Spider-Man movie series in retrospect

[Kevin Roegele]

Ten years ago, one Spider-Man movie was hard to imagine. And back on Spider-Man Hype! back then, all we did was imagine it.

Back in 1997, it would be beyond even the greatest dream of any fan that we'd see...

Ten state-of-the-art, record-breaking Spider-Man movies with actors of the calibur of Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina and Thomas Hayden-Church.

Cliff Robertson as a truly heart-felt and warm Uncle Ben.

An Aunt May who is a real character and not a caricature.

All three of the top villains brought to life - the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom - with no-expenses spared effects.

Mary-Jane, Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy.

The Goblin legacy played out in full.

Spider-Man and his enemies truly as spectacular as they have been in the imagination for forty-five years.

Three movies which are not only extremely faithful to the source material, but focus on the character of Peter above all else.

A superhero movie series that is completely consistant in terms of cast and crew. A director completing a superhero trilogy, instead of the disapointment and drop in quality when Donner, Burton and Singer left their respective sagas.

And a proper actor, Tobey Maguire, as Peter Parker.

If you compare the Spidey series to any other superhero franchise, it's amazing how well it's been produced. It's amazing that it hasn't been effected by the flaws which so many other superhero franchises suffer - having to recast the main actor(s), style over substance, casting superstars not actors, different directors with clashing styles, and worst of all story arcs which are not concluded properly.

In terms of production, it has avoided being either too effects heavy, or too cheap-looking. That is an important balance in comicbook movies, and the Spidey series gets it just right.

The one real flaw I feel is the character of Spider-Man himself. Only in Spider-Man 3 do we really see the wise-cracking, confident, jokey Spider-Man ("Haven't you heard? I'm the sheriff in these parts!" is the perfect moment).

Raimi, Maguire, Arad (yes, he has had a huge hand in the series) and co have raised the bar for the genre, whether they come back to do another movie or not. Finally the promise of a proper superhero movie saga, that Superman and Batman both reached for but never achieved, had been filled.

 

[Arcturus]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Kevin. I agree 100% with everything you've just posted. I am pleased with the Spider-Man franchise so far, I feel that it's honestly been well done and I enjoyed all three movies. I love the characters, the plots, the music, I feel everything fits together. And I cannot wait for more because I want to see where else they can go.

 

[Cmill216]

*stands up and applauds*

Excellent post, Kev. And I completely agree. This series has its fair share of flaws, but I too could have never imagined that we'd get a complete Spider-Man film series with running arcs and a collection of some of *the* premiere Spidey villains. I'll always have a place in my heart for this franchise.

 

[IamProdigy]

Ehh...the last two movies could have been much, much better.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I completley agree, Kevin Roegele. This franchise is amazing and I really can't wait for more films.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

exactly. I can't fathom why some fans of the series compare SM3 to Batman and robin and FF....I mean....I just don't get it.

 

[OctaviusINC]

I was watching some SM3 videos on youtube and almost every comment bashes the movie. I thought it was really good. Better then 3rd installments in other comic franchises (Ninja Turtles 3, Crow Salvation, Batman Forever, X3) I think Spider-man is the best comic movie franchise and a damn good franchise on its own.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree Kevin. This series has been great and did an amazing job. I personally loved all three movies, and have yet to get sick of them. Sure, there are a couple of flaws here and there, but all movies have them.

 

[DACrowe]

Kev. you remain one of the wisest and most respected posters on the hype, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree 100%. Going back to those ealry days in 2000 where any idea was something to want and devour. I remember when we thought Cameron's movie would be perfect and just ran terrible fanfic back and forth about how we'd like to see a Spidey movie go.

7 years later despite some flaws and problems I have with each film (the third being the most glaring), I'm extremely happy with the trilogy as a whole. And to think people rag on it for being the bottom of cinema or adaptation, when you look at the hurddles it overcame as opposed to the pitfalls Superman, Batman and X-Men fell into...

They (fans and the nouveau-movie going-snobs) doth protest too much, methinks.

Kev., excellent post.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I agree too. I remember several conversations in the mid 1990s in which I told people that I thought Batman's big screen success could & should lead to more big budget comic book movie franchises. I was sure Spiderman would head the pack and I hoped it would avoid the problems that the original Batman franchise had after it's 1st 2 flicks.

Now, in the late 2000s, we have three innovative Spidey movies. Other than the raping of Venom, I can find little to which I can object. Of course, we all have little points that we as comic fans think would have made the series better but overall it's been beyond my highest expectations.

 

[UltimateJustin]

The only reason someone shouldnt be beyond satisfied, or even grateful for the Spiderman trilogy is if they actually expected it to be perfect. That the franchise has been this good is unusually surprising. You could imagine ways that a Spiderman movie could be perfect, but you could probably EXPECT many more ways that it would be ruined, ten years ago.

Does anyone even remember what comic book movies were in the mid-to-late 90's? Batman Forever, The Phantom, Judge Dredd, Batman & Robin, Spawn.

"There was nerds befo' us Ren, there was nerds befo' us."

 

[November Rain]

I feel similar to the way i felt about the x-men franchise.

the first films for both franchises were decent set ups and you still had nostalgia running through you from seeing those characters on the big screen.

that's all fine and dandy

however when the dust has settles, both x2 and spidey 2 were complacent in their approach to story telling and feedback. Too much focus on one area and not enough general roundedness. I felt that they had stopped pushing the boat out and had believed they could still run off nostalgia.

The funny thing is that many believe spidey 2 to be the most respectful accurage superhero movie to date, regardless of the power changes and simplification (to 2d) to many characters and problems in peter's life.

both films in their third parts just continued with this trend and it was clear that they were more interested in breaking box office records than putting out a film that they cared for.

Both films gave nothing overall and introduced and killed powerful important villains without much care for them, there were mainly there to bring in the crowds. Careful editing of trailers actually gave the impression they were going to get both films right but they had clearly lead us up the wrong path.

I'm fine if they make initial changes with something at the beginning of a franchise to make it work

organics, leather costumes, optimus prime with flames and a mouth

but to continually make these changes that HINDER progress in further films is where a line is crossed

harry not being a goblin, ock being controlled, the symbiote not being sentient, sandman being involved with uncle ben's killer, peter's powers being prominently influenced by his emotions towards mj, lack of spider-sense, harry's death, parker happening to be at the bell tower taking his costume off when he was unaware of it being harmed by sound, the symbiotes fall to earth, parker never giving money to aunt may, parker falling out with dream uncle ben and never reconciling. It's all bad

What's worse and what is the ultimate crime is that they always show parker to be the victim of circumstance. Uncle ben's death could be seen as parker getting revenge of the ringmaster for not giving him his payment when it was actually because pete thought he was a star and shouldn't be running around after criminals.

The whole great power great responsibility mythos crashes and burns because it lacks a proper foundation. The hero on the big screen is based on lies and deceipt.

Raimi and co have settled for a moderately acclaimed franchise which happens to make lots of money. It's good for them, less work for all their cash. If only they made more of an effort to polish off aspects of the story, it'd be amazing but ultimately they are reflecting the wrong image of spidey.

They are saying that the person we have grown up to aspire to be is a real life clark kent when in fact peter parker is just as much a facade in the marvel universe as clark kent is in dc.

NOt that spiderman is what he is but it's his scapegoat from all the wrongs in his world he cannot accomplish in needing to protect his identity and ultimately the ones he holds dear.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I feel similar to the way i felt about the x-men franchise.

the first films for both franchises were decent set ups and you still had nostalgia running through you from seeing those characters on the big screen.

that's all fine and dandy

however when the dust has settles, both x2 and spidey 2 were complacent in their approach to story telling and feedback. Too much focus on one area and not enough general roundedness. I felt that they had stopped pushing the boat out and had believed they could still run off nostalgia.

The funny thing is that many believe spidey 2 to be the most respectful accurage superhero movie to date, regardless of the power changes and simplification (to 2d) to many characters and problems in peter's life.

both films in their third parts just continued with this trend and it was clear that they were more interested in breaking box office records than putting out a film that they cared for.

Both films gave nothing overall and introduced and killed powerful important villains without much care for them, there were mainly there to bring in the crowds. Careful editing of trailers actually gave the impression they were going to get both films right but they had clearly lead us up the wrong path.

I'm fine if they make initial changes with something at the beginning of a franchise to make it work

organics, leather costumes, optimus prime with flames and a mouth

but to continually make these changes that HINDER progress in further films is where a line is crossed

harry not being a goblin, ock being controlled, the symbiote not being sentient, sandman being involved with uncle ben's killer, peter's powers being prominently influenced by his emotions towards mj, lack of spider-sense, harry's death, parker happening to be at the bell tower taking his costume off when he was unaware of it being harmed by sound, the symbiotes fall to earth, parker never giving money to aunt may, parker falling out with dream uncle ben and never reconciling. It's all bad

What's worse and what is the ultimate crime is that they always show parker to be the victim of circumstance. Uncle ben's death could be seen as parker getting revenge of the ringmaster for not giving him his payment when it was actually because pete thought he was a star and shouldn't be running around after criminals.

The whole great power great responsibility mythos crashes and burns because it lacks a proper foundation. The hero on the big screen is based on lies and deceipt.

Raimi and co have settled for a moderately acclaimed franchise which happens to make lots of money. It's good for them, less work for all their cash. If only they made more of an effort to polish off aspects of the story, it'd be amazing but ultimately they are reflecting the wrong image of spidey.

They are saying that the person we have grown up to aspire to be is a real life clark kent when in fact peter parker is just as much a facade in the marvel universe as clark kent is in dc.

NOt that spiderman is what he is but it's his scapegoat from all the wrongs in his world he cannot accomplish in needing to protect his identity and ultimately the ones he holds dear.

With respect, it's unfair to suggest that Raimi (especially) and his crew were aiming for big box office rather than accurate representation of the characters. It's a balancing act. These movies cost ridiculously huge amounts of money. They are not made for hardcore fans, they are made for the general public.

You can see the slip from original artistic intentions to money-grabbing in the Batman, Superman and X-Men series, but Spider-Man and Raimi keep their creative respectability throughout (whether or not they were successful in making good films).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Edit: sorry

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

edit

 

[3dman27]

kevin another well thought out thread

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ten years ago, one Spider-Man movie was hard to imagine. And back on Spider-Man Hype! back then, all we did was imagine it.

Back in 1997, it would be beyond even the greatest dream of any fan that we'd see...

Ten state-of-the-art, record-breaking Spider-Man movies with actors of the calibur of Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina and Thomas Hayden-Church.

Cliff Robertson as a truly heart-felt and warm Uncle Ben.

An Aunt May who is a real character and not a caricature.

All three of the top villains brought to life - the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom - with no-expenses spared effects.

Mary-Jane, Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy.

The Goblin legacy played out in full.

Spider-Man and his enemies truly as spectacular as they have been in the imagination for forty-five years.

Three movies which are not only extremely faithful to the source material, but focus on the character of Peter above all else.

A superhero movie series that is completely consistant in terms of cast and crew. A director completing a superhero trilogy, instead of the disapointment and drop in quality when Donner, Burton and Singer left their respective sagas.

And a proper actor, Tobey Maguire, as Peter Parker.

If you compare the Spidey series to any other superhero franchise, it's amazing how well it's been produced. It's amazing that it hasn't been effected by the flaws which so many other superhero franchises suffer - having to recast the main actor(s), style over substance, casting superstars not actors, different directors with clashing styles, and worst of all story arcs which are not concluded properly.

In terms of production, it has avoided being either too effects heavy, or too cheap-looking. That is an important balance in comicbook movies, and the Spidey series gets it just right.

The one real flaw I feel is the character of Spider-Man himself. Only in Spider-Man 3 do we really see the wise-cracking, confident, jokey Spider-Man ("Haven't you heard? I'm the sheriff in these parts!" is the perfect moment).

Raimi, Maguire, Arad (yes, he has had a huge hand in the series) and co have raised the bar for the genre, whether they come back to do another movie or not. Finally the promise of a proper superhero movie saga, that Superman and Batman both reached for but never achieved, had been filled.

Great post Kevin, and i agree 100%, out of 3 movies, all of them were above average, we got a very good movie (Spiderman) a GREAT movie (Spiderman 2) and a good movie (Spiderman 3).

I have my gripes with the franchise, but, when i was a kid in the 90's watching that TAS religiously, i seriously doubt i could have hoped for better. We could so easily have just got 3 action fests with little to no character moments in them.

 

[ultimatefan]

Ten years ago, one Spider-Man movie was hard to imagine. And back on Spider-Man Hype! back then, all we did was imagine it.

Back in 1997, it would be beyond even the greatest dream of any fan that we'd see...

Ten state-of-the-art, record-breaking Spider-Man movies with actors of the calibur of Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina and Thomas Hayden-Church.

Cliff Robertson as a truly heart-felt and warm Uncle Ben.

An Aunt May who is a real character and not a caricature.

All three of the top villains brought to life - the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom - with no-expenses spared effects.

Mary-Jane, Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy.

The Goblin legacy played out in full.

Spider-Man and his enemies truly as spectacular as they have been in the imagination for forty-five years.

Three movies which are not only extremely faithful to the source material, but focus on the character of Peter above all else.

A superhero movie series that is completely consistant in terms of cast and crew. A director completing a superhero trilogy, instead of the disapointment and drop in quality when Donner, Burton and Singer left their respective sagas.

And a proper actor, Tobey Maguire, as Peter Parker.

If you compare the Spidey series to any other superhero franchise, it's amazing how well it's been produced. It's amazing that it hasn't been effected by the flaws which so many other superhero franchises suffer - having to recast the main actor(s), style over substance, casting superstars not actors, different directors with clashing styles, and worst of all story arcs which are not concluded properly.

In terms of production, it has avoided being either too effects heavy, or too cheap-looking. That is an important balance in comicbook movies, and the Spidey series gets it just right.

The one real flaw I feel is the character of Spider-Man himself. Only in Spider-Man 3 do we really see the wise-cracking, confident, jokey Spider-Man ("Haven't you heard? I'm the sheriff in these parts!" is the perfect moment).

Raimi, Maguire, Arad (yes, he has had a huge hand in the series) and co have raised the bar for the genre, whether they come back to do another movie or not. Finally the promise of a proper superhero movie saga, that Superman and Batman both reached for but never achieved, had been filled.

Couldn´t agree more. Spidey 3 may have its problems with so many characters and subplots and stuff, but overall this is the most accomplished superhero franchise ever.

 

[Symbiotic]

Kevin, great post. Very well said.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Couldn´t agree more. Spidey 3 may have its problems with so many characters and subplots and stuff, but overall this is the most accomplished superhero franchise ever.

Absolutely, Spiderman 3 has its problems, but it is still better than all the other superhero threequels by some way, meaning coupled with the 1st 2 great movies, the franchise as a whole is the best SH franchise so far.

 

[November Rain]

With respect, it's unfair to suggest that Raimi (especially) and his crew were aiming for big box office rather than accurate representation of the characters. It's a balancing act. These movies cost ridiculously huge amounts of money. They are not made for hardcore fans, they are made for the general public.

You can see the slip from original artistic intentions to money-grabbing in the Batman, Superman and X-Men series, but Spider-Man and Raimi keep their creative respectability throughout (whether or not they were successful in making good films).

Well i'm sorry you haven't noticed it but this is obvious.

the bumbling parker continuation is a money grabbing scheme
The forever good pete and spidey is a money grabbing scheme
Having villains motivations, powers, limitations, relations to the heroe are all money grabbing schemes.

the pace set up and tone of the first film in comparison to the second and third are very apparent.

in the third, there is no reason for sandman and goblin to fight together or harry and spidey to fight together. There's no reason for venom at all and all the gwen, eddie, venom appearances seemed forced, not to mention the twisted revelation that someone else killed uncle ben.

The films are expensive due to their fight scenes and what not and i'm not really faulting them (as such) or the finished quality, rather the substance and everything that went on in between.

I mean if this is truelly a great character driven story arc, how come nearly hours are dealt with peter/mj and nothing has come from it. Mj is just as empty as she was in the first film.

Harry has just as much right inthe last installment to go after peter as he does to go after sandman yet none of this is ever touched.

IN the first film they told a story, the story of power and responsibility. The second film was about choice but it ended up showing you can have it all (which wasted a film). Third was about acceptance of crap happening to you, it isn't really a spidey story. It was forced.

sandman was there for big effects, venom was there to sell toys and so was the black spidey suit. Most of all the build up to the clash hinted in the very first film was sidetracked and released initially to tease the audience.

Surely if the suspese of 2 films worth of drama is sidetracked and pre-released, it must reflect how little the production felt about the story they were trying to tell and wanted to just bring home the candy.

I wouldn't mind if this was a franchise that got lil exposure, but spidey has had

spidey 60s cartoon
spidey's 80 cartoon
spiderman and his amazing friends
spiderman 90s cartoon
spiderman unlimited
spiderman mtv
2 films
another series on the go
spidey series
spidey tele movies

it's had the works. I can go to any other version to get a fix, these movies don't hold me to ransom and there's no reason why i should feel happy with what i got.

It should be pushing boundaries, spidey 2 and especially 3 were just honestly more of the same, they covered no new ground.

 

[November Rain]

Couldn´t agree more. Spidey 3 may have its problems with so many characters and subplots and stuff, but overall this is the most accomplished superhero franchise ever.

a best superhero franchise is not something to boast about. The whole genre is very very poor because they are all about making money.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well i'm sorry you haven't noticed it but this is obvious.

the bumbling parker continuation is a money grabbing scheme
The forever good pete and spidey is a money grabbing scheme
Having villains motivations, powers, limitations, relations to the heroe are all money grabbing schemes.

the pace set up and tone of the first film in comparison to the second and third are very apparent.

in the third, there is no reason for sandman and goblin to fight together or harry and spidey to fight together. There's no reason for venom at all and all the gwen, eddie, venom appearances seemed forced, not to mention the twisted revelation that someone else killed uncle ben.

The films are expensive due to their fight scenes and what not and i'm not really faulting them (as such) or the finished quality, rather the substance and everything that went on in between.

I mean if this is truelly a great character driven story arc, how come nearly hours are dealt with peter/mj and nothing has come from it. Mj is just as empty as she was in the first film.

Harry has just as much right inthe last installment to go after peter as he does to go after sandman yet none of this is ever touched.

IN the first film they told a story, the story of power and responsibility. The second film was about choice but it ended up showing you can have it all (which wasted a film). Third was about acceptance of crap happening to you, it isn't really a spidey story. It was forced.

sandman was there for big effects, venom was there to sell toys and so was the black spidey suit. Most of all the build up to the clash hinted in the very first film was sidetracked and released initially to tease the audience.

Surely if the suspese of 2 films worth of drama is sidetracked and pre-released, it must reflect how little the production felt about the story they were trying to tell and wanted to just bring home the candy.

I wouldn't mind if this was a franchise that got lil exposure, but spidey has had

spidey 60s cartoon
spidey's 80 cartoon
spiderman and his amazing friends
spiderman 90s cartoon
spiderman unlimited
spiderman mtv
2 films
another series on the go
spidey series
spidey tele movies

it's had the works. I can go to any other version to get a fix, these movies don't hold me to ransom and there's no reason why i should feel happy with what i got.

It should be pushing boundaries, spidey 2 and especially 3 were just honestly more of the same, they covered no new ground.

Isnt practically every mainstream movie made to make money though? While i agree there was no need to have Sandman be the real killer of Uncle Ben (It is actually one of the worst parts of the trilogy IMO) the rest just isnt true IMO.

Spiderman 2 took the best parts of the first movie and developed them, it also took all of the mistakes of the first movie and corrected them, making for me, the best movie of them trilogy.

Now, admittedly, Spiderman 3 is a step down from Spiderman 2, but 3 is by no means a disaster or even an average movie, it has plenty of moments of excellence, unfortunately coupled with moments of travisty to make simply a good movie.

Which to my mind means we got a pretty damn good trilogy overall.

 

[November Rain]

A mainstream film may have other goals, i.e. to endorse the use of other products or to perhaps highlight some sort of political, religious or socio-economic agenda.

As a comic book fan, i would like for films to correctly depict the characters represented and bring them to an audience who normally wouldn't interact with them and help be an ambassador for the comics and boost sales in that manner by bringing in a stronger fan base.

Spidey 2 did WHAT???? Spidey 2 took a 40 minute long story and stretched it into 2 hours, it misrepresented ock, it misrepresented peter parker & spidey and it misrepresented mj. It only nailed harry, uncle ben, aunt may and aspects of JJJ.

because people allowed this to happen in two, they furthered it in 3.

Ultimately by the end of the last film, we are left with variations of characters that are incredibly different from their comic book counterparts and fail at representing the genre or at the very least re-inventing the genre (just like the original supes movies did for him).

here's another point

spidey is not a trilogy. for it to be a trilogy the events of one film directly affect the next and so on and so forth. The events of spidey 2 have taken nothing from the end of the first film (already a confident peter willing to reject mj) and give about 3 minutes worth of footage to the last film (harry finding out about his dad and pete and mj and pete getting together). the rest is forgotten. The same can be said about this film if another one starts.

it'll take harry's death and pete/mj's rocky relatioship and forget about the rest.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

A mainstream film may have other goals, i.e. to endorse the use of other products or to perhaps highlight some sort of political, religious or socio-economic agenda.

As a comic book fan, i would like for films to correctly depict the characters represented and bring them to an audience who normally wouldn't interact with them and help be an ambassador for the comics and boost sales in that manner by bringing in a stronger fan base.

Spidey 2 did WHAT???? Spidey 2 took a 40 minute long story and stretched it into 2 hours, it misrepresented ock, it misrepresented peter parker & spidey and it misrepresented mj. It only nailed harry, uncle ben, aunt may and aspects of JJJ.

because people allowed this to happen in two, they furthered it in 3.

Ultimately by the end of the last film, we are left with variations of characters that are incredibly different from their comic book counterparts and fail at representing the genre or at the very least re-inventing the genre (just like the original supes movies did for him).

here's another point

spidey is not a trilogy. for it to be a trilogy the events of one film directly affect the next and so on and so forth. The events of spidey 2 have taken nothing from the end of the first film (already a confident peter willing to reject mj) and give about 3 minutes worth of footage to the last film (harry finding out about his dad and pete and mj and pete getting together). the rest is forgotten. The same can be said about this film if another one starts.

it'll take harry's death and pete/mj's rocky relatioship and forget about the rest.

That just natural IMO, in life, you move on some things and not from others, its natural. Spiderman 2 showed us the trials and tribulations of Peters life, and showed us that despite the fact that he is a superhero, he is a normal guy, with normal problems, just like we have (which has always been a cornerstone of the character IMO).

It was also much more satisfying once he finally got with MJ because we saw the pain and anguish he had to go through to get to this point. Peter also learned the importance of being a hero in Spiderman 2, and how important that hero is to other people, not just himself.

We also saw him dealing with the consequences of the events in the first movie, like how Harry and Peter grow apart because Peter 'knows' Spiderman, the fact that Harry eventually finds out the truth.

If all that isnt essential to the character, i dont know what is.

Then Spiderman 3 came along, and showed that Peter is now making an effort to get his life in order, making small sacrifices here and there in order to be both Spiderman and Peter Parker, one being very important to the city by now, another being important to the people closest to him.

As i said earlier, Spiderman 3 is a step down from 2, but it isnt a bad movie. And this is all just my opinion of course.