Does anyone else get an empty feeling from this movie?

[GuestStar2004]

it goes to show how different batman fans are to spidey fans

spidey fans are so sensative to origin change while it seems batman fans were more accepting to batman begins origin changes

i rememeber in the 1st cinema showing, when ben was giving peter the ultimate responsability talk i heard someone say "huh?" like thats not what he says

[AbsractPo3tic]

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

it goes to show how different batman fans are to spidey fans

spidey fans are so sensative to origin change while it seems batman fans were more accepting to batman begins origin changes

i rememeber in the 1st cinema showing, when ben was giving peter the ultimate responsability talk i heard someone say "huh?" like thats not what he says

Yeah, I don't get it, man. They're adaptations, meaning some things will change and some things will stay the same, you do what works best for your story and the world you're trying to create.

[DeathChill]

Also, Uncle Ben didn't even say the great power line in the original comics anyways.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

it goes to show how different batman fans are to spidey fans

spidey fans are so sensative to origin change while it seems batman fans were more accepting to batman begins origin changes

i rememeber in the 1st cinema showing, when ben was giving peter the ultimate responsability talk i heard someone say "huh?" like thats not what he says

The reason Bat fans are more forgiving may be that Batman's origin has changed numerous times over the 70 plus years of his existence. Elements changed and were added and removed, while Spider-Man's origin was told pretty specifically the first time and AF#15 is still referred to as the definitive origin.

And frankly, Webb didn't make any changes because it better served the story. He made them so that this film could be seen as being different. There was nothing that the elements he removed did to take away from the story or the development of character, so it didn't need to be cut. He would've been better off skipping the origin altogether and moving on to the story of the Lizard and the search for the truth about Peter's parents.

And comparing things like Moneypenny and Q in the Bond films isn't even in the same ballpark. Not having them in the film is the equivalent of not having Robbie Robertson or Jonah Jameson. Nice additional characters, but the story can stand without them. Deleting things like the capture of the burglar are essential story elements to Peter's growth as a character.

[AbsractPo3tic]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The reason Bat fans are more forgiving may be that Batman's origin has changed numerous times over the 70 plus years of his existence. Elements changed and were added and removed, while Spider-Man's origin was told pretty specifically the first time and AF#15 is still referred to as the definitive origin.

And frankly, Webb didn't make any changes because it better served the story. He made them so that this film could be seen as being different. There was nothing that the elements he removed did to take away from the story or the development of character, so it didn't need to be cut. He would've been better off skipping the origin altogether and moving on to the story of the Lizard and the search for the truth about Peter's parents.

And comparing things like Moneypenny and Q in the Bond films isn't even in the same ballpark. Not having them in the film is the equivalent of not having Robbie Robertson or Jonah Jameson. Nice additional characters, but the story can stand without them. Deleting things like the capture of the burglar are essential story elements to Peter's growth as a character.

Not having Q or Moneypenny is a big deal to a lot of Bond fans. And to a few of my friends it was a huge deal when Casino Royale came out so again, it's subjective man. To them and a lot of other Bond fans I know, they're just as important to a Bond film as the the title guy himself and that's actually the comparison I was making, that them not being in it wasn't a huge deal for me. As far as him not catching the killer, that debate has been had to death on here so I'll just say I fall on the side of understanding that it's something to be dealt with in another movie and obviously the fallout will be different because Peter's conversation with Captain Stacy hit home with him. Obviously some have an issue with that but I don't.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Also, Uncle Ben didn't even say the great power line in the original comics anyways.

Yeah which is why in adapting the story Raimi actually improved on the source material by showing Ben speaking the lines. Anyway, AF#15 wasn't even a full length comic. The Spidey origin was only 11 pages.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Yeah which is why in adapting the story Raimi actually improved on the source material by showing Ben speaking the lines. Anyway, AF#15 wasn't even a full length comic. The Spidey origin was only 11 pages.

Maybe, but we can't moan at the film makers not having UB saying the line when he doesn't even say the line in the source material.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by AbsractPo3tic

Not having Q or Moneypenny is a big deal to a lot of Bond fans. And to a few of my friends it was a huge deal when Casino Royale came out so again, it's subjective man. To them and a lot of other Bond fans I know, they're just as important to a Bond film as the the title guy himself and that's actually the comparison I was making, that them not being in it wasn't a huge deal for me.

Dude, some fans gripe that Betty Brant isn't Peter's first love too. There are going to be fans who will complain that EVERYTHING isn't exactly the same (There were folks who wanted Spidey 1 to actually take place in the 60's). But there is a major difference to essential story elements.

As far as him not catching the killer, that debate has been had to death on here so I'll just say I fall on the side of understanding that it's something to be dealt with in another movie and obviously the fallout will be different because Peter's conversation with Captain Stacy hit home with him. Obviously some have an issue with that but I don't.

It won't matter in another movie. And Capt. Stacy's conversation was extremely flawed.

1. Capt. Stacy was accusing Spider-Man of having a personal vendetta when he himself has a personal vendetta against Spider-Man.
2. If Spider-Man is interfering in police work by taking down criminal informants etc. Then that essentially makes Spider-Man obsolete from day one as far as street crime (An essential characteristic) since he'll never know who is and isn't working with the police.
3. The police themselves are pretty ineffectual if they need that many criminals helping them out.
4. Spider-Man didn't simply jump on guys who looked like Ben's killer. He attacked them while they were committing crimes. So Stacy's explanation makes no sense to begin with.

It was nothing other than Webb's way of excusing making things different. The sequence of events in the comics is the sequence reflecting Peter's growth. Convoluting his growth for no reason other than to make this series different isn't an improvement. They should have actually made the film different and told a new story. That's why so many people don't care about this movie.

[GuestStar2004]

i felt the new responsiblity line in TASM was more believable anyway and it was a good speech from ben

when you think about it the great power line from SM1 is out of place, but its accaptable for fans because its well known line from the spidey history

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Maybe, but we can't moan at the film makers not having UB saying the line when he doesn't even say the line in the source material.

He does say it in the source material. The words come from Ben, it's just that on the comic page it's Peter reciting Ben's words to himself. In the movie, when they have the screentime to present it, they have no excuse.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

i felt the new responsiblity line in TASM was more believable anyway and it was a good speech from ben

when you think about it the great power line from SM1 is out of place, but its accaptable for fans because its well known line from the spidey history

Please explain.

[GuestStar2004]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Please explain.

growing up and beating a bully isnt great power. very odd analogy

[RavenX]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The reason Bat fans are more forgiving may be that Batman's origin has changed numerous times over the 70 plus years of his existence. Elements changed and were added and removed, while Spider-Man's origin was told pretty specifically the first time and AF#15 is still referred to as the definitive origin.

And frankly, Webb didn't make any changes because it better served the story. He made them so that this film could be seen as being different. There was nothing that the elements he removed did to take away from the story or the development of character, so it didn't need to be cut. He would've been better off skipping the origin altogether and moving on to the story of the Lizard and the search for the truth about Peter's parents.

And comparing things like Moneypenny and Q in the Bond films isn't even in the same ballpark. Not having them in the film is the equivalent of not having Robbie Robertson or Jonah Jameson. Nice additional characters, but the story can stand without them. Deleting things like the capture of the burglar are essential story elements to Peter's growth as a character.

agreed.

it really felt like, with TASM, they were trying to be different for the sake of being different.

they took a relatively simple, straightforward origin story, and made it so convoluted with extra stuff, that they lost sight of the main point of the origin story ( or at least diluted it ).

[spider-neil]

For me the origin in this movie is better (for me) and here's why,
Peter's Uncle is taken from him so how does he cope, he goes hunting for the killer and he isn't nice about it. The death has clearly effected him and he wants revenge to the point where you 'almost' feel he is going to let the car jacker suffocate. THAT seems more believeable to me than just catching the killer, shedding a few tears and then you are the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man. Peter isn't a middle aged man with years of experience of dealing with loss and death, he is a teenager.

The origin works for me better than the Raimi movie (and I liked the origin in the Raimi movie). The phone message at the end is a tear jerker.

[The Guard]

I can't take anyone who claims that this movie feels just like Raimi's SPIDER-MAN seriously anymore. I just can't.

[Oscorp]

Me neither. I don't take most of the stupid criticism seriously because it's either too insignificant or it's something that actually does make sense but the hater doesn't want to see.

[elsewhere]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I can't take anyone who claims that this movie feels just like Raimi's SPIDER-MAN seriously anymore. I just can't.

Well that crane scene certainly does. I can't help but cringe.

[Jexx]

I liked the crane scene...

I'm really getting tired of people complaining about it. :/

[GuestStar2004]

i have no problem with the crane scene and don't get all the fuss about it

there has been far cheesier in raimi's films

[elsewhere]

As for the film feeling empty, the second half definitely does. Particularly when it involves Spider-Man (car thief scene aside). It feels rushed and empty.

I actually think this is a better Peter Parker film than Spider-Man one.

[spider-neil]

Is there a movie where the 'hero' shines more than the 'man'?

[roach]

the crane scene made no sense what so ever

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Jexx

I liked the crane scene...

I'm really getting tired of people complaining about it. :/

i just like it i mean the swinging+the music and again will repeat myself

this city just showed you that is full of people ready to believe in goood

it´s cheesy yeah but it kindasorta worked well imo

[amazingfantasy15]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

For me the origin in this movie is better (for me) and here's why,
Peter's Uncle is taken from him so how does he cope, he goes hunting for the killer and he isn't nice about it. The death has clearly effected him and he wants revenge to the point where you 'almost' feel he is going to let the car jacker suffocate. THAT seems more believeable to me than just catching the killer, shedding a few tears and then you are the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man. Peter isn't a middle aged man with years of experience of dealing with loss and death, he is a teenager.

The origin works for me better than the Raimi movie (and I liked the origin in the Raimi movie). The phone message at the end is a tear jerker.

Peter's nice about going after Ben's killer in other forms of the origin? Peter is all about getting revenge when Ben's killed and is racked with guilt when he realizes it's the thief he let go. He's not shedding a couple tears, it changes his entire life, Peter is and always will be Spider-man due to guilt. Everytime he puts on the costume it's trying to redeem himself for Uncle Ben's death.

I really think redoing the origin was a very poor choice for this movie, it should've had Peter in the suit to begin with, the origin ate up time and left the movie feeling disjointed. It felt like many third parts of superhero movies, where there are just too many subplots everyone wants to include so things get lost in the shuffle. Among the many things Dr. Raffa, Peter's parents mystery, the people turning into Lizards, more of a manhunt for Spidey (it's cleared up way too quickly), Gwen and Peter's relationship (which wasn't believable to me in any way). I really think taking out the origin could've given the audience a much better movie, all the origin beats seem very shoehorned in and done not with joy and care, but more because it was studio mandated.

[elsewhere]

Originally Posted by roach

the crane scene made no sense what so ever

Much like most of Raimi's trilogy.