Sequels In retrospect - I'm disgusted with the series.

[NinjaCarm]

Yeah sure the series has made oodles of money but at what cost? Look how un-nerved the majority of people were after part 3...

After seeing such high quality of Batman Begins and Dark Knight, it's clear that Sam Raimi's vision of "This story is all about a girl" bull is sub par and deserving what true potential the series should have had.

It should have never been all about a girl, Peter whining in part 2 and dancing in part 3. They just had to grab all sorts of audiences with the love story angle didn't they? Spider-Man's brand name alone and abscene from the cinema would have brought everyone in alone.

Batman Begins was all about Bruce Wayne's journey and Spider-Man should have been about Peter and his sin that lost him his uncle, not Peter wallowing over Mary Jane.

So what happened ultimately? We were subjected to a "family friendly" pussed out Peter Parker, with the wrong girl in there first, Willem Dafoe being denied a true Green Goblin performance with his face behind a metal mask, Venom in for ten minutes and screwed over, Sandman crying, Mary Jane being overly annoying, dancing, and a British reporter.

I want to thank Christopher Nolan for his vision of Batman, because it is showing everyone just how inept some superhero franchises are, including Spider-Man.

I can only imagine a true Spider-Man series, with Gwen Stacey in the first two films, Doc Ock the first villian, Green Goblin in part 2 (being set up as Spider-Man's best villian ala the Joker in Dark Knight) killing Gwen Stacy and then having Mary Jane be set up as Peter's confidant and next love. Thank's Raimi. I am maybe 5% excited about part 4, simply because the Lizard will most likely be in it.

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

I'm not so much against the idea of the girl being a main point, as Spider-Man should be an every man and there's always a girl that an average joe is after. But notice I said A main point, not the main focus. You can only play the damsel in distress so many times before it gets old. The thing is that MJ was so annoying that I could not buy into the romance at all. She just comes off as a ***** who runs away from Pete at any sign of the relationship not working. Seriously, Raimi invested so much in it and all we get is the LAMEST death scene ever where Harry's kicking it and Dunst and Maguire are try to out cry the other one. WTF? That should have been a tearjerker of a scene.

Also, as much as I LOVE TDK and what Nolan's done, I've realized that you can't try to make that happen with every single hero. Spider-Man is not Batman. They're both cool and some of the most popular heroes ever, yeah, but totally different. They should not borrow from each other. They need to look at what made the first two work, and what was good in the third one and then use that to help make an awesome number 4.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about Raimi making another one. He might redeem himself, but I really do not care to see Dunst as MJ and Raimi's idea of humor. It needs new blood. Not a restart like Batman though. Maybe set it 10 years into the future, where Spidey is a veteran, possibly married, and not so whiny.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Wow, so your letting one Batman film basically change your whole outlook on the Spider-Man franchise? They are completely different franchises.

To each his own, I'm sticking with Sam Raimi and as my sig says, I trust in Sam Raimi for Spider-Man 4.

 

[Venom 1988]

Wow, so your letting one Batman film basically change your whole outlook on the Spider-Man franchise? They are completely different franchises.

Yea but that has nothing to do with film quality, regardless of how different the characters and their respective world's are. Look at the TDK.......now look at SM3.

See a difference?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Yes, but I don't think someone should just give up on a franchise because of a film that some people were dissapointed with.

 

[p4poetic]

You are waaaay overreacting.

Batman Begins was all about Bruce Wayne's journey and Spider-Man should have been about Peter and his sin that lost him his uncle, not Peter wallowing over Mary Jane.

You want a whole movie based on Peter Parker's journey? Lets see.

A nerdy boy in high school gets bitten by a radio active spider during a science tour. The spider gives boy spider like powers. Boy's uncle is killed in a car accident, boy becomes a superhero known as 'Spider-Man'.

They covered that whole story in the opening titles of the animated series in '94. And you want an entire movie devoted to that one subplot? :

I think you're suffering from Nolanitis. In case you don't know what Nolanitis is, its a diagnosis for fanboys who all of a sudden think every superhero film they ever loved now sucks and are meaningless because of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

So what happened ultimately? We were subjected to a "family friendly" pussed out Peter Parker, with the wrong girl in there first,

"Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man". That pretty much sums up Spider-Man's premise and audience. He's not Batman. Wrong girl smong girl. Nobody complains about Rachael Dawes, a character that doesn't even exist, in an origin story for Bruce Wayne/Batman.

 

[Venom 1988]

^^ Yes, but I don't think someone should just give up on a franchise because of a film that some people were dissapointed with.

Of course, thats his doing.

 

[LightningFlash]

Wow, so your letting one Batman film basically change your whole outlook on the Spider-Man franchise? They are completely different franchises.

To each his own, I'm sticking with Sam Raimi and as my sig says, I trust in Sam Raimi for Spider-Man 4.

Spider-Man 2 wasn't that godly either, fyi.

I would prefer a Doc Ock that doesn't turn out to be a sympathetic villain.

I would prefer more Norman/Harry interaction within the three films.

And I would rather have Gwen Stacy be in the first two movies.

I would not be one saying 'I trust Sam Raimi'...because he has screwed up many characters.

I trust Sam Raimi to ufck up Spider-Man 4.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

because he has screwed up many characters.

You mean changed the characters? It's his interpretation, and it's his film as well.

 

[Matt Murdock]

Spider-Man was remarkable.

• I was twelve when it came out, and it was one of the last films I got to see with my mother before she passed away. Of course, I'm going to put oodles of sentimental value on this film. I've loved Spider-Man since I was tiny, and seeing him finally come to the big screen was a huge thrill for me. Like Dafoe, thought Tobey did a fine job (fine as in decent), and I got to Kirsten Dunst's nipples. The character of Peter Parker was sympathetic and understandable, but wasn't so utterly mopey that he was pathetic. There were no montages in this scene, save for the one where Peter designed his costume. Oh, and, let's not forget that the burglar killed Uncle Ben.

Spider-Man 2 was underwhelming.

• Doc Ock wouldn't die a monster? Please. He was a monster. He threatened to kill an old lady and would have peeled Mary Jane like an onion. But, of course, we're expected to feel bad for him because his wife died. Not only that, it wasn't that Otto went insane, it was that he was under the influence of artificial intelligence. Spooky. The sole reason that people have found TDK to be so utterly powerful is because The Joker wasn't abridged or hindered in any way. He was pure evil. Spider-Man's villains have been kid-friendly.

Spider-Man 3 was trash.

• Sandman killed Uncle Ben. Thank you, Sam Raimi.

 

[Matt Murdock]

You mean changed the characters? It's his interpretation, and it's his film as well.

No. He ****ed them up. He ****ed them up big-time. Uncle Ben wasn't killed by a sympathetic guy who was looking for cash to cure his dying daughter. Uncle Ben was killed by a carjacker who Peter Parker could've stopped but chose not to.

That's textbook ****ing up.

 

[LightningFlash]

You mean changed the characters? It's his interpretation, and it's his film as well.

Well Raimi's interpretation sucks balls.

Marvel needs to bring Spidey home.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

No. He ****ed them up. He ****ed them up big-time. Uncle Ben wasn't killed by a sympathetic guy who was looking for cash to cure his dying daughter. Uncle Ben was killed by a carjacker who Peter Parker could've stopped but chose not to.

That's textbook ****ing up.

It's nice to see some people around here that actually get it rather than sucking on Raimi's knob. I've been saying for quite some time that while these movies might have been very entertaining, they're so horribly butchered and off-base it's sickening.

The whole trilogy is like one giant missed opportunity/blunder after another.

 

[The Joker]

My biggest gripe with this franchise is MJ. I hate that she is the primary focus of Peter's world. And to add insult to injury, she's a badly written character. She uses men and then dumps them just to satisfy her own insecurities. Even when she's with them, she's scoring with other men.

And I agree with the sentiments made above about the villains. I loved Green Goblin and Doc Ock, and they both had moments where they really felt like their comic book counterparts, but overall they were a bit too kiddified and tame. Ock and Gobby are Spidey's most evil and deadliest enemies in the comics. I want to see them really cut loose on screen. The villains in SM-3 were utter trash, just like the rest of the movie.

 

[Spiderine]

The first two movies were entertaining with decent stories. But that last outing was a pure crapfest. Eddie brock jr was a poorly handled character as well as Sandman. And changing the entire Uncle Ben killing was totally unnecessary.

 

[Jick]

And it ruined a classic storyline because Sam Raimi wanted the villain to have a d@mn unnecessary connection with Spidey.

 

[the_joker]

Yeah sure the series has made oodles of money but at what cost? Look how un-nerved the majority of people were after part 3...

After seeing such high quality of Batman Begins and Dark Knight, it's clear that Sam Raimi's vision of "This story is all about a girl" bull is sub par and deserving what true potential the series should have had.

It should have never been all about a girl, Peter whining in part 2 and dancing in part 3. They just had to grab all sorts of audiences with the love story angle didn't they? Spider-Man's brand name alone and abscene from the cinema would have brought everyone in alone.

Batman Begins was all about Bruce Wayne's journey and Spider-Man should have been about Peter and his sin that lost him his uncle, not Peter wallowing over Mary Jane.

So what happened ultimately? We were subjected to a "family friendly" pussed out Peter Parker, with the wrong girl in there first, Willem Dafoe being denied a true Green Goblin performance with his face behind a metal mask, Venom in for ten minutes and screwed over, Sandman crying, Mary Jane being overly annoying, dancing, and a British reporter.

I want to thank Christopher Nolan for his vision of Batman, because it is showing everyone just how inept some superhero franchises are, including Spider-Man.

I can only imagine a true Spider-Man series, with Gwen Stacey in the first two films, Doc Ock the first villian, Green Goblin in part 2 (being set up as Spider-Man's best villian ala the Joker in Dark Knight) killing Gwen Stacy and then having Mary Jane be set up as Peter's confidant and next love. Thank's Raimi. I am maybe 5% excited about part 4, simply because the Lizard will most likely be in it.

Seriously, get over TDK. It's a great film but take it from a life-long Batman fan since 1988, Batman and Spider-man are two completely different heroes. Spider-man is more family-friendly and revolves around a high-school kid, modern age Batman has always been darker - Bruce/Batman is a mentally unstable vigilante who consorts with prostitutes and faces much darker foes who likes to cause mindless destruction and senseless killing. I know New York was bad in the 1980s, but it wasn't that bad in comparison to Gotham! Not every film should be dark and depressing like TDK. Be open-minded to different styles, not be calling for an one-size to fit all approach.

Spider-Man was remarkable.

• I was twelve when it came out, and it was one of the last films I got to see with my mother before she passed away. Of course, I'm going to put oodles of sentimental value on this film. I've loved Spider-Man since I was tiny, and seeing him finally come to the big screen was a huge thrill for me. Like Dafoe, thought Tobey did a fine job (fine as in decent), and I got to Kirsten Dunst's nipples. The character of Peter Parker was sympathetic and understandable, but wasn't so utterly mopey that he was pathetic. There were no montages in this scene, save for the one where Peter designed his costume. Oh, and, let's not forget that the burglar killed Uncle Ben.

Spider-Man 2 was underwhelming.

• Doc Ock wouldn't die a monster? Please. He was a monster. He threatened to kill an old lady and would have peeled Mary Jane like an onion. But, of course, we're expected to feel bad for him because his wife died. Not only that, it wasn't that Otto went insane, it was that he was under the influence of artificial intelligence. Spooky. The sole reason that people have found TDK to be so utterly powerful is because The Joker wasn't abridged or hindered in any way. He was pure evil. Spider-Man's villains have been kid-friendly.

Spider-Man 3 was trash.

• Sandman killed Uncle Ben. Thank you, Sam Raimi.

I agree with your verdict on all the films, except for the second one. I wouldn't have called it underwhelming, just average. I found it okay enough to get amped for SM3. But after SM3, I now cringe at the idea of SM4. But also you must concede that Spider-man's villains has always been 'kid-friendly'.

 

[TheFuture]

I think when I look back over the franchise that I first experienced at the age of 14 it is not as great as I thought it was. It's good, not great.

As previously mentioned there have been a bunch of decisions that have dragged this franchise down, which culminated in S-M3.

I agree that we could have gotten an unforgettable portrayal of the Green Goblin from Dafoe but the presentation of the character by Raimi limited a fine actor.

MJ has been one big cock up in this franchise. Maybe Dunst is to blame but I blame, again, mostly the presentation of the character by Raimi. In S-M3 we were meant to feel sorry for her but she just came off as bitter and jealous. As a result, watching Dunst play this character and her exchanges with Parker made the 3rd film deeply flawed.

 

[LightningFlash]

Yeah sure the series has made oodles of money but at what cost? Look how un-nerved the majority of people were after part 3...

After seeing such high quality of Batman Begins and Dark Knight, it's clear that Sam Raimi's vision of "This story is all about a girl" bull is sub par and deserving what true potential the series should have had.

It should have never been all about a girl, Peter whining in part 2 and dancing in part 3. They just had to grab all sorts of audiences with the love story angle didn't they? Spider-Man's brand name alone and abscene from the cinema would have brought everyone in alone.

Batman Begins was all about Bruce Wayne's journey and Spider-Man should have been about Peter and his sin that lost him his uncle, not Peter wallowing over Mary Jane.

So what happened ultimately? We were subjected to a "family friendly" pussed out Peter Parker, with the wrong girl in there first, Willem Dafoe being denied a true Green Goblin performance with his face behind a metal mask, Venom in for ten minutes and screwed over, Sandman crying, Mary Jane being overly annoying, dancing, and a British reporter.

I want to thank Christopher Nolan for his vision of Batman, because it is showing everyone just how inept some superhero franchises are, including Spider-Man.

I can only imagine a true Spider-Man series, with Gwen Stacey in the first two films, Doc Ock the first villian, Green Goblin in part 2 (being set up as Spider-Man's best villian ala the Joker in Dark Knight) killing Gwen Stacy and then having Mary Jane be set up as Peter's confidant and next love. Thank's Raimi. I am maybe 5% excited about part 4, simply because the Lizard will most likely be in it.

I didn't even read the first post, but now I did...you must get over it. Batman and Spider-Man are different, stop saying Spider-Man SHOULD BE LIKE Batman. Batman went through a journey, yes, but Peter became a hero when he was bitten by the spider...I think they should've shown more of Spidey fighting petty thugs, but at least the first movie was the best of the three, imo...especially saying a Spider-Man 2 should be the SAME as The Dark Knight...wow...that's...moronic to wish.

 

[Venom 1988]

Seriously, get over TDK. It's a great film but take it from a life-long Batman fan since 1988, Batman and Spider-man are two completely different heroes. Spider-man is more family-friendly and revolves around a high-school kid, modern age Batman has always been darker - Bruce/Batman is a mentally unstable vigilante who consorts with prostitutes and faces much darker foes who likes to cause mindless destruction and senseless killing. I know New York was bad in the 1980s, but it wasn't that bad in comparison to Gotham! Not every film should be dark and depressing like TDK. Be open-minded to different styles, not be calling for an one-size to fit all approach.

I didn't even read the first post, but now I did...you must get over it. Batman and Spider-Man are different, stop saying Spider-Man SHOULD BE LIKE Batman. Batman went through a journey, yes, but Peter became a hero when he was bitten by the spider...I think they should've shown more of Spidey fighting petty thugs, but at least the first movie was the best of the three, imo...especially saying a Spider-Man 2 should be the SAME as The Dark Knight...wow...that's...moronic to wish.

You two are arguing about things that aren't even there. For Christ sake no where did NinjaCarm say Spidey should be dark and brooding like a Batman movie.

He is saying that the Spider-Man movies should be taken seriously like the Batman movies...in other words the work and dedication to making a good movie that is faithful to the comics and not watered down for whatever various reasons.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

You two are arguing about things that aren't even there. For Christ sake no where did NinjaCarm say Spidey should be dark and brooding like a Batman movie.

He is saying that the Spider-Man movies should be taken seriously like the Batman movies...in other words the work and dedication to making a good movie that is faithful to the comics and not watered down for whatever various reasons.

Amen. Noone's said that Spidey should be dark. Especially just for the sake of it because that's what Batman's doing. We want a serious, quality Spider-Man film, doesn't matter if it dark or not. Superman: The Movie is easily on par with TDK and it's far from dark, hell it's even flat out camp at times...

But also you must concede that Spider-man's villains has always been 'kid-friendly'.

In what way? Maybe in that they're colorful but in terms of what they do I don't see where you're coming from...GG alone is every bit as nasty as any Batman rogue.

 

[the_joker]

You two are arguing about things that aren't even there. For Christ sake no where did NinjaCarm say Spidey should be dark and brooding like a Batman movie.

We were subjected to a "family friendly" pussed out Peter Parker

Presumably he meant instead of a dark brooding Bruce Wayne clone.

He is saying that the Spider-Man movies should be taken seriously like the Batman movies...in other words the work and dedication to making a good movie that is faithful to the comics and not watered down for whatever various reasons.

I don't really know what you mean taken 'seriously'? Spider-man is a guy who got special powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider. Batman is a human who uses weaponry and had extensive training. And have you ever read the SM comics by the way? Because last time I read them, they were remarkably tame and were never as dark or so 'serious' as Batman. He has always been your 'friendly neighbourhood spider-man' who saves kid's balloons sometimes inbetween saving New York (and the world) from megalomaniac villains.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

When's the last time you read them? 1970?

Yeah, they might be fantastic and out there but the tone is very straight and the subject matter considerably deeper than that. There's definitely no dancing, I can tell you that much.

Ultimate Spider-Man in particular is something to look at for where they should be going in terms of tone, style, and substance. The movies thus far, with the exception of a few really BA action sequences, have never had much of a sense of drama or danger. They're so watered down. In TDK (as well as IM, Incredible Hulk, X-Men, etc) it's very intense. With Spidey it just doesn't feel right. There's no specific cause as it's really everybody. Raimi, the cast, the bright pretty shiny colors, the score...reading a Spidey comic is much more engrossing than any of these movies. And a good one has a script leagues ahead of this live-action Saturday morning cartoon.

 

[Venom 1988]

Presumably he meant instead of a dark brooding Bruce Wayne clone.


I don't really know what you mean taken 'seriously'? Spider-man is a guy who got special powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider. Batman is a human who uses weaponry and had extensive training. And have you ever read the SM comics by the way? Because last time I read them, they were remarkably tame and were never as dark or so 'serious' as Batman. He has always been your 'friendly neighbourhood spider-man' who saves kid's balloons sometimes inbetween saving New York (and the world) from megalomaniac villains.

Have I ever read Spider-Man comics? Nope not once in my life, I just like to spend my days going to a freaking comic board where we talk about spider-man and wacking off to the thought that someday I'll grow balls and buy an issue or two of the comic I'm talking about.

Of course I'm not saying Spider-Man should be dark like Batman. Where the hell did you see that in my message. And I mean taking seriously as in dont half ass the movie. Take it serious and make great movie that respects the comic lore.

Spidey shouldn't be dark and depressing.....but he shouldn't be camped to hell with a bucket of cheese either.

 

[the_joker]

When's the last time you read them? 1970?

Yeah, they might be fantastic and out there but the tone is very straight and the subject matter considerably deeper than that. There's definitely no dancing, I can tell you that much.

Ultimate Spider-Man in particular is something to look at for where they should be going in terms of tone, style, and substance. The movies thus far, with the exception of a few really BA action sequences, have never had much of a sense of drama or danger. They're so watered down. In TDK (as well as IM, Incredible Hulk, X-Men, etc) it's very intense. With Spidey it just doesn't feel right. There's no specific cause as it's really everybody. Raimi, the cast, the bright pretty shiny colors, the score...reading a Spidey comic is much more engrossing than any of these movies. And a good one has a script leagues ahead of this live-action Saturday morning cartoon.

Naw, the late 90s/early 00s.

But no I have read some of the earlier USM, they never really grabbed me. But the ones I did read didn't seem that intense. If anything, they were kind of annoying with even more coverage of MJ and relationship problems. I don't know, I just think you and the OP are just expecting too much from a Spider-man movie. It's never going to be like a Batman film unless they drastically depart from the original comics. I agree with you that after the first film, it started going downhill and got to the third film where it was rubbish. But Peter's everyday life does/did play a big part in the comics. So Raimi has just been incorporating that while messing up villains' origin stories.