The Amazing Spider-Man I love Spider-Man but I hope this movie fails.

[AbsractPo3tic]

That is true. I remember the Triumphant idea as well as DarKnight, lol. And then Schumacher even vowed he'd make the next movie "darker", but I highly doubt that.

He's a great politician that's all that is lol. I mean he's made some good movies so he isn't a terrible director but I do believe that he essentially did what Warner's told him to do and I'm sure he had an inkling to do the story right but the dynamic in 2012 is different than 95-97 in regards to how you make a successful comic book flick. Parent's aren't going to complain about violence and dark stories as much as they did then because they're more aware of what they're taking their kids to see and on top of that, these studios want high critical acclaim and in this day and age, having your story be a bit thought provoking and deeper is a step in that right direction and hopefully that's what Marc Webb put together

 

[Anno_Domini]

Also true. Spider-Man 3 didn't even have an inch of heart that Spider-Man 3 had, and whoever is to blame, both sides are taken out of this equation. Raimi isn't involved and Arad isn't involved, or as much as he was outspoken during that time, so I do think this film could go back to being critically-acclaimed as Spider-Man 1 and 2.

Does that mean I don't fear for the outcome of The Amazing Spider-Man 3? Well, I definitely have my doubts.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Also true. Spider-Man 3 didn't even have an inch of heart that Spider-Man 3 had, and whoever is to blame, both sides are taken out of this equation. Raimi isn't involved and Arad isn't involved, or as much as he was outspoken during that time, so I do think this film could go back to being critically-acclaimed as Spider-Man 1 and 2.

Does that mean I don't fear for the outcome of The Amazing Spider-Man 3? Well, I definitely have my doubts.

Spider-Man 3 doesn't have the heart of Spider-Man 3? WTF?

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Also true. Spider-Man 3 didn't even have an inch of heart that Spider-Man 3 had, and whoever is to blame, both sides are taken out of this equation. Raimi isn't involved and Arad isn't involved, or as much as he was outspoken during that time, so I do think this film could go back to being critically-acclaimed as Spider-Man 1 and 2.

Does that mean I don't fear for the outcome of The Amazing Spider-Man 3? Well, I definitely have my doubts.

The benefit this has that spidey 3 didn't, is less ego. By that, I mean the studio isn't feeling bullet proof which can happen after two very successful films, one can start to feel invincible and just put out whatever and feel like it'll work but starting over puts that fear in you, realizing that you HAVE to be on point or else this is it. However, Avi is involved just as much I believe, well at least in regards to making sure the ship is going in the right direction but I believe he has come out and admitted that spidey 3 was a misstep even though he was definitely trying to spin it during that summer, but Webb has said that he has been given reign to do what he wants and add dimensions to it that he felt needed to be in there and the one advantage he has: Sony came to him, not the other way around. I'd LOVE to be in that position

 

[Anno_Domini]

Spider-Man 3 doesn't have the heart of Spider-Man 3? WTF?

Spider-Man 3 didn't have the heart that Spider-Man 2 had, my bad.

When I get into typing mode, I make mistakes t:

The benefit this has that spidey 3 didn't, is less ego. By that, I mean the studio isn't feeling bullet proof which can happen after two very successful films, one can start to feel invincible and just put out whatever and feel like it'll work but starting over puts that fear in you, realizing that you HAVE to be on point or else this is it. However, Avi is involved just as much I believe, well at least in regards to making sure the ship is going in the right direction but I believe he has come out and admitted that spidey 3 was a misstep even though he was definitely trying to spin it during that summer, but Webb has said that he has been given reign to do what he wants and add dimensions to it that he felt needed to be in there and the one advantage he has: Sony came to him, not the other way around. I'd LOVE to be in that position

Well, that sounds terrific and all, but I just want to see how the upcoming sequels are, such as if Webb does keep that reign over everything and anything and not get pushed against the wall into doing something else. That's where my fear comes along, and not just because of Spider-Man 3, but because of all third CBMs. Perhaps TDKR will start something of actually great third CBMs where the director has his own say in things, but, I still have that caution.

 

[ElijahSoRight72]

Not going to even bother reading what you said, because going on the title alone... you're a Raimi basher and not a Spider-Man fan. "I hope this movie fails." Do you have any idea how childish that sounds?

Raimi's Spider-Man was not perfect by any means. A reboot allows Webb to not make the same mistakes... and deliver another interpretation of a certain character that we all know and love. An interpretation which people may like even more than Raimi's.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Spider-Man 3 didn't have the heart that Spider-Man 2 had, my bad.

When I get into typing mode, I make mistakes t:



Well, that sounds terrific and all, but I just want to see how the upcoming sequels are, such as if Webb does keep that reign over everything and anything and not get pushed against the wall into doing something else. That's where my fear comes along, and not just because of Spider-Man 3, but because of all third CBMs. Perhaps TDKR will start something of actually great third CBMs where the director has his own say in things, but, I still have that caution.

Touche. Hopefully we get to find that out

 

[MaryJaneOrDie]

You can't say Spider-Man 3 was as bad as Batman and Robin. That movie made absolutely no sense and the entire thing was just a god awful innuendo. I'd say it's fair for someone to compare it to Batman Forever, inferior to the previous two, but not still had its moments.

As for the Lizard, it's not that I don't like the character, he's just ehh not my favorite. He's definitely better than Vulture, but I've just never really been looking forward to him, even in the Raimi movies I was hoping theyd touch base on other villains first. The part of the new series thats going to make or break it for me, it how they handle Gwens Death. I really want to see a movie about the aftermath, and I want to see the Black Cat put onto screen. She wasn't my favorite character but the moment where Spider-Man reveals himself to her and she rejects him is one of the most powerful moments in the comics to me.

I'll admit I've made a few judgements, but its mostly because I'm not feeling the vibes put out from the trailer. As long as the movie understands Spider-Man isnt supposed to be deep and thought provoking in a dark gritty way (like batman), but thought provoking in a relatable touching way, I'll be fine. It can have its dark moments but in the end its the way Peter handles his problems with stride and doesnt compromise who he is that makes Spider-Man stand out to me.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It's very fair to compare Spider-Man 3 to Batman & Robin. Both had their respected studios push more than what they should have into the film; at least Schumacher still had some reign on Batman Forever. We're not comparing the tones of the films, but comparing how the studios pushed their noses too far into the films and that's what made their tones far apart from the respected previous films. Spider-Man 3 was nothing like 2 and 1 and didn't keep the original tone and was too campy to have been a sequel to 2 as B&R became far too campy to be a sequel to BF. At least BF felt like a real sequel that was actually thought-provoking in certain areas, such as Bruce deciding to hang up his cape and cowl.

And Black Cat? I was against the idea of her being in Spider-Man 2 and I'd be against the idea of her showing up in the reboot series. Catwoman makes sense for Batman, but there doesn't need to be an anti-hero with Spider-Man, and she wouldn't be able to pull as a full villain either.

And plus, the trailer is just one trailer of many; there's no way to think Webb is trying to pull BB/TDK levels of dark, so there will be no reason to already judge on that without just sounding like complaining.

 

[Gwendolyn Stacy]

I love the Sam Raimi trilogy and would've liked to see a fourth film, but I'm looking forward to seeing a new take on the characters.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I love the Sam Raimi trilogy and would've liked to see a fourth film, but I'm looking forward to seeing a new take on the characters.

Agreed.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Lol. Sony decided to cancel Spider-Man 4 because it sounded god awful. Go read the plots that were apparently going to be for the movie. It sounded horrible as a movie AND as an adaptation of the comics.

I have a pretty big feeling that ASM will blow the Rami movies out of the water.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Actually the best way to make money is marketing and advertising, not making a good final product, especially in superhero movies. Your point is logical and should be valid, but its assuming the only selling point the movie has is quality. Superheroes for the most part are big established names that are guaranteed to rake in at the box office. A great example, Daredevil. The directors cut is a vastly superior movie than what we got in theaters. The studio cut it up, inorder to stop it from being rated R, so they could get a bigger profit. The thing is, they didn't cut out much of the violence or the things that really made it inappropriate for kids, they cut out the subplot that tied the whole movie together.

I could go on for hours about this but in what way is it ignorant? Youre saying I'm "romanticizing" but you only went to show you know little about the industry and how it works. Of coarse thats the way it's supposed to work, but do you really think movies are successful based off of quality now a days? Do you think Pirates of the Caribbean 4 or the Twlight Saga deserve some kind of recognition from the AFI? The system is broken and the studios seem to care more about marketability that the actual contents of the movie.

The only Marvel movies that really let me down so far have been Thor and Iron Man 2, Captain America wasnt great but it was entertaining. The original Iron Man by no means was cookie-cutter. The problem I have with them is they spend too much time trying to set up for the eventual team up in the Avengers rather than as stand alone films.

The advantage Marvel has however, is they wont have the time constraints sony or fox have with (since they dont have to worry about the right reverting to themselves) and we wouldnt end up with rushed projects or x-men origins style movies.

Marketing is only half of it. Yes, having good marketing is important, but ultimately, the success lies on the product itself. You can spend all the money and time you want on marketing a film, but if the film doesn't live up to it's audience's expectations, the marketing won't save it. You see this countless times: a movie gets hyped up for months, which makes the opening weekend big, but then there's a 65% drop the next week because word of mouth got out that the movie sucks.

I understand the industry fine, thank you. You may not like what I'm saying, but that doesn't make my opinions any less valid (heck, you've even argued against points where I was agreeing with you.) I'm not saying that "money isn't a factor" at all. I even said as much in my last post.

What I'm considering you to romanticize about concerning this industry is the idea that film is some pure art form that should (or even can) be free from the politics and financial trappings of a studio. Yes, that would be WONDERFUL, however it will never happen across the board. Sure, you might get some films here and there where the director calls the shots 100%, but it's a pipe dream to expect that all the time, everywhere. There's just too much money and jobs at stake. And even when the director has full control, that is NOT a guarantee that the movie will be good at all.

Another thing on that topic is the fact that you think the system doesn't work as a whole; that the relationship between artist and financier is always a deal with the devil where the art is sacrificed for the bottom line. First off, this is a situation that is universal across ALL life, and has been going on ever since one caveman paid another cave man to sharpen a rock for a piece of food. ANY time you're dealing with investors where money is at stake, you find that you must respect the limitations that the money line draws. Yes, this can be bad, and there are plenty of examples of that. However, I would argue that there are far MORE examples where the relationship between artist and the money creates a positive outcome. The demonization of the entire process, without admitting to the positives is what I find ignorant, and the expectation that artists can create their masterpiece without the money to be a romanticized view.

This Spider-Man movie failing will not save anything. It will not revert back to Marvel any time soon, and even if it did, that fact alone is NOT going to magically make an exceptional movie. If anything, the VERY thing your complaining about (studio interference) is even WORSE at Marvel. This movie - by all accounts thus far - seems to be on track with making a quality movie with a cast and crew that respects and understands the character. Why anyone would be against that just so they can see marvel produce yet ANOTHER REBOOT is beyond me.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Marketing is only half of it. Yes, having good marketing is important, but ultimately, the success lies on the product itself. You can spend all the money and time you want on marketing a film, but if the film doesn't live up to it's audience's expectations, the marketing won't save it. You see this countless times: a movie gets hyped up for months, which makes the opening weekend big, but then there's a 65% drop the next week because word of mouth got out that the movie sucks.

I understand the industry fine, thank you. You may not like what I'm saying, but that doesn't make my opinions any less valid (heck, you've even argued against points where I was agreeing with you.) I'm not saying that "money isn't a factor" at all. I even said as much in my last post.

What I'm considering you to romanticize about concerning this industry is the idea that film is some pure art form that should (or even can) be free from the politics and financial trappings of a studio. Yes, that would be WONDERFUL, however it will never happen across the board. Sure, you might get some films here and there where the director calls the shots 100%, but it's a pipe dream to expect that all the time, everywhere. There's just too much money and jobs at stake. And even when the director has full control, that is NOT a guarantee that the movie will be good at all.

Another thing on that topic is the fact that you think the system doesn't work as a whole; that the relationship between artist and financier is always a deal with the devil where the art is sacrificed for the bottom line. First off, this is a situation that is universal across ALL life, and has been going on ever since one caveman paid another cave man to sharpen a rock for a piece of food. ANY time you're dealing with investors where money is at stake, you find that you must respect the limitations that the money line draws. Yes, this can be bad, and there are plenty of examples of that. However, I would argue that there are far MORE examples where the relationship between artist and the money creates a positive one. The demonization of the entire process, without admitting to the positives is what I find ignorant, and the expectation that artists create their masterpiece without the money to be romanticized.

This Spider-Man movie failing will not save anything. It will not revert back to Marvel any time soon, and even if it did, that fact alone is NOT going to magically make an exceptional movie. If anything, the VERY thing your complaining about (studio interference) is even WORSE at Marvel. This movie - by all accounts thus far - seems to be on track with making a quality movie with a cast and crew that respects and understands the character. Why anyone would be against that just so they can see marvel produce yet ANOTHER REBOOT is beyond me.

Agreed.

Mary Jane or Die is a fool.

 

[Smegger56]

I would not have been excited by a fouth Raimi film.

Not just because of spidey 3, but all of them. I was excited by each and everyone, due to them having GREAT trailers and marketing build up. I'd come out of the cinema going 'GREAT FILMS'... even spidey 3.

But then, thinking about them and then watching them on DVD, man, they where poor films overall. Spidey 2, which many consider the best comic film ever, is 70-80% dull. The MJ/Pete bits just had no heart or chemistry in them, with some atrocious dialog.

Like I said, the Raimi films had there moments, but where lackluster for the most part to me. I will always be greatful to Raimi in bringing spidey to the big screen, and seeing the web head in live action. But i'm glad he's not coming back. for me, his version wasn't true spidey. Again, IMO.

I'm hoping Webb delivers more depth to the characters, let's them actually grow (peter was the same damn guy in all 3 films) and, as people have seen in the comic con footage, gives us a real smart ass, gabby, spidey.

Come on 'Webb-head', give us a top notch spidey film

 

[Smegger56]

Marketing is only half of it. Yes, having good marketing is important, but ultimately, the success lies on the product itself. You can spend all the money and time you want on marketing a film, but if the film doesn't live up to it's audience's expectations, the marketing won't save it. You see this countless times: a movie gets hyped up for months, which makes the opening weekend big, but then there's a 65% drop the next week because word of mouth got out that the movie sucks.

I understand the industry fine, thank you. You may not like what I'm saying, but that doesn't make my opinions any less valid (heck, you've even argued against points where I was agreeing with you.) I'm not saying that "money isn't a factor" at all. I even said as much in my last post.

What I'm considering you to romanticize about concerning this industry is the idea that film is some pure art form that should (or even can) be free from the politics and financial trappings of a studio. Yes, that would be WONDERFUL, however it will never happen across the board. Sure, you might get some films here and there where the director calls the shots 100%, but it's a pipe dream to expect that all the time, everywhere. There's just too much money and jobs at stake. And even when the director has full control, that is NOT a guarantee that the movie will be good at all.

Another thing on that topic is the fact that you think the system doesn't work as a whole; that the relationship between artist and financier is always a deal with the devil where the art is sacrificed for the bottom line. First off, this is a situation that is universal across ALL life, and has been going on ever since one caveman paid another cave man to sharpen a rock for a piece of food. ANY time you're dealing with investors where money is at stake, you find that you must respect the limitations that the money line draws. Yes, this can be bad, and there are plenty of examples of that. However, I would argue that there are far MORE examples where the relationship between artist and the money creates a positive outcome. The demonization of the entire process, without admitting to the positives is what I find ignorant, and the expectation that artists can create their masterpiece without the money to be a romanticized view.

This Spider-Man movie failing will not save anything. It will not revert back to Marvel any time soon, and even if it did, that fact alone is NOT going to magically make an exceptional movie. If anything, the VERY thing your complaining about (studio interference) is even WORSE at Marvel. This movie - by all accounts thus far - seems to be on track with making a quality movie with a cast and crew that respects and understands the character. Why anyone would be against that just so they can see marvel produce yet ANOTHER REBOOT is beyond me.

Very nice post, especially the last paragraph

 

[kedrell]

This Spider-Man movie failing will not save anything. It will not revert back to Marvel any time soon, and even if it did, that fact alone is NOT going to magically make an exceptional movie. If anything, the VERY thing your complaining about (studio interference) is even WORSE at Marvel. This movie - by all accounts thus far - seems to be on track with making a quality movie with a cast and crew that respects and understands the character. Why anyone would be against that just so they can see marvel produce yet ANOTHER REBOOT is beyond me.

Well I'd say studio interference is only bad when the studio in question doesn't know what they're doing. So far IMO, MS is the only studio working in this genre that actually DOES know what they're doing on a consistent basis, so I wouldn't mind them making sure their product is true to it's roots. I'd say the bast of the outside studio's efforts has only managed to match the lowest level of the MS movies in quality.

I'd love for Marvel to get Spidey back and integrate him into their cinematic universe. But at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that that won't happen for quite some time, if ever. So in lieu of that, I hope this movie ends up being Sony's best superhero movie yet(which shouldn't be too hard, given what we've had from them so far).

 

[SpideyFan866]

Well I'd say studio interference is only bad when the studio in question doesn't know what they're doing. So far IMO, MS is the only studio working in this genre that actually DOES know what they're doing on a consistent basis, so I wouldn't mind them making sure their product is true to it's roots. I'd say the bast of the outside studio's efforts has only managed to match the lowest level of the MS movies in quality.

I'd love for Marvel to get Spidey back and integrate him into their cinematic universe. But at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that that won't happen for quite some time, if ever. So in lieu of that, I hope this movie ends up being Sony's best superhero movie yet(which shouldn't be too hard, given what we've had from them so far).

Marvel does now what they are doing somewhat. I say this because they have had troubles with the directors of their films because they want the films to be able to show the bigger picture with SHIELD and all that and it has made it hard for the directors to make simply, a good film. The primary example of this is Iron Man 2. That film could have been much better than it was. It was bad because Marvel was so concerned with setting up The Avengers and bringing SHIELD into a more prominent role that it took away from what would have been. That's why most of Mickey Rourke's work ended up on the cutting room floor and why Jon Favreau in directing Iron Man 3. Favreau didn't want to put up with having to pretty much make a prequel to the Avengers rather than making an Iron Man film.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Marvel does now what they are doing somewhat. I say this because they have had troubles with the directors of their films because they want the films to be able to show the bigger picture with SHIELD and all that and it has made it hard for the directors to make simply, a good film. The primary example of this is Iron Man 2. That film could have been much better than it was. It was bad because Marvel was so concerned with setting up The Avengers and bringing SHIELD into a more prominent role that it took away from what would have been. That's why most of Mickey Rourke's work ended up on the cutting room floor and why Jon Favreau in directing Iron Man 3. Favreau didn't want to put up with having to pretty much make a prequel to the Avengers rather than making an Iron Man film.

I said the same thing. Just because you know what you're doing, that doesn't always mean you're making the right decision. Iron Man 2 suffered because of it and clearly there is something in the kool-aid there because directors and actors always leave over money or creative differences and these are good directors. Just saying

 

[Papa G]

You know, I'm glad this thread was made. Wasn't SM3 only 5 years ago? They rebooted Batman after 8, and it may seem like a small difference, but I'm still recovering from how bad SM3 was. The answer of why they're making this movie is absolutely greed. I mean Hulk was shortly rebooted, and I do think it was a huge improvement, but I just don't know about this film. SM and SM2(especially) were great, and SM2 remains one of my favorite superhero movies. Even though 3 was terrible, I don't know if they can make an improvement over the other two films. I usually post in the Batman threads, but I have to ask, are Spider Man fans genuinely looking forward to this? I do think the lizard looks good, but other than that I'm not sure this movie will be anything special...

 

[Troy_Parker]

II usually post in the Batman threads, but I have to ask, are Spider Man fans genuinely looking forward to this? I do think the lizard looks good, but other than that I'm not sure this movie will be anything special...

Let's see what Spider-Man fans are getting in this movie:

- A Spider-Man who isn't a mute

- Praise the Lord! Mechanical web shooters/an INTELLECTUAL Peter Parker, something hardly touched upon in the previous franchise

- A new storyline which is based around Peter's parents and their secrets

- Gwen Stacy! Peter's first love and the very likely possibility of finally seeing the death of Gwen Stacy onscreen

- A new, more "real" take on Spider-Man/another interpretation of our favourite hero

- One of Spidey's most vicious foes, the Lizard!

So... yes. We are.

Besides, I think anybody who's a true Spider-Man fan should give this movie a chance rather than just dismissing it on the basis of blind Raimi-fanboyism. Because I honestly do think this movie will be even better than Spider-Man (2002).

 

[Godzilla2014]

Let's see what Spider-Man fans are getting in this movie:

- A Spider-Man who isn't a mute

- Praise the Lord! Mechanical web shooters/an INTELLECTUAL Peter Parker, something hardly touched upon in the previous franchise

- A new storyline which is based around Peter's parents and their secrets

- Gwen Stacy! Peter's first love and the very likely possibility of finally seeing the death of Gwen Stacy onscreen

- A new, more "real" take on Spider-Man/another interpretation of our favourite hero

- One of Spidey's most vicious foes, the Lizard!

So... yes. We are.

Besides, I think anybody who's a true Spider-Man fan should give this movie a chance rather than just dismissing it on the basis of blind Raimi-fanboyism. Because I honestly do think this movie will be even better than Spider-Man (2002).

On the topic of Spider-Man himself, I think there are three things I can think of to improve upon his characterization from the Raimi films:

• Spider-Man's sarcastic wit in costume. One of the things I love about Spider-Man is that he's a smartass superhero, who has a more tongue-in-cheek view of his costumed crimefighting.
• Make Peter Parker more proactive: Spider-Man isn't a world class detective like Batman, but I want to see him do more to stop villains than just wait for them to appear and then beat the living snot out of them. I think implementing Spider-Tracers could alleviate this problem.
• Demonstrate Peter's scientific intellect a bit more: While I have no problem with biological webshooters in and of themselves, I think that mechanical webshooters may facilitate Peter using his scientific prowess and ingenuity a bit more. As I mentioned before, I think Spider-Tracers could also help in this regard.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Let's see what Spider-Man fans are getting in this movie:

- A Spider-Man who isn't a mute

- Praise the Lord! Mechanical web shooters/an INTELLECTUAL Peter Parker, something hardly touched upon in the previous franchise

- A new storyline which is based around Peter's parents and their secrets

- Gwen Stacy! Peter's first love and the very likely possibility of finally seeing the death of Gwen Stacy onscreen

- A new, more "real" take on Spider-Man/another interpretation of our favourite hero

- One of Spidey's most vicious foes, the Lizard!

So... yes. We are.

Besides, I think anybody who's a true Spider-Man fan should give this movie a chance rather than just dismissing it on the basis of blind Raimi-fanboyism. Because I honestly do think this movie will be even better than Spider-Man (2002).

 

[SpideyFan866]

Let's see what Spider-Man fans are getting in this movie:

- A Spider-Man who isn't a mute

- Praise the Lord! Mechanical web shooters/an INTELLECTUAL Peter Parker, something hardly touched upon in the previous franchise

- A new storyline which is based around Peter's parents and their secrets

- Gwen Stacy! Peter's first love and the very likely possibility of finally seeing the death of Gwen Stacy onscreen

- A new, more "real" take on Spider-Man/another interpretation of our favourite hero

- One of Spidey's most vicious foes, the Lizard!

So... yes. We are.

Besides, I think anybody who's a true Spider-Man fan should give this movie a chance rather than just dismissing it on the basis of blind Raimi-fanboyism. Because I honestly do think this movie will be even better than Spider-Man (2002).

DING DING DING! You are correct sir!

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

On the topic of Spider-Man himself, I think there are three things I can think of to improve upon his characterization from the Raimi films:

• Spider-Man's sarcastic wit in costume. One of the things I love about Spider-Man is that he's a smartass superhero, who has a more tongue-in-cheek view of his costumed crimefighting.
  [*]Make Peter Parker more proactive: Spider-Man isn't a world class detective like Batman, but I want to see him do more to stop villains than just wait for them to appear and then beat the living snot out of them. I think implementing Spider-Tracers could alleviate this problem.
• Demonstrate Peter's scientific intellect a bit more: While I have no problem with biological webshooters in and of themselves, I think that mechanical webshooters may facilitate Peter using his scientific prowess and ingenuity a bit more. As I mentioned before, I think Spider-Tracers could also help in this regard.

Praise God, someone agrees with me. I always had an issue with Peter being reactive instead of proactive. He says someone should stop Green Goblin, does he go patrol for him? No, the Goblin sets a trap for him. He quits in the midst of Doc Ock being on the lose and robbing banks because he's in love..now grant it, Pete did quit being Spidey before but NOT in the middle of something that major going on. And the only reason he was looking for the sandman is because he wanted revenge. You're right, he isn't Batman but he is a pretty good detective and does his job to patrol and protect the city