In Name Only

[Spider-Aziz]

Look, I love the Raimi/Maguire trilogy, and as hard as I am on Spider-Man 2, I love it too, but it's not fair to go rant about movies we (maybe not me in this case) dislike being INO, when they are not more distant from the source material than characters are in this version.

Let's take a look at how distance characters are here from being like most recognizable versions of themselves from the source material and printed spin-offs.
We can include characters that are in the movie, an amalgamation of different characters or different versions of themselves from the comics.


Exhibit A: Doctor Curtis Connors

Movie version: Physics professor, a dear friend of Otto Octavius, a teacher of Peter Parker, they met as a professor in Columbia University and the college student who worked for him there and then the student got fired for tardiness. That's all we know of him.

Comics version: Former physician (MD, not a physicist), turned to biology after losing his arm, majored in herpetology in hopes of finding a way to grow a new arm in place of the one he lost.
When did he join E.S.U? After Peter Parker joined the university's grad student program, and that happened after years of friendship between Connors and Spider-Man, there was never a meeting between the two when Peter was without his mask before then. Peter later helped with him in the university lab a few times.

How did Curt Connors get to be a physics teacher and a first boss of Peter Parker? They likely made an amalgamation with the head of Physics department of E.S.U when Parker was a grad student and a teaching assistant; Professor Moris Sloan. (I'm pretty sure the comic character has one 'r' in his first name)


...............................
...............................


Who is willing to go with Exhibit 'B'?

 

[Kreem Pi]

Just for context, he has made this silly thread because people don't like the failed ASM movies due to their mishandling of the essence of Peter Parker's character.

Because as we all know, getting Curt Connor's precise canonical career path, who is barely a character, more a series of cameos, is worth the same as getting the essence of the main character right.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Now that you got that most essential thought out of the way, want to play the game? Have fun with the idea? Cause this is part of what we should do here, have entertaining discussions that are relevant to the spot.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

No one? Ok.
Silly lack of essence of the character you say? Let's review

Exhibit B: PETER PARKER

Movie version: Nice loving nephew, who ignored his aunt and uncle after discovering his powers, yelled at his uncle when he tried to talk to him like the legal guardian he is, stares at the window in a girl's private room just cause her window is straight across his and he had a crush on her for so long, .
His uncle died, he chased the wrong guy, and broke his hand.
A little too timid in the first movie, way too timid in the second movie, a dancing dork in the third, who is too lost in his dorkiness he doesn't let his girlfriend talk.

As Spider-Man he was done mostly right, the only time he was off is when he shows Otto his face cause punching didn't do it. I can take changes, so I would take this with open arms if not for how badly Doc Ock's arc is done in that overrated movie.

Comics version: Soft spoken, confident, talks and act like a jock at times, cynical at times, can be awkward and silent to relatable levels, not nearly as mopey and dorky as he was in the movies, especially the second one.

How did such changes happen? I don't know.


...............................
...............................


Who is willing to go with Exhibit 'C'?

 

[Frankeh]

Just for context, he has made this silly thread because people don't like the failed ASM movies due to their mishandling of the essence of Peter Parker's character.

Yikes. That explains it.

Y'all need to let it go... Homecoming is a success. Don't be sore about it.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Yikes. That explains it.

Y'all need to let it go... Homecoming is a success. Don't be sore about it.

Explains what? If one side gets the "INO, THAT'S INO", why not examine another side?

 

[Herofan]

Comics version: Soft spoken, confident, talks and act like a jock at times, cynical at times, can be awkward and silent to relatable levels, not nearly as mopey and dorky as he was in the movies, especially the second one.

I don't know about comics Peter being jock-y but he did at times confront and challenge and belittle Flash rather than let him walk over him. He definitely had a cynical side and he wasn't as mopey and definitely not as dorky as in the movies.

A little too timid in the first movie, way too timid in the second movie

How did such changes happen? I don't know.

Well the dorkiness in the first film was probably for comic relief and I thought it was excessive (but toned down in 2) and the cynicism didn't fit given that Raimi was going for a pretty bright, feel-good tone (also a little excessive).
I think it makes sense that in 2 that after movie Mary Jane's near-death and his thus feeling a need to be more isolated (for over a year), plus Harry being resentful of his job, he would be more morose and depressed.
Also in general a lot of times when he was feeling morose and mopey in the comics that was mostly conveyed through internal thoughts and since that couldn't be done much the filmmakers had to exaggerate the visuals.

The main problem I had with movie Peter was he seemed too obsessed with and motivated by Mary Jane (and then the egotism was too much in 3) but still a decent, pretty-close adaptation.