The Untold Untold Story [SPOILERS]

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

As a Spidey fan myself, I never liked the backstory of his parents.

I never liked the superspy Parkers. I'm okay with Richard as an OsCorp scientist, but I hope (and so far, still believe) that he never did anything to Peter's genes. It won't kill it for me if he did, but it'll depend on how it's presented.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

I'm not denying that something was left out, but I don't think it had to do with Richard experimenting on Peter. I think the sewer scene between Ratha, Connors, and Peter reveals that Ratha left the door unlocked on purpose, knowing that Peter was Richard Parker's son.

That is interesting. Maybe he wanted Peter to discover something about the spiders, since that is what his father was obviously working on?

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

That is interesting. Maybe he wanted Peter to discover something about the spiders, since that is what his father was obviously working on?

I mean, maybe it's a stretch, but Ben makes the comment, "You look just like him!" And then Ratha runs into Peter and gets a good look at his face. I mean, he knew who Peter was by the time he confronted Connors, so maybe he realized when he and Peter ran into each other? And he did seem to sense that someone was following him.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

I never liked the superspy Parkers. I'm okay with Richard as an OsCorp scientist, but I hope (and so far, still believe) that he never did anything to Peter's genes. It won't kill it for me if he did, but it'll depend on how it's presented.

In the end, that is all that matters.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

In the end, that is all that matters.

This is true. I always hope that nothing radical is changed/added, while trying to keep an open mind if it has been.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

I mean, maybe it's a stretch, but Ben makes the comment, "You look just like him!" And then Ratha runs into Peter and gets a good look at his face. I mean, he knew who Peter was by the time he confronted Connors, so maybe he realized when he and Peter ran into each other? And he did seem to sense that someone was following him.

Ratha definitely knew who Peter was when he bumped into him, and I'm sure he knew someone was following him. I could have sworn Peter remember the combination though?

Man, Dr. Ratha better return for the sequel.

[Octoberist]

With all of these problems behind the scenes, what needs to go are Avi Arad and Laura ziskin.

They changed all of the crew, but the producers stayed. The same people who made the decision making on Spidey 3. Then they hired back Ziskin husband to polish the script, who also co-wrote for Spidey 2 and 3.

They just need to go. It seems like they don't 'get it' at all.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Ratha definitely knew who Peter was when he bumped into him, and I'm sure he knew someone was following him. I could have sworn Peter remember the combination though?

Man, Dr. Ratha better return for the sequel.

Peter remembered the combination, but the inner spider room was unlocked - despite having a keycard swipe by the door.

[DigificWriter]

I really don't understand the reticence and resistance towards the idea that Richard Parker and Curt Connors' early experiments in cross-species genetics might have had something to do with Peter eventually becoming Spider-Man, and personally think it adds a nice new layer to Peter's origin story that is totally in keeping with the spirit of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics and that also personally puts me in mind of the medium through which I was first exposed to the Spider-Man characters: the 1994 FOX Kids Spider-Man animated cartoon... specifically the "Neogenic Nightmare" story arc that comprised the second season of said cartoon.

[Picard Sisko]

Being that cross-species genetics is a huge element in the film, it would have made sense if his father did some kind of cross-species genetics experimentation on his son, maybe to cure him or something.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

I really don't understand the reticence and resistance towards the idea that Richard Parker and Curt Connors' early experiments in cross-species genetics might have had something to do with Peter eventually becoming Spider-Man, and personally think it adds a nice new layer to Peter's origin story that is totally in keeping with the spirit of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics and that also personally puts me in mind of the medium through which I was first exposed to the Spider-Man characters: the 1994 FOX Kids Spider-Man animated cartoon... specifically the "Neogenic Nightmare" story arc that comprised the second season of said cartoon.

Well, for one, it reminds everyone of Ang Lee's Hulk, which was miserable. Two, it downplays the randomness of Peter getting his powers. He's supposed to be a normal guy who has powers thrust upon him. If you start to say, "Oh no, only Peter could've gotten these powers and survived," it kills that connection between Peter Parker and the everyman audience member.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

I really don't understand the reticence and resistance towards the idea that Richard Parker and Curt Connors' early experiments in cross-species genetics might have had something to do with Peter eventually becoming Spider-Man, and personally think it adds a nice new layer to Peter's origin story that is totally in keeping with the spirit of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics and that also personally puts me in mind of the medium through which I was first exposed to the Spider-Man characters: the 1994 FOX Kids Spider-Man animated cartoon... specifically the "Neogenic Nightmare" story arc that comprised the second season of said cartoon.

The whole point, while new, is that:

a.) Makes things a lot more convoluted. And you start to question Richard and his motivations.

b.) Peter becoming Spider-Man wasn't just an accident that could happen to anyone. That's the thing that bothers most people.

Spider-Man is no longer the everyman who stumbled upon these great powers.

That being said, a good writer and director could make it interesting if it's well made enough. But I just don't like the Peter's parents background in general. It goes into narrative that doesn't matter to me.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Being that cross-species genetics is a huge element in the film, it would have made sense if his father did some kind of cross-species genetics experimentation on his son, maybe to cure him or something.

Not to cure, but possibly to inoculate? Richard was clearly worried about what would happen if cross-species was successful, so he kept the decay rate algorithm to himself. If he tampered with Peter, I hope it was to protect Peter from turning into a monster like the Lizard if cross-species experiments ever ran wild.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

Not to cure, but possibly to inoculate? Richard was clearly worried about what would happen if cross-species was successful, so he kept the decay rate algorithm to himself. If he tampered with Peter, I hope it was to protect Peter from turning into a monster like the Lizard if cross-species experiments ever ran wild.

I do like the inoculation theory. I just really want to know what was originally planned for this film, but we will probably never know.

I have a feeling that the sequel's tagline will be something like "The Untold Story Continues."

[DigificWriter]

Octoberist and Eddie Brock:
First of all, I don't personally think the possibility of Richard Parker and/or Curt Connors' early experiments possibly having had a hand in Peter eventually becoming Spider-Man in any way lessens his status as an 'everyman' hero whom we can relate to. It does take away the element of random chance, but we're still able to relate to Peter because we first see him as a normal kid who ends up becoming involved in something extraordinary through no fault of his own. That doesn't change even if you introduce the idea that he was 'pre-destined' to become Spider-Man.

Second, I don't really think comparisons to Ang Lee's Hulk are warranted, just as I don't think it's fair to judge TASM based on what was done in the Raimi trilogy and the relatively short number of years between the first and last films in said trilogy and TASM.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

^ Hmm. I don't personally think the possibility of Richard Parker and/or Curt Connors' early experiments possibly having had a hand in Peter eventually becoming Spider-Man in any way lessens his status as an 'everyman' hero whom we can relate to. It does take away the element of random chance, but we're still able to relate to Peter because we first see him as a normal kid who ends up becoming involved in something extraordinary through no fault of his own. That doesn't change even if you introduce the idea that he was 'pre-destined' to become Spider-Man.

Second, I don't really think comparisons to Ang Lee's Hulk are warranted, just as I don't think it's fair to judge TASM based on what was done in the Raimi trilogy and the relatively short number of years between the first and last films in said trilogy and TASM.

Yeah, but it's like the introduction of midichlorians to the Star Wars universe. Deep down, we all want to believe that we could become Spider-Man, just like we all wanted to be Jedi knights. When you start to say, "Oh no, you need this certain thing in your blood/DNA," it kills any hope that we can become like that.

[Octoberist]

I think the comparisons to Ang Lee's are somewhat valid. Like you can't help it but to compare this movie to Raimi's. Rami's films are in the public lexicon... ASM does not exist in a vacuum.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

Yeah, but it's like the introduction of midichlorians to the Star Wars universe. Deep down, we all want to believe that we could become Spider-Man, just like we all wanted to be Jedi knights. When you start to say, "Oh no, you need this certain thing in your blood/DNA," it kills any hope that we can become like that.

Perfect example. Some things are best left unexplained.

[DigificWriter]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

Yeah, but it's like the introduction of midichlorians to the Star Wars universe. Deep down, we all want to believe that we could become Spider-Man, just like we all wanted to be Jedi knights. When you start to say, "Oh no, you need this certain thing in your blood/DNA," it kills any hope that we can become like that.

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing within any of the SW films - or the tie-in material, for that matter - which in any way implies that we as an audience are supposed to feel like we could become Jedi Knights. In fact, the tie-in material makes it abundantly clear that not every person in the SW universe * can * in fact become Jedi, something that the Prequel films also make fairly clear.

It is for that very reason that I've never understood or agreed with the backlash that Lucas' introduction of midichlorians generated, nor do I think it in any way contradicts or is at odds with what we learn about the Force in Episodes IV, V, and VI.

[Eddie Brock]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing within any of the SW films - or the tie-in material, for that matter - which in any way implies that we as an audience are supposed to feel like we could become Jedi Knights. In fact, the tie-in material makes it abundantly clear that not every person in the SW universe * can * in fact become Jedi, something that the Prequel films also make fairly clear.

It is for that very reason that I've never understood or agreed with the backlash that Lucas' introduction of midichlorians generated, nor do I think it in any way contradicts or is at odds with what we learn about the Force in Episodes IV, V, and VI.

The OT absolutely suggests that anyone can become a Jedi knight. Obi-Wan talks about how the Force is within every living creature. People say, "May the Force be with you." The Force is something for everyone to wield, but only the most determined can channel it like Jedi. That's the only thing that seems to separate the Jedi: years of intense training and practice. Then the prequels come along and say, "Nope. Sorry. You don't have enough midichlorians to control the Force."

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing within any of the SW films - or the tie-in material, for that matter - which in any way implies that we as an audience are supposed to feel like we could become Jedi Knights. In fact, the tie-in material makes it abundantly clear that not every person in the SW universe * can * in fact become Jedi, something that the Prequel films also make fairly clear.

It is for that very reason that I've never understood or agreed with the backlash that Lucas' introduction of midichlorians generated, nor do I think it in any way contradicts or is at odds with what we learn about the Force in Episodes IV, V, and VI.

Midicholorians just convolute things. It takes away the magical wonder and made it 'scientific'. Plus, it was brought up once or twice...and that was it. It was a misguided attempt at explaining The Force when..maybe Lucas shouldn't explain it in the first place.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by Eddie Brock

The OT absolutely suggests that anyone can become a Jedi knight. Obi-Wan talks about how the Force is within every living creature. People say, "May the Force be with you." The Force is something for everyone to wield, but only the most determined can channel it like Jedi. That's the only thing that seems to separate the Jedi: years of intense training and practice. Then the prequels come along and say, "Nope. Sorry. You don't have enough midichlorians to control the Force."

Obi's description in A New Hope was compelling without using tech jargon. Then, like what you said, there's a big 'backtrack' on the mythos. It loses some of that narrative power from the originals.

[DigificWriter]

^ I don't want to derail this thread, but I disagree with you two, as would officially licensed - and authorized - SW tie-in material.

In terms of this issue of whether or not Richard Parker and Curt Connors' early experiments may have played a role in Peter becoming Spider-Man, we actually don't have enough information at the present time to know for sure whether or not this was even the case, nor do we have enough information to know for sure whether or not anyone else in Peter's situation would've developed the same powers and abilities as he did.

In fact, if there wasn't any significant difference - beyond what Peter was able to figure out - between the early work that Richard and Curt did with spiders and what Connors was later doing with lizards, it is probable that the only difference between what happened to Peter and what would've happened to anyone else who was bitten by one of Oscorp's genetically altered spiders is that Peter didn't turn into a 'man-spider' whereas anyone else bitten by one of said spiders probably would've.

[Octoberist]

we are derailing it. I'm gonna be snarky and say you're wrong. Moving on!

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

With all of these problems behind the scenes, what needs to go are Avi Arad and Laura ziskin.

They changed all of the crew, but the producers stayed. The same people who made the decision making on Spidey 3. Then they hired back Ziskin husband to polish the script, who also co-wrote for Spidey 2 and 3.

They just need to go. It seems like they don't 'get it' at all.

Laura Ziskin passed away last summer.

So unfortunately she won't be a part of anything anymore. Her husband and Avi Arad are something else though.