spidey is that fast. He's fast enough to react to a car being thrown at him, he's fast enough to out maneuver bullets etc.

Don't even try and sell the idea that he wouldn't have been fast enough to pull Eddie out of there. Eddie being a normal guy with normal speed, too.


have you seen the clip more than once? the bomb going off and eddie diving on the bomb is virtually instantaneous

[weezerspider]

also

SM2 -
two things

1. peter moved to take down the reactor and doc ock stopped him, spidey WAS going to be the one to take down the main threat. besides which I don't have a problem with a villian finding redemtion destroying their own creation, that would have been like RAG turning off the reactor which for me works better than a supporting creator taking down the main threat.

2. how exactly could spidey have saved doc ock?
peter turns to see MJ about to be crushed, saves her and then swings away with MJ in his arms as the doc dies. where was the oppertunity for spidey to save doc ock?


SM3

spidey makes the venom cage, pulls eddie clear knowing he was going to blow up the venom creature, throws the bomb and eddie and the creature die in the explosin, where was the oppertunity to save eddie. spidey is fast but he isn't THAT fast.

spidey is no way shape or form responsible for any of the villians deaths and he certainly doesn't CHOSE for them to die.

1. So the Villain, the bad guy, the guy we are suppose to hate, can destroy the main threat over the hero and its ok, but the only good cop in Gotham, who Batman has the upmost respect for, can't help Batman take down the bridge?

2. He could have atleast jumped in the water after the guy and try and save him. You know, atleast bring up his dead body. He did that for Norman. Why not Ock?

3. SO the hero with superhuman agility isn't as fast as normal man Eddie Brock? Spidey's super reflexes should have grabbed Eddie before he even had a chance to truly get away from him. Just another plot hole in a movie that has about as much holes as swiss cheese.

[Dangerous]

I aprreciate your concerns, and I also I wish Ziskin and Arad would drop out of the SM movies now- their input is good for nothing, but-

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems.

IS THAT A FACT?

Can you provide a link to this as official confirmation from Sony or Marvel?

I also hate USM, but as far as I am aware, one gossip website said that it being used as a basis for SM2012 was a rumor going around, that's all.

What I mostly want to see is PP/SM's personality's portrayed and realized correctly this time with an actor who is up to the task and plays it nothing like Maguire.

Aside from that I want plenty of action, mech webshooters and more faithful costumes. What I don't want is for it to play out like an extended episode of Smallville with way more soap opera than superheroing.

[TheSlag]

And yet somehow Spidey 1 & 2 are seen as classics of the genre and the trilogy is one of the highest grossing franchises of all time. Maybe Raimi should give classes on "lazy writing and flim making". ....Oh yeah.. Period.

One aspect does not diminish the entire movie, especially when other aspects of the movies were outstanding (Train fight scene in SM2, etc.). If we use your "analogy" here, then I guess I could point out that SM3 was NOT, and look, it had villains finding out Spider-Man's identity too.



Okay. "This exchange brought to you by Slag misreading my post". I said I WAS NOT suggesting that Peter should have quit. WAS NOT. NOT. I merely pointed out that he had quit for lesser reasons than Gwen's death. I said the Legacy WASN'T MUCH OF A LEGACY (I didn't say it wasn't a legacy)
because it did little to change Peter's life. YOU brought up the point that this legacy was something that Raimi robbed us of, simply by not showing Gwen being killed. If anything, Raimi, in having Peter refuse to link up with MJ, in dealing with Harry's hatred of Spider-Man and ultimately suffering and dying because of it, in the span of three films dealt with the Goblin legacy even more than the comics did.

Okay.. "This exchange brought to by Dragon bringing up the same point again" that we have already agreed on. :whatever: It did not have the impact that you define as significant (Spidey quiting, etc.) BECAUSE it was simply a written device to usher out Gwen and usher in MJ.

And IF it (Gwen's death) had little significance, as you say, why are there so many stories revolving around her character? Why is the Arc held in such high regard by the fans?

I know you're gonign to say it was a mistake with them writing out Gwen (which I agree), but regardless, mistake or not, Spidey quiting or not (due to the writing and intent of the story), IT IS held in high significance by the fans, as any google seach or common sense would tell you.

And I never said Raimi did not show us any aspects of the Goblin Legacy, (i.e. Harry dieing, Harry following in his father's footsteps, etc.), I simply said we did NOT get the Goblin Legacy of him killing the only girl Peter loved.



Another misread Slag. I've been calling it a legacy all along.

Perhaps I did misread here, although I do recall you defining a "legacy" as covering more than 2 arcs or somesuch. Too lazy to go back and quote it, and really do not care at this point. Guess your definition of 2 arcs was of a "Significant Legacy" then eh?



No, those devices just reflect that alot of people like Gwen and think her death was Conway being a dumbass.

Wait, so IF Peter had been written as quiting being Spider-Man, that would of reflected a "significant" legacy to you. But when stories are written where Peter is impacted by the memory of Gwen and her death is NOT? OK :whatever: Gotcha down.



No. I'm up-in-arms in that you're making it like Raimi made a bad series of films because he didn't give us one where Peter is really sad about Gwen's death. Because the films feature pretty much every other aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Quite an assumption there Sparky. Point out where I have EVER said the films (even SM3) was bad. Go ahead.



No.. Obviously.. ONCE AGAIN... You misread what I was saying. I wasn't comparing Gwen's death to Ben's in my initial post on the subject. And I wasn't even talking about the films. I was talking about the comics. I said that THOMAS and CONWAY (Comic book producers) via Gwen's death were trying to spark sales by creating an atmosphere where "anything can happen". I said further that this was a false premise, since it could only be done once. This had nothing to do with Ben's death.

Again- I'm saying- that Gwen's death was merely a gimmick. And not necessary in the films since they had no true life-altering impact on Peter. All we'd get on film is again- a few scenes of Peter being really sad (As if we need more) and kicking the Goblin's ass, and the Goblin killing himself (Which we got anyway).

Well, your point was in cannot happen twice, but again it has NOT happened in the movies. And if you want more of the damsel in distress (MJ) where Spidey always saves the day, more power to you. Me, I want more realism, hard grittier drama. That would include seeing on the screen the night Gwen Stacy died.




Based on how popular these films have been, no, I'd have to say you're in the minority. While, no, I don't think the villain needs to learn Peter's ID, nor should they always have a connection to him, the Spidey films have nonetheless been enjoyable movies, even with some sparks of greatness.

I doubt that, I think as shown by the threads and posts, most have a problem with all the villains to date knowing who Spider-Man is. And have a problem in general with all the mask being taken off so much.

And again, I have never said I did not like the movies. One aspect (villains knowing his idenity) does not Mean the movie will not be successful. This is Spider-Man after all.




No. That isn't my complaint. I said that people in analysing Peter's guilt in Gwen's death make the mistake of focusing on her neck breaking due to a webline that Peter fired, rather than looking at his true mistake, which was not revealing his secret to her and letting her know that she would be in constant danger by sharing her life with him. i say it was cowardice on Peter's part because, honestly, he had no good reason for not telling her.

Take that up with the writers, obviously I disagree. I think it would be a stupid storyline IF he revealed himself to ALL his loved ones and friends to allow them to choose. Because once a villain discovers his secret, presumably ALL his friends and loved ones could become targets.



So do I. I never suggested this, you did. Again, Peter's freinds have only rarely suffered for Peter's life as Spider-Man. If anything, Peter has suffered more for their problems than vice-versa. But, as Gwen's death shows, a woman in a love relationship with Spider-Man is a definite target of his enemies.

This is simply the way it was written. Logically, any friend or loved one of his could logically be the target of the next villain that discovers his secret.




I never said Peter not revealing himself lessened the impact of her death.

OK. Glad were in agreement here then.



It didn't need to happen in the Raimi films, which stand-up pretty well without it. And looking at the direction the reboot seems to be going in: "Ultimate Spidey in the Twilght of The Dark Knight" I could give a rat's patootie what they do.

All your opinion. My opinion is it should have happened in Raimi's Spider-Man. And as far as you giving a Rat's Patootie :whatever: about the reboot, seems like your making quite a big assumption there, and as a Spider-Man fan I would of "figured" you WOULD care.

But to each their own.

[©KAW]

Neo and Morpheus is fighting...

[spider-neil]

1. So the Villain, the bad guy, the guy we are suppose to hate, can destroy the main threat over the hero and its ok, but the only good cop in Gotham, who Batman has the upmost respect for, can't help Batman take down the bridge?
the director/writer can do whatever he wants I'm saying the hero taking down the main threat is going to have more impact than a supporting character taking down the main threat.

impact on the audience on an engaging and interesting level.
1. hero taking down the main threat
2. villian taking down the main threat
3. supporting character taking down the main threat
-
-
17. tramp on the street taking down the main threat
18. stray dog taking down the main threat

and so on

2. He could have atleast jumped in the water after the guy and try and save him. You know, atleast bring up his dead body. He did that for Norman. Why not Ock?
he was dead why bother? besides it leaves it nice and ambiguous if they want to bring back the character.

3. SO the hero with superhuman agility isn't as fast as normal man Eddie Brock? Spidey's super reflexes should have grabbed Eddie before he even had a chance to truly get away from him. Just another plot hole in a movie that has about as much holes as swiss cheese.

eddie was on top of the explosion before spidey even knew what was happening

[Dragon]

I aprreciate your concerns, and I also I wish Ziskin and Arad would drop out of the SM movies now- their input is good for nothing, but-



IS THAT A FACT?

Can you provide a link to this as official confirmation from Sony or Marvel?

I also hate USM, but as far as I am aware, one gossip website said that it being used as a basis for SM2012 was a rumor going around, that's all.

What I mostly want to see is PP/SM's personality's portrayed and realized correctly this time with an actor who is up to the task and plays it nothing like Maguire.

Aside from that I want plenty of action, mech webshooters and more faithful costumes. What I don't want is for it to play out like an extended episode of Smallville with way more soap opera than superheroing.



Hype posted this story a few weeks back:


More Spider-Man Reboot Details?
Source:Risky Business January 20, 2010


Yesterday, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios confirmed that (500) Days of Summer helmer Marc Webb is going to direct the Spider-Man reboot. In reporting on the news, the Risky Business blog has some possible more details on the project:

Webb, who has options on two sequels, will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.

The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.

So based on this, we'll be getting even LESS action and villainy. Just alot of High School angst BS ala Twilight. Now, it isn't confirmed, but then neither was the Vultress thing.

I hope to God it's wrong.

[spider-neil]

Hype posted this story a few weeks back:


More Spider-Man Reboot Details?
Source:Risky Business January 20, 2010


Yesterday, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios confirmed that (500) Days of Summer helmer Marc Webb is going to direct the Spider-Man reboot. In reporting on the news, the Risky Business blog has some possible more details on the project:

Webb, who has options on two sequels, will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.

The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.

So based on this, we'll be getting even LESS action and villainy. Just alot of High School angst BS ala Twilight. Now, it isn't confirmed, but then neither was the Vultress thing.

I hope to God it's wrong.


you can just see the double standands on this board

rumour - less money for the movie therefore less action more high school angst etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously BS'

rumour - spider-baby, vultress, vulture in charge of the bugle etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously true'

[©KAW]

Don't worry, I'm expecting a script leak from Jamie Vanderbilt's script any day now.

[The Joker]

how on earth do you work out a villian is more of a threat than a bomb?

The villain plants and sets the bomb, and the villain prevents the hero from stopping the bomb. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

No offence, but are you being serious here, or just trying to save face in this farcial argument you've created?

the difference is in that MOMENT batman choses to let RAG die.

No, he chooses not to save him. His blood is not on Batman's hands. That's the glaring difference.

again, that's not a choice that's self defense and instinct.

No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. Spider-Man could have spared Ock's life and drowned the reactor himself. Ock and MJ could have gotten out. He could have dived back into the water to see if Ock survived, or at the very least dragged his body out.

But he didn't.

the main threat was doc ock

Right. And as you said above, Spidey went for the reactor first, not Ock. See, you're contradicting yourself again, and just proving my point about your double standard.

how is that double standands? I like the theme of remdemption I also want the hero to take down the main threat. the two are mutually exclusive.

You're having me on here, aren't you? How in the name of god is the villain having a redemption and the hero defeating them the same thing?

Spider-Man never definitively beat any of his enemies out of sheer heroism. They either killed themselves, or turned good. There is nothing, repeat nothing mutually exclusive about the villain killing themselves or surrendering by choice, and the hero beating them against their own will.

Don't tell me you can't see that.

he knew he was dead. after all he isn't a literal octopus.

Riiiiiight, because people who go into the water never survive, or can be resuscitated :doh:

have you seen the clip more than once? the bomb going off and eddie diving on the bomb is virtually instantaneous

Wrong. Eddie took a dive into the symbiote, and then the explosion happened.

[weezerspider]

the director/writer can do whatever he wants I'm saying the hero taking down the main threat is going to have more impact than a supporting character taking down the main threat.

impact on the audience on an engaging and interesting level.
1. hero taking down the main threat
2. villian taking down the main threat
3. supporting character taking down the main threat
-
-
17. tramp on the street taking down the main threat
18. stray dog taking down the main threat

and so on


he was dead why bother? besides it leaves it nice and ambiguous if they want to bring back the character.



eddie was on top of the explosion before spidey even knew what was happening

1. I would agree with this statement in most cases, but not BB because Gordon isn't a secondary character who just happens to save the day. Batman figures out the master plan. Batman tells Gordon the master plan. Batman tells Gordon how to stop it. Batman gives Gordon the Batmobile to stop it. Batman gets just as much credit, if more, than Gordon. One could also argue that Batman was getting Ras and Ras's forces attention. Without Batman on the train, perhaps Ras could "know his surrondings" and stop Gordon.

2. So, if their dead, theres no reason to recover the body? I guess its not important to try and retrieve soldiers bodies for their loved ones. Again, Spiderman did this in sm1 with Norman. He should have tried and saved Ock and when he found out he was dead, he could still retrieve the body for a proper burial ex.

3. Can't argue here. I haven't seen that scene in a year or two.

[spider-neil]

The villain plants and sets the bomb, and the villain prevents the hero from stopping the bomb. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

No offence, but are you being serious here, or just trying to save face in this farcial argument you've created?

I see you skipped over my superman 1 example. no worries.
okay, RAG is on the train with the mircowave emitter. batman is bored and tired and buggers off to the batcave for some r'n'r, jim gordan takes down the train with RAG on it. the threat of RAG and the train neutralized.

maybe I need to watch BB again but I definately didn't get the impression the mircowave emitter could start a chain reaction from a distance (from the central hub of wayne tower).
we're going round in circles here so I'm going to have to agree to disagree. you think RAG was the main threat, I don't let's leave it at that.


No, he chooses not to save him. His blood is not on Batman's hands. That's the glaring difference.
now were entering the realm of semantics. the bottom is line there was someone who was alive and by batman's direct actions or inaction whatever way you want to look at it that someone is dead.

you could argue the same thing for spidey, his action or inaction caused his uncle to die but;

a) peter didn't KNOW his inaction would get someone killed, batman did.

b) the guilt practically destroyed peter, batman seems just fine.

if you're okay with that, fine, I'm not. again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.



No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. Spider-Man could have spared Ock's life and drowned the reactor himself. Ock and MJ could have gotten out. He could have dived back into the water to see if Ock survived, or at the very least dragged his body out.

But he didn't.

again, peter actually moves to stop the reactor but doc ock stops him saying he doesn't want to die a monster. peter defers to the doctor whose need for remdemption was obviously greater than peter need to stop the machine himself.



Right. And as you said above, Spidey went for the reactor first, not Ock. See, you're contradicting yourself again, and just proving my point about your double standard. I don't see how I'm contridicting myself

BB - bats and RAG are on a train that is going to crash, batman tells RAG he wont kill you but I don't have to save you (knowing full well the crash WILL kill him) and flies off.

SM2 - peter asks the doc how to stop the reactor, the doctor says you have to drown it, peter moves to drown the machine, the doctor says he will do it. totally the doctors OWN choice for self destruction. peter doesn't CHOSE the docs self destruction.

I have no idea why you see the two incidents as the same. put it another way if it were spidey on that train would he CHOOSE to let RAG fall to his death. I think we both know the answer to that one.
again, let's agree to disagree.




You're having me on here, aren't you? How in the name of god is the villain having a redemption and the hero defeating them the same thing?



I never said it was the same thing I said it was more engaging than a supporting hero doing it.

Spider-Man never definitively beat any of his enemies out of sheer heroism. They either killed themselves, or turned good. There is nothing, repeat nothing mutually exclusive about the villain killing themselves or surrendering by choice, and the hero beating them against their own will.

peter's sheer heroism came in 2 came from giving up his personal life to take up the heavy mantle of spider-man, doc ock finding remdemption was just the icing on the cake. very uplifting and satisfying ending, for me at least.

SM1 was a lot more bleak, gobin kills himself, peter gives up mj, not as satisfying an ending for me but still better than a supporting character taking down the main threat.


Riiiiiight, because people who go into the water never survive, or can be resuscitated :doh:
to be honest, spidey could have gone back into the water to search for the doc but that still doesn't mean he chose for doc ock to die, and he certainly didn't have time that batman had save a life.




Wrong. Eddie took a dive into the symbiote, and then the explosion happened.

to be honest I don't remmber that scene at the well I seem to remember the bomb and eddie's dive happening very quickly but even then it is a clear moment for spidey to catch his breath, have dialogue and then bugger off leaving eddie to fall to his death.

we are seriously going round and round in circles, I didn't like the way BB ended, that's that. it is after all my opinion, I apprechate that you did and that's what makes the world a wonderful place.

[Dangerous]

you can just see the double standands on this board

rumour - less money for the movie therefore less action more high school angst etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously BS'

rumour - spider-baby, vultress, vulture in charge of the bugle etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously true'

I never said that and neither did Dragon so I don't know how you are coming up with that.
I couldn't give a rats about the Vultress, I'm just glad Raimi SM is over.

But while we're talking about a movie that is two years away and virtually nothing has been confirmed other than it's ETA and tone, I am going to question the validity of it's 'direction' if one guy says it's going to be USM the movie.

Personally, like Dragon, I hope to hell it don't turn out that way.

[The Joker]

we are seriously going round and round in circles, I didn't like the way BB ended, that's that. it is after all my opinion, I apprechate that you did and that's what makes the world a wonderful place.

Fair enough. I was going to say lets call it a day on this, too, as we're both starting to repeat ourselves, and that's a sure sign that the debate is going nowhere.

Peace out, spider-neil. And Spider-Man 2 is for my money the second best superhero movie ever, right after The Dark Knight.

[spider-neil]

Fair enough. I was going to say lets call it a day on this, too, as we're both starting to repeat ourselves, and that's a sure sign that the debate is going nowhere.

Peace out, spider-neil. And Spider-Man is for my money the second best superhero movie ever, right after The Dark Knight.

TDK is my favorite superhero movie ever with SM2 number 2. even though I didn't like the ending of BB its still in my top ten and miles better than the TB 80's batman. peace out to you too :yay:

[The Joker]

Whoops, I meant to say Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight, then Spider-Man 2. They're my top two superhero movies.

[spider-neil]

Whoops, I meant to say Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight, then Spider-Man 2. They're my top two superhero movies.


I knew what you meant :yay:

[Dragon]

One aspect does not diminish the entire movie, especially when other aspects of the movies were outstanding (Train fight scene in SM2, etc.). If we use your "analogy" here, then I guess I could point out that SM3 was NOT, and look, it had villains finding out Spider-Man's identity too.

So only one aspect of the films reflect laziness? Then I'd say Raimi has done pretty well for himself.

Okay.. "This exchange brought to by Dragon bringing up the same point again" that we have already agreed on. :whatever: It did not have the impact that you define as significant (Spidey quiting, etc.) BECAUSE it was simply a written device to usher out Gwen and usher in MJ.

Pretty much. Everything is in the writing. Spider-Man is a great character because of the writing.

And IF it (Gwen's death) had little significance, as you say, why are there so many stories revolving around her character? Why is the Arc held in such high regard by the fans?

Because GWEN is significant. Gwen was a great character. Only her death was handled poorly (Great for Spidey, great for the Goblin, poorly for Gwen). Gwen was badass. And like the Goblin, she was missed.

I know you're gonign to say it was a mistake with them writing out Gwen (which I agree), but regardless, mistake or not, Spidey quiting or not (due to the writing and intent of the story), IT IS held in high significance by the fans, as any google seach or common sense would tell you.

Again, because of the significance of Gwen's character. And as I've said, the story- that is, the handling of Peter's character, was great.

And I never said Raimi did not show us any aspects of the Goblin Legacy, (i.e. Harry dieing, Harry following in his father's footsteps, etc.), I simply said we did NOT get the Goblin Legacy of him killing the only girl Peter loved.

Okay. So you really just need to see Spidey holding Gwen's body atop the Brooklyn Bridge? Well, as you say, more power to ya. I think the most important aspects of the story have been shown. That GweMJ didn't actually stop breathing isn't such a big deal (Well, maybe it is, considering what an annoying character she became).

Perhaps I did misread here, although I do recall you defining a "legacy" as covering more than 2 arcs or somesuch. Too lazy to go back and quote it, and really do not care at this point. Guess your definition of 2 arcs was of a "Significant Legacy" then eh?

Again- I've been saying it isn't MUCH of a legacy. It isn't about one arc or two or ten. It's about what Peter carried away from it. Realistically, I don't think he'd jump from Gwen dying due to his life as Spider-Man to dating MJ and placing her in the same place (And again not revealing his secret to her so she knew what she was getting into). I think he'd have taken a harder edge with villains- or at least those who are indeed killers (Meaning he'd pummel the likes of Carnage and Venom). And when Norman was brought back (Which shouldn't have happened at all) Peter's all-consuming obsession should have been gaining justice for Gwen. But none of that happneed. Thus the meaning of Gwen's death was nill.

Wait, so IF Peter had been written as quiting being Spider-Man, that would of reflected a "significant" legacy to you. But when stories are written where Peter is impacted by the memory of Gwen and her death is NOT? OK :whatever: Gotcha down.

Again with the quitting, Slag? How many times do I have to say that I DIDN'T Want him to quit. I put that out there as an OPTION for the writers. He could've started sobbing everytime he saw a girl wearing a hair cllip. Just something to show that Gwen's death made a difference in his life.

And his memories of Gwen are really limited to either Goblin stories or stories where he thinks about his love life. Or the instances when a writer likes Gwen enough to do a special like Spider-Man: Blue.

Quite an assumption there Sparky. Point out where I have EVER said the films (even SM3) was bad. Go ahead.

So all of this is how you show you like something? :wow:


Well, your point was in cannot happen twice, but again it has NOT happened in the movies. And if you want more of the damsel in distress (MJ) where Spidey always saves the day, more power to you. Me, I want more realism, hard grittier drama. That would include seeing on the screen the night Gwen Stacy died.

If you want hard, gritty realism a movie about a guy who climbs walls isn't the place to find it. And Gwen's death wasn't about realism. Realistically Spidey should have been able to save her. Conway wanted her dead and he moved the cosmos to make sure that happened.

I doubt that, I think as shown by the threads and posts, most have a problem with all the villains to date knowing who Spider-Man is. And have a problem in general with all the mask being taken off so much.

You don't really think the denizens of this site, let alone the albeit vocal Raimi Hate Squad reflect a majority do you? I'm talking about the millions worldwide that have loved and supported these films and don't give a hoot what we're discussing here.

And again, I have never said I did not like the movies. One aspect (villains knowing his idenity) does not Mean the movie will not be successful. This is Spider-Man after all.

Geez, one aspect? I even dislike more than one aspect of these films.

Take that up with the writers, obviously I disagree. I think it would be a stupid storyline IF he revealed himself to ALL his loved ones and friends to allow them to choose. Because once a villain discovers his secret, presumably ALL his friends and loved ones could become targets.

Okay- are you simply viewing my posts via SLAG-VISION? Because I keep saying that I don't think he should reveal his secret to all of his family and friends. I said GWEN- JUST GWEN. She would face constant danger by walking on his arm- sleeping in his bed- having his child.

This is simply the way it was written. Logically, any friend or loved one of his could logically be the target of the next villain that discovers his secret.

So can any person on the street. Spidey would fight just as hard to save them. But a woman sharing his life is a much bigger and more likely target.

OK. Glad were in agreement here then.

Shall we break into "We are the world"? ;)

All your opinion. My opinion is it should have happened in Raimi's Spider-Man. And as far as you giving a Rat's Patootie :whatever: about the reboot, seems like your making quite a big assumption there, and as a Spider-Man fan I would of "figured" you WOULD care.

But to each their own.

I've had to learn to let go of alot of Spidey because those handling it didn't know what they were doing. The comics died for me a long time ago. I haven't liked any of the animated stuff since I was a little kid watching the '67 cartoons. And now I'm not happy with anything I've heard about the reboot. Of course if it does turn out to look good, then happy days. But I'm not counting on it. And you guys who are assuming that a reboot means all your Spidey fan-boy fantasies will now be real are setting yourselves up for a fall, I think.

[TheSlag]

So only one aspect of the films reflect laziness? Then I'd say Raimi has done pretty well for himself.

One aspect was what this discussion was about. You know, ALL the villains knowing his identity.

While I think there were other aspects that were done poorly, I also think Raimi did a good job overall, and have never said otherwise.



Pretty much. Everything is in the writing. Spider-Man is a great character because of the writing.

Yes, but it (writing) was simply explaining "why" the death of Gwen did NOT have the impact to make it significant according to you.



Because GWEN is significant. Gwen was a great character. Only her death was handled poorly (Great for Spidey, great for the Goblin, poorly for Gwen). Gwen was badass. And like the Goblin, she was missed.

Not sure I would call Gwen "badass", but I too loved the character of Gwen. And I think the device that the story was written for (ushering out Gwen and ushering in MJ) was a mistake, and because it was only a device was poorly written, I do think it was significant, and turned out to be highly regarded storyline in the Spider-Man verse.

As various websites show, as the ASM 121 and 122 always rank near, or at the top of most fan polls.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-ten-spider-man-stories.php



Again, because of the significance of Gwen's character. And as I've said, the story- that is, the handling of Peter's character, was great.

So if it was "great", and if fans hold it in high regards, why would you not want it to be portrayed in the movies?



Okay. So you really just need to see Spidey holding Gwen's body atop the Brooklyn Bridge? Well, as you say, more power to ya. I think the most important aspects of the story have been shown. That GweMJ didn't actually stop breathing isn't such a big deal (Well, maybe it is, considering what an annoying character she became).

I can agree with you on the annoying character of GweMJ.

There are many aspects to the Goblin Legacy:

- Norman Osborn being a father figure to Peter (Raimi did ok on this aspect)
- Harry being like a brother to Peter (Raimi did a good job)
- mind games once Goblin discovers Peter's secret (Raimi failed on this with Norman, and kinda made up some of that with Harry. One of my favorite scenes in SM3 was the "Sooo Good" scene at the cafe between Peter and Harry)

The death/killing of the only girl Peter loves is a key aspect of the Goblin legacy.



Again- I've been saying it isn't MUCH of a legacy. It isn't about one arc or two or ten. It's about what Peter carried away from it. Realistically, I don't think he'd jump from Gwen dying due to his life as Spider-Man to dating MJ and placing her in the same place (And again not revealing his secret to her so she knew what she was getting into). I think he'd have taken a harder edge with villains- or at least those who are indeed killers (Meaning he'd pummel the likes of Carnage and Venom). And when Norman was brought back (Which shouldn't have happened at all) Peter's all-consuming obsession should have been gaining justice for Gwen. But none of that happneed. Thus the meaning of Gwen's death was nill.

And AGAIN, that was due to the writing, which was written only (at first, they later basically admitted they had made a mistake in writing out Gwen in such a fashion) as a device to usher out Gwen and usher in Gwen. So they purposely did not write it where it had such an impact on Peter's life, because they wanted to establish MJ, and diminish Gwen.

How many times are we going to go over the same point?



Again with the quitting, Slag? How many times do I have to say that I DIDN'T Want him to quit. I put that out there as an OPTION for the writers. He could've started sobbing everytime he saw a girl wearing a hair cllip. Just something to show that Gwen's death made a difference in his life.

And his memories of Gwen are really limited to either Goblin stories or stories where he thinks about his love life. Or the instances when a writer likes Gwen enough to do a special like Spider-Man: Blue.

I used the quiting example becasue "you" used that example. Feel free to substitute any other means of mourning by Peter you want, it still comes down to the writers chose NOT to show him mourning Gwen (at first) as a means to an end.



So all of this is how you show you like something? :wow:

It's rather simple really, it's called being a fan, and wanting the "best" for what you're a fan of (Spider-Man), and refusing to settle for anything but.

But yes, I have always said I enjoy all the Spider-Man movies, and own all 3 on DVD.




If you want hard, gritty realism a movie about a guy who climbs walls isn't the place to find it. And Gwen's death wasn't about realism. Realistically Spidey should have been able to save her. Conway wanted her dead and he moved the cosmos to make sure that happened.

So if it's a movie about superheros you think we cannot, or should not, expect realism? Think not. It's a given that the subject requires belief that a man can have superpowers, climb walls, etc to have a Spider-Man movie, but it does NOT mean that we cannot have realistic storylines.



You don't really think the denizens of this site, let alone the albeit vocal Raimi Hate Squad reflect a majority do you? I'm talking about the millions worldwide that have loved and supported these films and don't give a hoot what we're discussing here.

Yes I do, guess I give the "dinizens" more credit than you. And again, one aspect, given that it is Spider-Man, will not stop the "denizens" or the hard-core fans like those on this site from loving Spider-Man, or these movies.

And it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to aspects that should be imporved.



Geez, one aspect? I even dislike more than one aspect of these films.

As do I, but the "one aspect" was the subject of discussion here.



Okay- are you simply viewing my posts via SLAG-VISION? Because I keep saying that I don't think he should reveal his secret to all of his family and friends. I said GWEN- JUST GWEN. She would face constant danger by walking on his arm- sleeping in his bed- having his child.

Please explain why a villain would NOT be apt to go afer ANY of those he loves, as opposed to ONLY going after his main squeeze? That would NOT be logical. So by reason, he should TELL ALL so they can make their choice... again, by YOUR reasoning. NOT mine.



So can any person on the street. Spidey would fight just as hard to save them. But a woman sharing his life is a much bigger and more likely target.

Any person on the street is not a loved one to Peter.

So now your saying he should only tell those he would fight the hardest to save his secret so they can make their chocie? Sounds extra cowardly/selfish to me. :whatever:



Shall we break into "We are the world"? ;)

Not sure, hum me a couple of bars and I will probably know the words. :cwink:



I've had to learn to let go of alot of Spidey because those handling it didn't know what they were doing. The comics died for me a long time ago. I haven't liked any of the animated stuff since I was a little kid watching the '67 cartoons. And now I'm not happy with anything I've heard about the reboot. Of course if it does turn out to look good, then happy days. But I'm not counting on it. And you guys who are assuming that a reboot means all your Spidey fan-boy fantasies will now be real are setting yourselves up for a fall, I think.

I basically agree with your views on the comics and the animation, it feels the same for me.

And we (at least I) are not assuming, we are hoping that the reboot will fulfill our wants. Big difference, it's called being a fan and hoping for the best.

I have my concerns about things I have heard about the reboot as well, but I figure the best place to make our wants known is here on this site.

[Blue Gun]

I could wait a year or 2 for a new one.

[TheSlag]

I could wait a year or 2 for a new one.

Umm.. 2010 now, 2012 when reboot is schedule to come out.. *kicks off shoes to do complex math* :woot:

Ummm.. think that is 2 years.. *BEAMS with pride... and Mama Slag said that fine 6th grade edumucation (first in the family to graduate grammar school) would not pay off.

[Dragon]

One aspect was what this discussion was about. You know, ALL the villains knowing his identity.

While I think there were other aspects that were done poorly, I also think Raimi did a good job overall, and have never said otherwise.

So, to sum up- even though these films are in the overall good, villains learning his identity- even though they each learned them under different circumstances, for different reasons and with different results is problematic. Why? Because they can threaten his loved ones. And this is a problem because....? I mean the villains are going too threaten someone- that's why they're villains.
So what if they're his loved ones? I mean I agree that it always being MJ got tiresome, but....

Yes, but it (writing) was simply explaining "why" the death of Gwen did NOT have the impact to make it significant according to you.

Exactly. Otherwise all you have is her death, which renders it a gimmick.

Not sure I would call Gwen "badass", but I too loved the character of Gwen. And I think the device that the story was written for (ushering out Gwen and ushering in MJ) was a mistake, and because it was only a device was poorly written, I do think it was significant, and turned out to be highly regarded storyline in the Spider-Man verse.

As various websites show, as the ASM 121 and 122 always rank near, or at the top of most fan polls.


Gwen was badass. She was tough, brave and a scrapper. She WANTED to face the dangers with Peter (Which is why he comes off as cowardly for not being honest.) Again, you don't have to sell me on the power of ASM !21 & 122. I own them, and I love them.

So if it was "great", and if fans hold it in high regards, why would you not want it to be portrayed in the movies?

Because its a pointless event. Gwen's character would have to be introduced for no reason other than to be killed and so Peter can move onto his relationship with MJ. It's anti-climactic. There are many great moments in Spidey history that the filmmakers would do well in presenting. Defeating the Sinister Six. The Master Planner arc. Peter merely being sad because he couldn't save Gwen adds little to the movie franchise. And since we aren't going to see the Goblin implaed on his glider twice, the poetic ending is lost.

In the comics her death hit so hard because it was unexpected. She wasn't supposed to die. It wouldn't be the same in the films.

I can agree with you on the annoying character of GweMJ.

There are many aspects to the Goblin Legacy:

- Norman Osborn being a father figure to Peter (Raimi did ok on this aspect)
- Harry being like a brother to Peter (Raimi did a good job)
- mind games once Goblin discovers Peter's secret (Raimi failed on this with Norman, and kinda made up some of that with Harry. One of my favorite scenes in SM3 was the "Sooo Good" scene at the cafe between Peter and Harry)

The death/killing of the only girl Peter loves is a key aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Not key. Just big. All of the other aspects can exist independently of Gwen dying.

And AGAIN, that was due to the writing, which was written only (at first, they later basically admitted they had made a mistake in writing out Gwen in such a fashion) as a device to usher out Gwen and usher in Gwen. So they purposely did not write it where it had such an impact on Peter's life, because they wanted to establish MJ, and diminish Gwen.

How many times are we going to go over the same point?

None. I've made my point.

I used the quiting example becasue "you" used that example. Feel free to substitute any other means of mourning by Peter you want, it still comes down to the writers chose NOT to show him mourning Gwen (at first) as a means to an end.

And it would be the same in the movies. So what's the point?

It's rather simple really, it's called being a fan, and wanting the "best" for what you're a fan of (Spider-Man), and refusing to settle for anything but.

Well, you obviously have been settling for less and will contniue to until you yourself can make a Spidey movie. That's why I've been making my own.


But yes, I have always said I enjoy all the Spider-Man movies, and own all 3 on DVD.

Then you are a man of fine taste.:woot:

So if it's a movie about superheros you think we cannot, or should not, expect realism? Think not. It's a given that the subject requires belief that a man can have superpowers, climb walls, etc to have a Spider-Man movie, but it does NOT mean that we cannot have realistic storylines.

So who says that realism means something bad happening? It was in fact, unrealistic that Gwen died under the circumstances. That bullet dodging Spidey couldn't move her out of the way of the Goblin's attack. That she would suffer a fatal whiplash from being snagged by a flexible webline.

Yes I do, guess I give the "dinizens" more credit than you. And again, one aspect, given that it is Spider-Man, will not stop the "denizens" or the hard-core fans like those on this site from loving Spider-Man, or these movies.

And it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to aspects that should be imporved.

It has nothing to do with how much credit you give anyone. It's simple numbers. The people here, and especially those griping, would scarcely fill a theater, let alone the tens of thousands that Spidey played to. So those griping are not the majority by a long shot.

As do I, but the "one aspect" was the subject of discussion here.

Actually there's been two aspects discussed. Goblin legacy & villains knowing Peter's ID.

Please explain why a villain would NOT be apt to go afer ANY of those he loves, as opposed to ONLY going after his main squeeze? That would NOT be logical. So by reason, he should TELL ALL so they can make their choice... again, by YOUR reasoning. NOT mine.

Well.. In nearly 50 years of Spidey comics it has only rarely happened so I guess you'd have to ask the villains. or the writers. Maybe it's not draamatic enough.. But from a reasoning stand point, villains have other goals in mind aside from just hurting Spidey. Spidey has beaten them repeatedly, so I suppose they'd go for the girlfriend first to do the most damage in one place. She's the best target.

And Peter wouldn't tell everyone, because he can't be sure how much he can trust them. friend or not. Several of his friends have at various times themselves become villains. But he has to trust the woman that shares his life, as she must be able to trust him.

Any person on the street is not a loved one to Peter.

But he'd still risk his neck to save them.

So now your saying he should only tell those he would fight the hardest to save his secret so they can make their chocie? Sounds extra cowardly/selfish to me. :whatever:

I didn't say that, you did. I said he should have told Gwen. It has nothing to do with who he'd fight hardest for.

And do you really think Peter could maintain an intimate relationship, let alone a marriage and keep his secret? Just from a practicality stand point he needed to be honest with Gwen to avoid the many silly fights they had just because he wanted to hide his identity.

Not sure, hum me a couple of bars and I will probably know the words. :cwink:

The Michael Jackson thing: "We are the world.. We are the children...":woot:

I basically agree with your views on the comics and the animation, it feels the same for me.

And we (at least I) are not assuming, we are hoping that the reboot will fulfill our wants. Big difference, it's called being a fan and hoping for the best.

I have my concerns about things I have heard about the reboot as well, but I figure the best place to make our wants known is here on this site.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying I've chosen to be realistic. I gave up on expecting to see what I want in a Spidey movie with Organics and the power ranger Goblin suit. Sony will toss at us whatever they think will stick without going against their own likes and dislikes (Thus no Lizard and why we would've gotten the Vultress if 4 had happened). I'm going to see what happens, but I'm not expecting to be on the ticket line in 2012 at this point.

[chaseter]

This has become the Slag and Dragon thread.

[TheSlag]

So, to sum up- even though these films are in the overall good, villains learning his identity- even though they each learned them under different circumstances, for different reasons and with different results is problematic. Why? Because they can threaten his loved ones. And this is a problem because....? I mean the villains are going too threaten someone- that's why they're villains.
So what if they're his loved ones? I mean I agree that it always being MJ got tiresome, but....

No, to sum it up again for you, have EVERY villain find out his secret takes away from making it special when ONE (or two) does.



Exactly. Otherwise all you have is her death, which renders it a gimmick.

It was a gimmick in the way it was written.


Gwen was badass. She was tough, brave and a scrapper. She WANTED to face the dangers with Peter (Which is why he comes off as cowardly for not being honest.) Again, you don't have to sell me on the power of ASM !21 & 122. I own them, and I love them.

1) I loved Gwen too 2) for someone who loves ASM 121 and 122 I find it amusing that you are arguing AGAINST seeing those story arcs come to life on the big screen.



Because its a pointless event. Gwen's character would have to be introduced for no reason other than to be killed and so Peter can move onto his relationship with MJ. It's anti-climactic. There are many great moments in Spidey history that the filmmakers would do well in presenting. Defeating the Sinister Six. The Master Planner arc. Peter merely being sad because he couldn't save Gwen adds little to the movie franchise. And since we aren't going to see the Goblin implaed on his glider twice, the poetic ending is lost.

In the comics her death hit so hard because it was unexpected. She wasn't supposed to die. It wouldn't be the same in the films.

You claim it's pointless because it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spider-Man, or whatever. And for someone who supposedly loves Gwen and thinks she is "badass", you think her character (introduced into the movies) would ONLY serve as a tool for her to die?

I think Gwen brought more to the table than that.

Gwen's death would be unexpect for the general viewing audience. And who's to say they have to play out the Goblin's demise the exact same way (impaled by his own Glider)?



Not key. Just big. All of the other aspects can exist independently of Gwen dying.

I never said they couldn't exist on their own. And big aspect is a key one in my book.



None. I've made my point.

More power to you if you think you have. :whatever:



And it would be the same in the movies. So what's the point?

The point being the story has NOT been told in the movies. Have you been reading?



Well, you obviously have been settling for less and will contniue to until you yourself can make a Spidey movie. That's why I've been making my own.

I thought we just decided I had not settled, that here I was griping about something that in general had high acclaim. That does not sound like settling to me. But glad you are the KNOW ALL when it comes to Spidey and what OTHER Spidey fans are doing. :whatever:

Good luck with "your" movie. I have seen some of the clips, and I will refrain from stooping to "your" level and implying it is "settling for less".




Then you are a man of fine taste.:woot:

I couldn't agree more, being a Spider-Man fan.



So who says that realism means something bad happening? It was in fact, unrealistic that Gwen died under the circumstances. That bullet dodging Spidey couldn't move her out of the way of the Goblin's attack. That she would suffer a fatal whiplash from being snagged by a flexible webline.

The realism I am talking about is the fact that when one chooses this line of work, sometimes your loved ones pay the ultimate price. Sorry if you did not follow that.



It has nothing to do with how much credit you give anyone. It's simple numbers. The people here, and especially those griping, would scarcely fill a theater, let alone the tens of thousands that Spidey played to. So those griping are not the majority by a long shot.

You think the minority have a problem with EVERY villain finding out his identity, I think it's a majority. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree, cause I know of no way to prove either side.



Actually there's been two aspects discussed. Goblin legacy & villains knowing Peter's ID.

Yes but that one quoted item involved the point of every villain discovering his secret.



Well.. In nearly 50 years of Spidey comics it has only rarely happened so I guess you'd have to ask the villains. or the writers. Maybe it's not draamatic enough.. But from a reasoning stand point, villains have other goals in mind aside from just hurting Spidey. Spidey has beaten them repeatedly, so I suppose they'd go for the girlfriend first to do the most damage in one place. She's the best target.

And Peter wouldn't tell everyone, because he can't be sure how much he can trust them. friend or not. Several of his friends have at various times themselves become villains. But he has to trust the woman that shares his life, as she must be able to trust him.

Probably has not been written because having Peter reveal his secret to all his loved ones would make it LESS special when he reveals it to the few (MJ).. you KNOW kinda like the approach of LIMITING which villains discovers his secret as opposed to Raimi's approach of EVERY frickin one. :woot:

And besides, it would just be stupid too for him to reveal to every loved one.

But he'd still risk his neck to save them.

I never said he wouldn't. You brought up the every person on the street BS.



[qote]I didn't say that, you did. I said he should have told Gwen. It has nothing to do with who he'd fight hardest for.

And do you really think Peter could maintain an intimate relationship, let alone a marriage and keep his secret? Just from a practicality stand point he needed to be honest with Gwen to avoid the many silly fights they had just because he wanted to hide his identity.[/quote]

The same logic would apply to ALL his loved ones, and friends then, or else he is just being cowardly (according to you).



The Michael Jackson thing: "We are the world.. We are the children...":woot:

Never been a big MJ fan. Sorry.



I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying I've chosen to be realistic. I gave up on expecting to see what I want in a Spidey movie with Organics and the power ranger Goblin suit. Sony will toss at us whatever they think will stick without going against their own likes and dislikes (Thus no Lizard and why we would've gotten the Vultress if 4 had happened). I'm going to see what happens, but I'm not expecting to be on the ticket line in 2012 at this point.

Well, I can understand your frustration with some of these, definitely the Power Ranger Goblin, or surfer dood Goblin 2, or ALL about ONE girl, or.. or... or...

But I still think this is the best medium available to us to make our voices heard at Sony. Do I think it will make a difference, probably not, but I'm a fan and I will keep screaming from the top of the tower. :cwink:

And I hope the reboot will be great. I worry, but I hope. Come 2012, I will DEFINITELY be in the ticket line, and something tells me your kidding yourself, and you will be too.

[TheSlag]

This has become the Slag and Dragon thread.


I agree, and I propose to Dragon (for the sake of the thread and other posters) we take a que from Joker and spider-neil, and simply let it go, and agree to disagree.

[topdog1]

All you have to do is look at the tiny 80 million dollar budget and Sony knows that they have a potential turkey on their hands. The shame of it all is that they had the pieces in place to make Spider-Man 4 instead of this Spider-Boy reboot. General audiences will NOT like taking Spider-MAN back in to a teenager this soon. I'm a Marvel fanatic and I HATE the idea. Maybe after giving Raimi/Maguire one last shot and taking a few years off, this would've been acceptable. Now, this is a cluster flub waiting to happen.

3D or not, I'm genuinely unexcited and may even pass on this project. This coming from a guy who spent literally hundreds of dollars for friends and family to see the Fantastic Four films. My Marvel loyalty only goes so far.

[Dragon]

No, to sum it up again for you, have EVERY villain find out his secret takes away from making it special when ONE (or two) does.

Yeah, just like every villain commits crimes in every film. That isn't special either, right? Or does the fact that they commit different crimes for different reasons with different results make them special? Same with the villains knowing his secret.

The Goblin attacked his family.
Ock did nothing.
Harry threatened MJ with Peter's life, not vice-versa.
Venom threatened MJ
Sandman did nothing.

All different. The films are events, so I guess the producers wanted them to focus on the big dangers. We know that Peter has faced other criminals ("My enemies" Spidey 2). So not all of them know his secret. Just the ones the films focused on.

It was a gimmick in the way it was written.

The writing is the only way to define it.

1) I loved Gwen too 2) for someone who loves ASM 121 and 122 I find it amusing that you are arguing AGAINST seeing those story arcs come to life on the big screen.

Just because I love the comics doesn't mean it needs to be translated to screen. Do something new. Use other storylines that translate better.

You claim it's pointless because it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spider-Man, or whatever. And for someone who supposedly loves Gwen and thinks she is "badass", you think her character (introduced into the movies) would ONLY serve as a tool for her to die?

It would. Ultimately she'd still wind up dead.


I think Gwen brought more to the table than that.

Of course she did. Which is why killng her was pointless in the comics and would be equally pointless on screen. Gwen would have brought so much more story potential than MJ ultimately did. There'd have been no need to continually write her out of the storyline as with MJ. But since Conway couldn't see that, we're left with that "legacy".

Gwen's death would be unexpect for the general viewing audience. And who's to say they have to play out the Goblin's demise the exact same way (impaled by his own Glider)?

The Goblin's death was one of the best moments of the comics you so want to see. "So do the proud men die.. Crucified Not on a cross of gold, but on a humble stake of tin". Beautiful. The Goblin dying via his own weapon, which he used to kill Gwen is poetic.


I never said they couldn't exist on their own. And big aspect is a key one in my book.

Big= Shocking, powerful. Key= integral, supportive of the whole.


The point being the story has NOT been told in the movies. Have you been reading?

Actually it has. Or did you not see Spidey 1? The only difference was that MJ lived. Every other aspect is there.

I thought we just decided I had not settled, that here I was griping about something that in general had high acclaim. That does not sound like settling to me. But glad you are the KNOW ALL when it comes to Spidey and what OTHER Spidey fans are doing. :whatever:

If you're supporting the films and they're less than what you want them to be, then you're settling for less. Merely griping on these boards does nothing.

See, I actually like the films, so I'm not settling for anything. They're not how I would do them, but they're good nonetheless.

Good luck with "your" movie. I have seen some of the clips, and I will refrain from stooping to "your" level and implying it is "settling for less".

I don't even know what that means ("your"??). Since I'm making the film the way I want it to be, I'm not settling for less.


I couldn't agree more, being a Spider-Man fan.

At least we agree on something.

The realism I am talking about is the fact that when one chooses this line of work, sometimes your loved ones pay the ultimate price. Sorry if you did not follow that.

And most of the time they don't. So you're not looking for realism. You're looking to see Gwen killed.

You think the minority have a problem with EVERY villain finding out his identity, I think it's a majority. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree, cause I know of no way to prove either side.

The very fact that the majority don't come to boards like this to gripe about it. They go see the movies, enjoy them and move on.

Probably has not been written because having Peter reveal his secret to all his loved ones would make it LESS special when he reveals it to the few (MJ).. you KNOW kinda like the approach of LIMITING which villains discovers his secret as opposed to Raimi's approach of EVERY frickin one. :woot:

Peter didn't reveal his identity to MJ. She learned it on her own. Thus my point. He should have revealed it to Gwen, and it would've been special. And why do you think revealing himself to MJ is okay, but not Gwen?


And besides, it would just be stupid too for him to reveal to every loved one.

It is stupid. Both story-wise and character-wise. So why do you keep bringing it up?

I never said he wouldn't. You brought up the every person on the street BS.

It isn't BS. He would and does risk his life for every person on the street.



I didn't say that, you did. I said he should have told Gwen. It has nothing to do with who he'd fight hardest for.

And do you really think Peter could maintain an intimate relationship, let alone a marriage and keep his secret? Just from a practicality stand point he needed to be honest with Gwen to avoid the many silly fights they had just because he wanted to hide his identity.

The same logic would apply to ALL his loved ones, and friends then, or else he is just being cowardly (according to you).

No, the same logic wouldn't apply. He's been able to maintain friendships with little trouble due to his keeping his identity a secret.

Well, I can understand your frustration with some of these, definitely the Power Ranger Goblin, or surfer dood Goblin 2, or ALL about ONE girl, or.. or... or...

But I still think this is the best medium available to us to make our voices heard at Sony. Do I think it will make a difference, probably not, but I'm a fan and I will keep screaming from the top of the tower. :cwink:


And I have no problem with that. I wish you the best. It just doesn't matter to me anymore.

And I hope the reboot will be great. I worry, but I hope. Come 2012, I will DEFINITELY be in the ticket line, and something tells me your kidding yourself, and you will be too.

Funny that above you attack ME for being a "KNOW ALL", but it's okay for you to tell me what I will and will not do. I don't need to see these movies. No, I really won't be in line unless I see something really impressive in prior to 7-3-2012. Which I may. I haven't yet. But life's an adventure.:cwink:

[Superman-Prime]

I. HATE. SONY.

:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Doc Ock]

I. HATE. SONY.

:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

*high five*

[DACMAN]

You know I just thought of something. Those of you that think this movie is coming out too soon, DON'T GO SEE IT!

No one is forcing you to go see this movie. If you don't want more Spidey this soon just rent the movie years and years after it comes out or however long it takes for you to want to see a Spider-Man movie again. I will never understand how someone can say they are a fan of Spider-Man and not want more movies. I can understand someone saying "I hope it doesn't suck." I hope it doesn't suck. I want the best superhero movie ever! I can understand someone saying they think it might suck, but I will never understand someone saying "let's wait for like 20 years before we get more Spidey." Because guess what? The movie we get in 20 years might suck.

But any way, if you don't want it this soon, don't see it. It's not rocket science. The funny thing is everyone here is so going to go see it. Period. Anyone who comes here to post about a movie that isn't coming out for over 2 years is going to go see it the moment it comes out.

[©KAW]

I LOVE RAIMI'S SQUISHY CHEESE.

:yay::yay::yay::yay:
Fixed.

[chaseter]

Hey Dac...awaiting for you to respond to me in here.

Also...I would hate to find a post from you saying that SM4 was going to suck.

[Doc Ock]

DACMAN, not all Spider-Man fans want a movie, some only like the comics, some may only like the TV shows, some may only have watched and liked the movies. There are many different kinds of fans out there, many of who could care less about the movies.

[Superman-Prime]

Fixed.
You're an idiot. You don't need to do like that.

I have a good reason not to be happy with Sony. They should have work on the 4th film. I'm SICK of the reboot.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Fixed.

Cheese is a good thing. Being ZOMFG SUPERSRS!11111 is another. And yet, Spidey MUST quip, and they had better be top notch, not cheesy quips.:whatever:

[©KAW]

You're an idiot. You don't need to do like that.

I have a good reason not to be happy with Sony. They should have work on the 4th film. I'm SICK of the reboot.
Come on, you have three movies, THREE, can't you let those who want something different have ONE film? You cannot be that selfish.

[©KAW]

Cheese is a good thing. Being ZOMFG SUPERSRS!11111 is another. And yet, Spidey MUST quip, and they had better be top notch, not cheesy quips.:whatever:Cheesy quips are one thing, entire cheesy movies are quite another. You see, some directors can't control their cheese. They let it run all down their legs...until it covers their shoes. What we need is someone, anyone, who knows how to clutch it up real tight like...and control their cheese flow from within. :hehe:

[DACMAN]

DACMAN, not all Spider-Man fans want a movie, some only like the comics, some may only like the TV shows, some may only have watched and liked the movies. There are many different kinds of fans out there, many of who could care less about the movies.

There is a difference between not wanting a film to happen and just not caring about a film. If there is a Spider-Man fan out there that really doesn't want a movie (though I don't think so) all he/she has to do is not see the movie. I don't want to read about the Spider-Man Manga stuff. If people enjoy that version of Spidey good for them.

[DACMAN]

Hey Dac...awaiting for you to respond to me in here.

Also...I would hate to find a post from you saying that SM4 was going to suck.

Ok, AGAIN there is a difference between thinking a movie won't be any good and wanting a movie to suck. I will never want a Spider-Man movie to suck. Why would anyone want any movie to suck, even more so when the movie is about your favorite character? Why do I find everytime I talk to you I have to repeat myself?

And second, I've caught on to the fact that you're kind of a jerk. I've decided to stop talking to you. You pick fights constantly. If you want to consider this a win go nuts as long as understand that I'm done repeating myself to you. Life is too short to post the same thing over and over because the guy reading isn't smart enough to get it the dozen times. So I'm done conversing with you. In fact I think I'm going to stop talking to you in mid sente.....

[chaseter]

So, I post a link to refute you and I am a jerk? I then make a friendly bet because I am positive I am right and you are wrong...but you refuse. At least you stopped blabbing false hoods about Raimi.

Dac, I had to listen to you for 3 years in here griping and whining about how much you dislike Raimi, how much you disliked SM3, and how much you will dislike SM4. The shoe is on the other foot now.

[DACMAN]

I never said I was going to hate Spider-Man 4. I was concerned about some of the things I was hearing. "Vulturess"? I think everyone was worried.

And the difference between you and me is I wanted Spider-Man 3 to be awesome. I really enjoyed a lot of things about Spider-Man 1 and 2 just to see Raimi ruin them in 3 (even though I enjoyed some parts of 3). I can never look past the fact he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. I'm sure that will be one of the first things they fix in this reboot. And while I wanted Spider-Man 3 to be awesome, you seem pretty dead set against this movie even though you haven't seen it yet. I'll never want anything Spider-Man related to suck.

[RustyCage]

So quantity > quality? You should look into the Twilight series.

I never said a thing about sacrificing quality. I'd appreciate it if you didn't say I said things that I didn't. Of course I value quality. What a rubbish retort.

But here's something that might come as a surprise to you: Time is not equal to quality, and it CAN be wasted. You, as a Spidey fan, should know that last bit by now. Spending more time on a movie doesn't automatically make it better than if it had come out sooner. To assume so is naive, reckless, and unproductive.

Further, what impact does the Twilight series have on Spider-man besides potentially competing for box office winnings? Spider-man is not Twilight, they'll make Spidey how they make Spidey. Twilight sucks because Twilight sucks. It's got nothing to do with how fast the movies are released.

[RustyCage]

I never said I was going to hate Spider-Man 4. I was concerned about some of the things I was hearing. "Vulturess"? I think everyone was worried.

What is it with this guy and pretending people have said things that they haven't, and then arguing with said unsaid things as if he's making some kind of relevant point? :doh:

[DACMAN]

It's called a "straw man argument." He does it all the time. He's not the worst though. That would be venomvsspidey.

[DACMAN]

I never said a thing about sacrificing quality. I'd appreciate it if you didn't say I said things that I didn't. Of course I value quality. What a rubbish retort.

But here's something that might come as a surprise to you: Time is not equal to quality, and it CAN be wasted. You, as a Spidey fan, should know that last bit by now. Spending more time on a movie doesn't automatically make it better than if it had come out sooner. To assume so is naive, reckless, and unproductive.

Further, what impact does the Twilight series have on Spider-man besides potentially competing for box office winnings? Spider-man is not Twilight, they'll make Spidey how they make Spidey. Twilight sucks because Twilight sucks. It's got nothing to do with how fast the movies are released.

All good points. Not to mention the movie isn't even coming out right after 3. We're getting it a full 5 years later! That's a while. Spider-Man 2 came out 2 years later! The Dark Knight came out 3 years after Batman Begins, while the HULK even took 5 years before the reboot.

How can these guys run around screaming they don't want another Spider-Man movie and still call themselves fans? I would even take Raimi's Vulturess SM4 movie over no movie at all. I love me some Spidey.

[©KAW]

And the difference between you and me is I wanted Spider-Man 3 to be awesome.The trailers were AWESOME (they fooled the :super:HIT out of me) it's the actually movie that wasn't. :cmad:

[RustyCage]

@DAC

:funny: I dunno about settling for Vulturess, unless it was shockingly well written and Raimi miraculously fixed Peter/Spidey/MJ's characters. Even then I'd still have that bitter taste of improperly cooked symbiote in my mouth. Siiigh.

But yeah, I was making a very similar point around page 5 that you replied to quite nicely. :up:

[Deaths Head II]

All good points. Not to mention the movie isn't even coming out right after 3. We're getting it a full 5 years later! That's a while. Spider-Man 2 came out 2 years later! The Dark Knight came out 3 years after Batman Begins, while the HULK even took 5 years before the reboot.

How can these guys run around screaming they don't want another Spider-Man movie and still call themselves fans? I would even take Raimi's Vulturess SM4 movie over no movie at all. I love me some Spidey.

I am very happy to have another Spider-Man film but I'm worried about having a reboot this early all the same. Not just what it means for Spider-Man but what it means for super hero films as a whole.