The Official "I Loved Raimi's Spider-Man' Thread - Part 1 of 99 Luft - Part 7

[The Strategos]

Indeed, Batman has the day to sleep but Spidey has studies and work. Bully for Batman !

[roach]

Originally Posted by The Strategos

Indeed, Batman has the day to sleep but Spidey has studies and work. Bully for Batman !

Batman doesn't sleep...he gives crime 10 hours to get out of town

[The Strategos]

Ha Ha but I remember in the one Batman comic I read Alfred waking the Dick Grayson Batman at 5 in the afternoon!

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by roach

though the funny thing is some of the gripes(some not all) people had with the Raimi series were present in this movie.....constant unmasking....people finding out Peter is Spider-man....

From what I understand (as someone who still hasn't seen TASM), Peter is unmasked even more in this movie, this is my biggest gripe about Ultimate Spider-Man comics, was hoping it doesn't get implemented to the letter, but it happened, which is sad

vague use of spider sense....

I thought it was used properly in the Raimi films, need to see if this is done as well in the new movie

villain becoming good at the end

Funny thing is, only Norman and Venom didn't go through that, and Norman initially didn't like the killings the Goblin did, but then became what Webb said about Spidey in the carjacker scene, power drunk

Originally Posted by The Strategos

Indeed, Batman has the day to sleep but Spidey has studies and work. Bully for Batman !

He barely sleeps, day time for business, evening for women, night time till dawn for crime fighting
He's a fool

[The Strategos]

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

He barely sleeps, day time for business, evening for women, night time till dawn for crime fighting
He's a fool

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, I saw TASM tonight, and it was decent, but for me the first two Spiderman movies were better movies and better Spiderman movies. Raimi just nailed Spidey's origin, and the one in TASM just couldnt hold a candle to it. Uncle Ben's death was also much more emotional in Raimi's version, in TASM I felt very little, Raimi's movie to this day still nearly has me in tears.

The one thing I will give TASM over the Raimi movies was the way Spiderman moved, TASM nailed this, his athleticism, everything was great in TASM were as it wasnt always the case in Raimi's movies. Overall though, Spiderman 1 and especially Spiderman 2 are the the top two Spidey movies in current existence.

[Venom75]

Just finished watching part 3 and you have to admit that even if the entire film didn't live up to the expectations of some,the movie had some AWESOME fight scenes and moments. The moment I love the most is Peter removing the black suit in the tower and Venom's birth. Spider-man 3 is the one film of the trilogy I could watch over and over and it really doesn't lag in too many places.

[roach]

hahahahahaha I just thought of something. The new movie had organic webbing.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

the spiders were bred to weave the super webbing that Oscorp sells. This is what Peter bought and used.

[Leenie]

Originally Posted by Venom75

Just finished watching part 3 and you have to admit that even if the entire film didn't live up to the expectations of some,the movie had some AWESOME fight scenes and moments. The moment I love the most is Peter removing the black suit in the tower and Venom's birth. Spider-man 3 is the one film of the trilogy I could watch over and over and it really doesn't lag in too many places.

That sums up my feelings on Spider-Man 3 ... Well, for the most part.

Was it a disappointing film in comparison to Spider-Man 2? Of course it was. Was it the worst movie ever? No way.

I think Spider-Man 3 is a serviceable movie with some genuinely fantastic moments.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I'm sorry but Raimi had the comics, STM, B89 and many other movies to look at. In fact he did, as SM1 followed the classic STM structure. And in SM1 you can see all the elements, humour included, used in every superhero movie previous to that.

But he didn't have a movie to follow that uniquely captured Spider-Man as a character. Raimi had to take a completely new approach to the physical display of Spider-Man which neither STM or B'89 could compare to.

And he neither made use of the campiness of Superman or the dark expressionism of Batman. There are certainly going to be elements shared by every superhero film. That's why its a genre. But Spider-Man was clearly a different approach to the genre.

I have to say that, even when with many inaccuracies, Batman's origin in BB was the only one I can remember that fully explained the character's motivations.

Spider-Man 1 absolutely explained Peter's motivations and quite effectively. We know how he got his powers, and we understand his choices- both good and bad in the use of them.

Well, it's not like Raimi's Spider-movies broke any relevant ground either. It might have broken BO records, but not much else. That doesn't deny any of its merits.

It did. Up until Spidey 1 there had been 2 approaches to superhero films. High camp or blood and guts. X1 found itself somewhere in between, but borrowed too much from the Matrix to be anything unique. The reason Spidey1 broke records is because Raimi found a way to connect to the larger audience in a way that the previous films hadn't. Not to mention the ground-breaking effects without which none of the current superhero films could have been done.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

We can simply agree to disagree. Begins and TAS-M were pretty great films, and even if I rated Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 above the reboot, it's still a fantastic film in my eyes and I can't wait for a sequel. Besides, I still rate '89 Batman above BB yet I LOVE Nolan's films.

Then we're mostly in agreement.

But....you're complaining that ten years was reduced to seven? Before that "ninja school", he did travel and placed himself into the criminal element himself. That's research in itself.

That was silly- A-characteristic research. Bruce Wayne wouldn't have done that- and would've gained nothing from it. And since Nolan's films were supposed to be "realistic" a ninja school in the Himalayas isn't too good a start. Neither is Bruce somehwo becoming the best in the class- above those who had been studying longer than him to the point where he can defeat EVERYONE at once. In the comics Bruce travels all over the world, driven to improve himself and increase his knowledge. If Batman is the world's most dangerous combatant, it isn't because he's magically the best at martial arts. It's because of his vast array of knowledge- including psychologically being able to find his opponent's weakness. None of that was touched upon in Begins.

It is breaking ground by having this story of OsCorp, Norman Osborn and the parents which IS new. If they have a story in placed, no wonder they didn't bother to show everything off in the first film.

Okay- the parent story isn't new. And it isn't very good. The great thing about Peter's story is the randomness of it. He's a normal guy and this 1 in a million event happens to him. Making the one in a million event into something that had been in the planning stages before Peter was born ruins a key element to his story- and also brings up a major gripe that Raimi-haters crammed down everyone's throats- that all of his movie villains are connected to Peter in some way. TASM takes the connection and makes it damn near conjoined status. And again- this is having had Raimi's films to base itself on. New ground is NOT going back to the origin. Doing things to make Peter closer to the comics such as being inventive (Not as in TASM a super genius who can help Connors complete his life's work at the age of 17) letting his character develop and move forward in terms of relationships and his approach to crime fighting. Letting his supporting cast move forward. Have Aunt May develop a life for herself post-Ben. Have his love interest be more than a pretty dolt or a pretty genius who's life revolves around Peter.

Show how Peter deals with the world, rather than how the world conforms and closes in around Peter (My parents did this and that- this and that was done to my parents and now its being done to me).

[henzINNIT]

I watched TASM. Yeah it's alright. The saddest thing about rebooting is in the effort to be as different as possible, the producers have to drop as many things that worked about the old films as the ones that could be improved.

I liked the humour of Garfield's Parker. He definitely did a good job, but I still think I prefer the overall approach of Raimi's films. Maguire's Parker may have been slightly goofy, but he had a sweetness that was easy to root for.

[The Strategos]

Can anybody tell me how close it came to this prediction from years back ?

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Then we're mostly in agreement.

Very true.

That was silly- A-characteristic research. Bruce Wayne wouldn't have done that- and would've gained nothing from it. And since Nolan's films were supposed to be "realistic" a ninja school in the Himalayas isn't too good a start. Neither is Bruce somehwo becoming the best in the class- above those who had been studying longer than him to the point where he can defeat EVERYONE at once. In the comics Bruce travels all over the world, driven to improve himself and increase his knowledge. If Batman is the world's most dangerous combatant, it isn't because he's magically the best at martial arts. It's because of his vast array of knowledge- including psychologically being able to find his opponent's weakness. None of that was touched upon in Begins.

It's funny how Nolan bringing up a "realistic" aspect gives people the right to bring that term up whenever Nolan doesn't show something "realistic". Quite hilarious actually. It's not like his films aren't CBMs that would naturally have some comic-y feeling to it that would contradict true realism and Nolan can't just stray away from it.

And where did you get Batman was the best? He only fought the decoy Ra's, four guards in the Narrows and narrowly beat the real Ra's al Ghul. That doesn't tell me he became the best already; that just shows me that a train spiraling out of control helped him with Ra's, a piece of wood helped him with the decoy and a fall helped him with the other guards.

And let's not bring up how Nolan didn't bring up Batman's knowledge, psychologically; all directors can't achieve all spectrums of a hero as Raimi didn't use Peter's/Spidey's intelligence fully or enough as well.

Okay- the parent story isn't new. And it isn't very good. The great thing about Peter's story is the randomness of it. He's a normal guy and this 1 in a million event happens to him. Making the one in a million event into something that had been in the planning stages before Peter was born ruins a key element to his story- and also brings up a major gripe that Raimi-haters crammed down everyone's throats- that all of his movie villains are connected to Peter in some way. TASM takes the connection and makes it damn near conjoined status. And again- this is having had Raimi's films to base itself on. New ground is NOT going back to the origin. Doing things to make Peter closer to the comics such as being inventive (Not as in TASM a super genius who can help Connors complete his life's work at the age of 17) letting his character develop and move forward in terms of relationships and his approach to crime fighting. Letting his supporting cast move forward. Have Aunt May develop a life for herself post-Ben. Have his love interest be more than a pretty dolt or a pretty genius who's life revolves around Peter.

Show how Peter deals with the world, rather than how the world conforms and closes in around Peter (My parents did this and that- this and that was done to my parents and now its being done to me).

Are we speaking of something that's not new that's already been shown before? Because you say the parents thing isn't new, then I'll say nothing in Raimi's films are new except for the lazy addition of organic webbing and if I bring that then, what's this "breaking ground" you speak of that Raimi did? Box office records, sure, but nothing else. But let's not forget that TAS-M did just break ground that Spider-Man 2 couldn't achieve by making $1.4 million more on the 4th of July than S-M 2.

[Lord]

TASM had 3D

[The Joker]

After seeing TASM today, I can say Spider-Man 2 still has not been topped, IMO. But I liked TASM better than Spider-Man 1 and 3.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

After seeing TASM today, I can say Spider-Man 2 still has not been topped, IMO. But I liked TASM better than Spider-Man 1 and 3.

I knew that ever since TAS-M was first announced, lol.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Dragon

But he didn't have a movie to follow that uniquely captured Spider-Man as a character. Raimi had to take a completely new approach to the physical display of Spider-Man which neither STM or B'89 could compare to.

Physically, yes. Although he took a lot from the Matrix.

Originally Posted by Dragon

And he neither made use of the campiness of Superman or the dark expressionism of Batman.

It took the cheese in Superman and took it to the extreme. Some jokes wouldn't have felt okay even in the 70's.

Originally Posted by Dragon

There are certainly going to be elements shared by every superhero film. That's why its a genre. But Spider-Man was clearly a different approach to the genre.

I'm still trying to figure out what that difference could be. I mean, THE big difference, not details.

Originally Posted by Dragon

Spider-Man 1 absolutely explained Peter's motivations and quite effectively. We know how he got his powers, and we understand his choices- both good and bad in the use of them.

In that case every superhero origin movie has.

STM: Jor-El told Supes to fight crime. B89: revenge. Etc.

Originally Posted by Dragon

It did. Up until Spidey 1 there had been 2 approaches to superhero films. High camp or blood and guts. X1 found itself somewhere in between, but borrowed too much from the Matrix to be anything unique.

I think the same about SM1. At some point Spidey stops in mid-air while the camera surround him. That's pure Matrix. Except that in Matrix the characters didn't look as plastic as Spidey.

And out of curiosity, what are that "too much from the Matrix" that X-Men borrowed?

Originally Posted by Dragon

The reason Spidey1 broke records is because Raimi found a way to connect to the larger audience in a way that the previous films hadn't.

It was a success precisely because it did all the things most people are expecting from a summer blockbuster. And with a popular character in it. Many previous movies had told a simple story with lots of special effects, simplistic dialogues, cartoony characters and flat humour.

But I agree that not many superhero movies were so intentionally made as a pop-corn movie.

Originally Posted by Dragon

Not to mention the ground-breaking effects without which none of the current superhero films could have been done.

What effect was so groundbreaking exactly? From what I saw, Matrix did them all before and better.

[The /]

I decided to watch the Raimi films again. It had been awhile and I thought it would be nice to revisit the past now that I have seen a different vision of the Spider-Man universe. I didn't think that the reboot would really have any effect on my feelings for the Raimi films and I'm glad to report that I was right. I can watch the films just as I used to watch them.

I still really like Spider-Man. I still love Spider-Man 2. I still don't like Spider-Man 3.

Do I like the reboot better? Erm, yeah, I have to admit that I do. I think that's just because the style and tone of the reboot is just more up my alley as far as what I enjoy in movies. I certainly don't dislike the Raimi films (well, the first two, at least). In fact, they're quite special to me. Spider-Man 2002 was my first true introduction to the character and it will always be special to me for that reason. Spider-Man 2 was an incredible film and I think it still holds up well. Man, I remember seeing that in theaters four times. The only special memory I have of Spider-Man 3 is the hype I had for it before it's release and the disappointment I felt after it's release.

Anyway, I think Sam Raimi said his piece on Spider-Man and those films will always be there to enjoy, but I'm glad to see that a new director is getting their chance to do their own take on the character. I don't see how this is any different from the Batman series, so I can't see why people are so up in arms over the reboot. Burton had his vision, Schumacher has his vision and now Christopher Nolan had his. That series will likely be rebooted again and so, too, will Spider-Man. Someday. Personally, I don't mind that. It will allow us to see fresh takes on the characters and keeping one series from stretching on too long.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

It took the cheese in Superman and took it to the extreme. Some jokes wouldn't have felt okay even in the 70's.

I don't remember dislinking any of his jokes, in fact i found the mood of Raimi's spider-man very similar to that of the original 60s comics

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Lord

I don't remember dislinking any of his jokes, in fact i found the mood of Raimi's spider-man very similar to that of the original 60s comics

But the thing is, imo, no matter how much I enjoy Spider-Man 1 and 2, the dialogue did need to be modernized as it did feel like the timeline was in the 60s.

But then you look at TAS-M where the dialogue definitely felt modern but Gwen Stacy dressed like she was in the 60s/70s.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Lord

I don't remember dislinking any of his jokes, in fact i found the mood of Raimi's spider-man very similar to that of the original 60s comics

Did you notice I said the humour could be off in the 70's. Sure, on paper, in the 60's, maybe. But not in 2002.

[co2]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Well, I saw TASM tonight, and it was decent, but for me the first two Spiderman movies were better movies and better Spiderman movies. Raimi just nailed Spidey's origin, and the one in TASM just couldnt hold a candle to it. Uncle Ben's death was also much more emotional in Raimi's version, in TASM I felt very little, Raimi's movie to this day still nearly has me in tears.

The one thing I will give TASM over the Raimi movies was the way Spiderman moved, TASM nailed this, his athleticism, everything was great in TASM were as it wasnt always the case in Raimi's movies. Overall though, Spiderman 1 and especially Spiderman 2 are the the top two Spidey movies in current existence.

100% agree on all counts.

[Leenie]

Well, I finally saw The Amazing Spider-Man tonight, and all it did was make me appreciate the Raimi movies more ... And I'm actually including Spider-Man 3 in this. Yes, I like Spider-Man 3 more than The Amazing Spider-Man. I've never hated Spider-Man 3, but this reboot shouldn't be a lesser movie than Spider-Man 3 ... Haha.

Spider-Man 3 had its problems, don't get me wrong, but at least I still actually felt stuff when I saw the movie (Birth of Sandman scene, anyone?). I didn't really feel anything when I saw The Amazing Spider-Man.

I got irritated and threw my arms up in the air when Dr. Connor's arm grew back (before he actually turned into The Lizard). Why was I irritated? Because the movie was playing it up to be this big, emotional moment and I felt NOTHING. And that's the movie's fault, because it didn't include anything interesting and sympathetic about Kurt Connors. If Raimi had handled this character, I bet it would have been done better. Heck, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 was a better Lizard than Lizard in The Amazing Spider-Man.

[Lord]

While most find him kind of lame i was interesting in seeing what Raimi was going to do with Vulture, being the solo villain (no i don't think the vultress would have happened ) he could have been an interesting villain, as his life was nearing an end and he wanted to have revenge on Spidey