The Amazing Spider-Man I don't know what troubles me more...

[LegendaryCaleb]

yeah i just find it over the top as a story and would like a lil more simplicity in the background of parkers parents...it would just be more to add to the story and would be unneeded...
with the way you defended it...it seemed like you wanted it in the movie...which wont happen LOL

 

[Dragon]

Again, it does and it doesn't. Most superheroes hook up with women who are essentially lesser than themselves. Lois can't identify with Superman's past. Bruce Wayne can't hold onto a woman for this very reason*-he can't relate to them. But while MJ may not have the SAME pains and dramas in her life, (you're not gonna find too many girls who indirectly caused the death of the person who meant the most to them) she does have her own demons and as we found out later on, she too, hides behind a mask. This makes her able to understand what Peter goes through. And she has been the best support system through it all. Venom, the return of his parents, the discovery that they were fakes, the unmasking-I think most women would bail on you the second you find out that you're a clone and smack the hell out of them. Mary Jane has been tested by fire and she has stood with him through it all.

(*among others, obviously.)

I don't mean that superhero girlfriends should have the same background as the hero, such as MJ having lost a loved one under similar circumstances to Peter.

The comparison of Lois Lane is a difficult one. Her career as a reporter does provide the necessary drama IMO. However, the fact that for much of Superman's history (The 50's through mid-80's) Superman'himself had storylines that were pretty lightweight makes him stray from the point I'm making. This changed of course in the mid-80's with the "Marvel-izing" of Superman, and the rest of the DC Universe.

I'm saying that the girlfrirnd should bring equal amounts of drama to the table. This is why I personally always preferred Gwen. Her story of having a Cop father who dies in action- her interest in science and willingness to engage in action brought tons of potential drama that would've linked up with the drama of Peter's life. I see that they're attempting to do this with new girlfirned Carlie
(I think someone at Marvel's been reading my posts) but I'm not sure if the current crew has the skill to pull this off.

I agree that MJ was written to be a support system for Peter. But then, any girlfriend/wife would be. In fact a big problem with Mj was that she essentially had no character other than whatever suited the storyline (This also becmae true of Peter unfortunately) The problem is that she wasn't a partner to Peter (And by that I don't mean a crimefighting partner). And her superficial career pursuits came off as dramatically flimsy. Her troubled family background seemed more like a Lifetime movie. It didn't give the writers much to work with aside from making MJ Peter's boo-boo kisser or potential hostage.

 

[Dragon]

yeah i just find it over the top as a story and would like a lil more simplicity in the background of parkers parents...it would just be more to add to the story and would be unneeded...
with the way you defended it...it seemed like you wanted it in the movie...which wont happen LOL

It wouldn't "seem" like I wanted it in the movie if you'd actually read what I wrote.

And, considering that Sandman DID get included in Spidey 3 as Ben's killer, and the reboot is still being produced by the same people, you really can't say what will or won't be dealt with in the films. Look at the insanity being presented on the Broadway stage as Spidey's life.

 

[roach]

well to be honest Marvel has mismanaged Spidey

 

[Dragon]

well to be honest Marvel has mismanaged Spidey

No question about that.

But one thing I will say for the Broadway show. While it is a bad idea and in poor taste, the wire-work developed for it does suggest that in the films they can do more with actual actors and stuntmen than making every shot CGI.

 

[roach]

however in CG's defense its safer to digitally make Spidey swing thru NY than have a stuntman do it

 

[Dragon]

Of course you'd have to use CG for some shots. Such as the long deep arc he makes in Spidey 2 when he's going to face Ock. But they tend to use CG for shots that really could be done with stuntmen, such as in the armored car robbery scene from Spidey1.

 

[roach]

depends on what they were going for with that scene...i liked it. with the speed and fluidness that spidey moved with in that scene im not sure a stuntman could have captured that

other than the scene where Peter chased Uncle Ben's killer I didnt have an issue with the cgi in the movie...I think a movie that got lazy with the cgi was Superman Returns. The scene where he flies off after saving the plane just bothers me so much. I look at movies like Superman and Superman 2 and they had believeable flying without CGI.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

It wouldn't "seem" like I wanted it in the movie if you'd actually read what I wrote.

Based on the "it makes more sense" issue...and your constant info as to why i shouldnt think its stupid...it seemed like you were backing it...so thats why i got the idea that "wow...he wants spy parents.......wow"

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't mean that superhero girlfriends should have the same background as the hero, such as MJ having lost a loved one under similar circumstances to Peter.

The comparison of Lois Lane is a difficult one. Her career as a reporter does provide the necessary drama IMO. However, the fact that for much of Superman's history (The 50's through mid-80's) Superman'himself had storylines that were pretty lightweight makes him stray from the point I'm making. This changed of course in the mid-80's with the "Marvel-izing" of Superman, and the rest of the DC Universe.

I'm saying that the girlfrirnd should bring equal amounts of drama to the table. This is why I personally always preferred Gwen. Her story of having a Cop father who dies in action- her interest in science and willingness to engage in action brought tons of potential drama that would've linked up with the drama of Peter's life. I see that they're attempting to do this with new girlfirned Carlie
(I think someone at Marvel's been reading my posts) but I'm not sure if the current crew has the skill to pull this off.

I agree that MJ was written to be a support system for Peter. But then, any girlfriend/wife would be. In fact a big problem with Mj was that she essentially had no character other than whatever suited the storyline (This also becmae true of Peter unfortunately) The problem is that she wasn't a partner to Peter (And by that I don't mean a crimefighting partner). And her superficial career pursuits came off as dramatically flimsy. Her troubled family background seemed more like a Lifetime movie. It didn't give the writers much to work with aside from making MJ Peter's boo-boo kisser or potential hostage.

I liked MJ as the support system; that's what I feel he needed most. Something to simultaneously drive him as well as keep him grounded. I never felt like Gwen could have stepped into that role. I tend to see her kind of the way she was depicted in "Ultimate". By this I mean that no matter what, deep down she would always feel like Spider-Man was responsible for her father's death. And that would have always gotten in the way of their relationship. I don't feel like she could have been the partner that Spider-Man needed. Have you ever been with a girl who didn't get your love of comics, but seemed to like everything else about you? She indulged/tolerated that side of you, but really didn't care to see it manifest. She rolled her eyes whenever you got pumped over the impending release of a superhero movie, never really understood why you got annoyed when they got it wrong, and was never all that thrilled ot find your Spider-Man t-shirts in the laundry basket. I imagine it's the same with women who date/marry sports fanatics. When her man puts on his favorite jersey and screams at the TV or calls his budy to discuss last night's game, she sees an overgrown kid acting like an idiot. I have dated that woman. I am dating that woman. That's how I view Gwen. She would love Peter & tolerate Spider-Man. (This is pure speculation, mind you; I could be completely wrong but in the wake of Daddy's death this is how I truly think it would've turned out.) Then there's the one who may not necessarily "get" your passion but she understands that it's a part of who you are. So she goes to a Con with you every now & then and she watches your movies & cartoons with you & maybe even plays Ultimate Alliance with you from time to time. She washes your Spidey shirts without protest and never once looks at you like your behavior makes you less of a man. I've dated her, too. And that's how I see MJ.

 

[Don Yoyo]

Bruce Wayne can't hold onto a woman for this very reason*-he can't relate to them.

Isn't the new status quo for Batman changing that? At least before the next inevitable tragedy?

I'm saying that the girlfrirnd should bring equal amounts of drama to the table. This is why I personally always preferred Gwen. Her story of having a Cop father who dies in action- her interest in science and willingness to engage in action brought tons of potential drama that would've linked up with the drama of Peter's life.

Wasn't Gwen's father a retired cop, at least in the 616 universe?

 

[Chris Wallace]

The size of the change should have little to do with it, within reason. What matters is if the change improves on the original idea and is needed.

Keyword: "should". The size of the change is all too often the basis of fan protest. And whether or not a change improves or is needed is relative. Most changes aren't "necessary" so much as they fit the parameters (context) of the story. Did taking away Two-Face's sense of duality "improve" anything, or did it just fit the story? Did making the Joker the killer of Bruce's parents "improve" anything or was it just a useful plot device at the time? This argument can be applied to anything, from a black Kingpin to organic webbing to Doom's organic armor to teen runaway Rogue to "Daywalker" Blade to that damn multi-purpose green crystal in the early Superman movies. Filmmakers take liberties. All of them do it. Again, my argument is that if you protest the change, it should be because in your heart of hearts you feel it was a bad plot device. It's ok to even wish they had done something a little closer to the comic, but don't bash one filmmaker for deviating and praise another who deviates further. If you base your argument on the fact that it's different from the 30-60 year old comic story that you're familiar with, then you should stop going to superhero movies altogether, because you're only going to get your heart broken, time after time.

 

[Eggyman]

Keyword: "should". The size of the change is all too often the basis of fan protest. And whether or not a change improves or is needed is relative. Most changes aren't "necessary" so much as they fit the parameters (context) of the story. Did taking away Two-Face's sense of duality "improve" anything, or did it just fit the story? Did making the Joker the killer of Bruce's parents "improve" anything or was it just a useful plot device at the time? This argument can be applied to anything, from a black Kingpin to organic webbing to Doom's organic armor to teen runaway Rogue to "Daywalker" Blade to that damn multi-purpose green crystal in the early Superman movies. Filmmakers take liberties. All of them do it. Again, my argument is that if you protest the change, it should be because in your heart of hearts you feel it was a bad plot device. It's ok to even wish they had done something a little closer to the comic, but don't bash one filmmaker for deviating and praise another who deviates further. If you base your argument on the fact that it's different from the 30-60 year old comic story that you're familiar with, then you should stop going to superhero movies altogether, because you're only going to get your heart broken, time after time.

So you're saying don't generalise and take it case-by-case. But then you say don't bash one and praise another. If you like one change yet don't like a change someone else made, thats's fair, right? Or wrong? Or are you saying if you support one change you should support all changes? What is it?

 

[Don Yoyo]

I tend to see her kind of the way she was depicted in "Ultimate". By this I mean that no matter what, deep down she would always feel like Spider-Man was responsible for her father's death. And that would have always gotten in the way of their relationship. I don't feel like she could have been the partner that Spider-Man needed.

Given how she went into Ultimate and What If? once that she was able to confront Peter about it, I don't think she would have been a bad partner. Although the stress of the whole thing became too much for Ultimate Gwen to handle in the end (her father's death, her own death, and now the Chameleon's impersonation of Peter).

 

[Chris Wallace]

I distinctly said, "protest a change if you feel it's a bad one". How is that unclear? I said don't bash a director FOR DEVIATING if you're going to praise another who deviates further. The argument of staying true to the comic is becoming a double standard. If you like the movie, you forgive all the deviations. But if you don't, why is the basis of your complaint the fact that it didn't follow the comics to the letter? (I don't mean you in particular; this is just what I'm seeing.)

 

[Eggyman]

I distinctly said, "protest a change if you feel it's a bad one". How is that unclear? I said don't bash a director FOR DEVIATING if you're going to praise another who deviates further. The argument of staying true to the comic is becoming a double standard. If you like the movie, you forgive all the deviations. But if you don't, why is the basis of your complaint the fact that it didn't follow the comics to the letter? (I don't mean you in particular; this is just what I'm seeing.)

Well I'm glad you don't mean me, because in all honesty it's one thing I don't think I've ever had much of a word in. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to bash just because something's been changed. I'll bash when I think the change is unneeded and just plain bad--a sloppy plot device that could've been avoided with better writing. I'm obviously not going to bash a change I like, no matter how 'big' it is. I mostly agree with you. The only thing that bothers me is:

I said don't bash a director FOR DEVIATING if you're going to praise another who deviates further.

You see what I'm getting at, right? If I feel one director has made a good choice in changing something, and I feel another director has been sloppy/lazy and could've avoided making a change that felt forced, then I'll say it. I won't say it in the same thread, because, let's face it, that's what all of this comes down to; certain people going into other forums and preaching about their hero director being so much better than the director of the franchise whose forum they're visiting. I'll go to the whatever boards and praise, and then I'll go to another forum and rip it if it deserves being ripped. Don't expect me to be going somewhere and rubbing salt in the wounds of a fanbase that's just had to swallow an oldsmobile full of sh**. Because, in truth, I am one of those fans. I don't go in the forums of franchises I don't like. You won't see me on the X-men boards. You won't see me on The Cap boards.

This Spidey-Bat war has got to end. Fans of both, like me, are constantly on edge because we see both sides and generally have to watch what we say at either camp.

You know, I've loved Spidey since I can remember, but I'm unable to make a post about where I think Raimi went wrong without being called 'Nolan's gay lover' or some such sh**.

I know you're in the same boat because I see you there too. It's not all black and white. You're not the devil if you don't like something. You're a fan, plain and simple. You're a fan that should be able to voice your worries on something without getting another one of your favourite franchises thrown back in your face. It's not a competition, and people should stop seeing it as such.

 

[Dragon]

Based on the "it makes more sense" issue...and your constant info as to why i shouldnt think its stupid...it seemed like you were backing it...so thats why i got the idea that "wow...he wants spy parents.......wow"

It does make sense for the character. But as an expansion and development in the comics. There are many things that were dealt with in the comcis that can't see the light of day in the films simply because there won't be enough films to give them the necessary focus. A TV series could likely deal with his parents history however.

I know it isn't stupid and you certainly haven't presented anything to suggest that it is. Considering that we've seen things like alien beings that transform into costumes, parents involved in espionage isn't very strange at all.

 

[Dragon]

Wasn't Gwen's father a retired cop, at least in the 616 universe?

Yes.

 

[Eggyman]

It does make sense for the character. But as an expansion and development in the comics. There are many things that were dealt with in the comcis that can't see the light of day in the films simply because there won't be enough films to give them the necessary focus. A TV series could likely deal with his parents history however.

I know it isn't stupid and you certainly haven't presented anything to suggest that it is. Considering that we've seen things like alien beings that transform into costumes, parents involved in espionage isn't very strange at all.

I personally feel it would be going a little too far. Yes, spend a little time showing his parents dying. BUT, that's never been a defining moment for Peter. It's always Ben's death. Being spies would just take up time that could be spent elsewhere in the story; it adds nothing. Whichever way, Pete's parents still died which leads him to live with May and Ben. In this case, how they die is irrelevant. That they died and he was taken by his aunt and uncle is what's important. I wouldn't say it's stupid. It's just unneeded.

 

[Dragon]

I liked MJ as the support system; that's what I feel he needed most. Something to simultaneously drive him as well as keep him grounded. I never felt like Gwen could have stepped into that role. I tend to see her kind of the way she was depicted in "Ultimate". By this I mean that no matter what, deep down she would always feel like Spider-Man was responsible for her father's death. And that would have always gotten in the way of their relationship. I don't feel like she could have been the partner that Spider-Man needed. Have you ever been with a girl who didn't get your love of comics, but seemed to like everything else about you? She indulged/tolerated that side of you, but really didn't care to see it manifest. She rolled her eyes whenever you got pumped over the impending release of a superhero movie, never really understood why you got annoyed when they got it wrong, and was never all that thrilled ot find your Spider-Man t-shirts in the laundry basket. I imagine it's the same with women who date/marry sports fanatics. When her man puts on his favorite jersey and screams at the TV or calls his budy to discuss last night's game, she sees an overgrown kid acting like an idiot. I have dated that woman. I am dating that woman. That's how I view Gwen. She would love Peter & tolerate Spider-Man. (This is pure speculation, mind you; I could be completely wrong but in the wake of Daddy's death this is how I truly think it would've turned out.) Then there's the one who may not necessarily "get" your passion but she understands that it's a part of who you are. So she goes to a Con with you every now & then and she watches your movies & cartoons with you & maybe even plays Ultimate Alliance with you from time to time. She washes your Spidey shirts without protest and never once looks at you like your behavior makes you less of a man. I've dated her, too. And that's how I see MJ.

The thing is, that even when Gwen was in London, her view of Spider-Man began to change. Unfortunately the comics didn't really deal with it after her return. I think that that had she lived and learned Peter's secret, she of course would have had some anger about it, and the comcis should have dealt with it. But I think as she got to understand Peter and see him in action as Spidey up close she'd have both accepted and supported him. Afterall, she had been established as being more than ready to face whatever dangers by his side (Such as in the Savage Land and during the Vietnam.storyline) Her problems with Spidey were like everyone else. She didn't understand him or his true motivations. In her grief over her father's death she, like many wanted someone to blame and accepted the witness (And Daily Bugle) accounts that simply becasuse Spidey was there, he had to be at fault (And in a way, he was).

I think that a likely future for Gwen would have been that she'd have herself become a cop. Thus she'd have had a life of her own that offered an equal amount of drama to Peter's. Her father's past and the fact that we kew nothing about her mother offered lots of story potential as well. So I think she would've been an active partner to Peter, and not just the hottie sitting at home waiting for him or potential hostage.

I think MJ would have been a better character if they'd have done more with her than just making her a model/actress. Such as having her enter psychology or something along those lines.

As for the real-life relationship thing. I simply accept that women (Unless they're already comic fans) simply won't get our fandom, the way we will have trouble getting their passion for romance novels and shows like "The Bachlorette/Bachelor". I really paid the price once for critiquing that little TV gem.

 

[chaseter]

Of course I agree.

 

[Dragon]

I personally feel it would be going a little too far. Yes, spend a little time showing his parents dying. BUT, that's never been a defining moment for Peter. It's always Ben's death. Being spies would just take up time that could be spent elsewhere in the story; it adds nothing. Whichever way, Pete's parents still died which leads him to live with May and Ben. In this case, how they die is irrelevant. That they died and he was taken by his aunt and uncle is what's important. I wouldn't say it's stupid. It's just unneeded.

And I agree with you. Like I've been saying, the scope of the films doesn't require exploring the parent's death. Just as it doesn't require an in-depth exploration of Ben and May's past.

Again, i didn't even intially mention it focusing on the parents being spies- I simply pointed out that a villain ewas involved in their deaths.

 

[Eggyman]

And I agree with you. Like I've been saying, the scope of the films doesn't require exploring the parent's death. Just as it doesn't require an in-depth exploration of Ben and May's past.

Again, i didn't even intially mention it focusing on the parents being spies- I simply pointed out that a villain ewas involved in their deaths.

No worries. I wasn't pointing a finger at you. I was just giving my opinion on the subject.

 

[Dragon]

depends on what they were going for with that scene...i liked it. with the speed and fluidness that spidey moved with in that scene im not sure a stuntman could have captured that

other than the scene where Peter chased Uncle Ben's killer I didnt have an issue with the cgi in the movie...I think a movie that got lazy with the cgi was Superman Returns. The scene where he flies off after saving the plane just bothers me so much. I look at movies like Superman and Superman 2 and they had believeable flying without CGI.

i honestly think the armored car scene could have been done with stunts and wire-work. I believe the shooting of the films sould go like this:

1. Shoot as much as possible with the actor playing Spidey.
2. Bring in the stuntmen and shoot as much as can be done without risking injury.
3. Use CGI to fill-in the blanks.

I love CG and work with it everyday. But I just think it should be a tool and not a crutch.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Well I'm glad you don't mean me, because in all honesty it's one thing I don't think I've ever had much of a word in. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to bash just because something's been changed. I'll bash when I think the change is unneeded and just plain bad--a sloppy plot device that could've been avoided with better writing. I'm obviously not going to bash a change I like, no matter how 'big' it is. I mostly agree with you. The only thing that bothers me is:

You see what I'm getting at, right? If I feel one director has made a good choice in changing something, and I feel another director has been sloppy/lazy and could've avoided making a change that felt forced, then I'll say it. I won't say it in the same thread, because, let's face it, that's what all of this comes down to; certain people going into other forums and preaching about their hero director being so much better than the director of the franchise whose forum they're visiting. I'll go to the whatever boards and praise, and then I'll go to another forum and rip it if it deserves being ripped. Don't expect me to be going somewhere and rubbing salt in the wounds of a fanbase that's just had to swallow an oldsmobile full of sh**. Because, in truth, I am one of those fans. I don't go in the forums of franchises I don't like. You won't see me on the X-men boards. You won't see me on The Cap boards.

This Spidey-Bat war has got to end. Fans of both, like me, are constantly on edge because we see both sides and generally have to watch what we say at either camp.

You know, I've loved Spidey since I can remember, but I'm unable to make a post about where I think Raimi went wrong without being called 'Nolan's gay lover' or some such sh**.

I know you're in the same boat because I see you there too. It's not all black and white. You're not the devil if you don't like something. You're a fan, plain and simple. You're a fan that should be able to voice your worries on something without getting another one of your favourite franchises thrown back in your face. It's not a competition, and people should stop seeing it as such.

We're really on the same page. I simply feel that if a director makes a bad call, yes, nail him for it. Even if it's a movie/franchise that you otherwise like. That is your right as a fan. Much as I enjoy the X-Men movies I will not defend the casting of Halle Berry as Storm. Ever. I loved TDK but can no longer defend the costume. I think the direction that they're going with Cap's costume is a mistake. And I will say so. Now, do I think that Sam Raimi is an infallible god & wholeheartedly agree with every single decision that he's made? No. But I cannot abide all these people acting like he's the anti-Christ, and simultaneously heaping praise on Webb simply for the act of not being Raimi.
But again, be consistent in your critiques. "I don't like this movie because XYZ elements are different from the comics" is a flawed and hypocritical argument if you're going to say "I LOVE this other movie", which has just as many equally if not moreso radical differences. That's the part of my post that you seem to be having trouble with. As opposed to "I don't like the way XYZ elements were approached", period. Plain & simple, while saying "This other movie may have changed XYZ elements, but I can live with those changes" or "These changes were truly for the better" or even "These changes helped the story".