Spider-Man movie series in retrospect

[DACrowe]

NovemberRain, I'm not going to argue with you. Your mind is obviously made up.

But I think you illustrate a fan who will not give any sort of credit to the series. As a small point, it is true producers dictate the movie/plot be a certain way to ensure big money returns, but Raimi and his creative team bend over backwards (much moreso in the sequels than the first one) to make sure it is a story with some merit worth telling. The second movie is about choice, sacrifice and growing up. Part of growing up is balancing responsibility. Peter couldn't handle his responsibility so he reverted back to childhood, which many college kids do. They just don't want the responsibility that comes when leaving and being in the real world. But at the end he is striking a balance he couldn't think of in the first.

And yes it is silly to think you can have it all perfectly though, and the third is partially about his ego ballooning and and him becoming an oblivious glory hog who ignores his girlfriend and takes her for granted. Changes you hate (say Sandman killing Uncle Ben for example) lead this man with great pride down a dark road for vengence thinking he can be judge, jury and executioner and he falls down hard. The symbiote was forced for money and unneeded and probably hurt the movie in the long run...but Raimi does use it as a catalyist for Peter to unleash his demons on Sandman, Harry and even MJ. He finds redemption, like Harry Osborn, in forgiveness. Hence why he does not become like Eddie Brock/Venom. As an adult he was given temptation with his responsibilities, but he resisted. All three are morality plays of growing up.

I'm not saying you have to like these movies. I'm just saying there is an artistic integrity in them not seen in any other set of three superhero films. Batman became souless action figure commercials by Batman Forever, Superman began losing credibility in Lester's reshoots of SII and lost its way in Superman III. And the less said about X3, the better.

I think Raimi tried to raise the bar with each film, and while he failed to do so in Spider-Man 3, his movie, I think, was pretty decent. But Spider-Man 2 was an amazing accomplishment that gets its praise because it is just a very good movie, that has the essence of the character. Peter Parker is the star of the show in the comics. The reaosn he stands out to every other superhero is the human nature of Peter Parker and his relatability. The geek who becomes an average guy who has the same problems as ALL OF US. The movie captures that. Love, friendship, money, school, work, rivalries and taking care of relationships with his surrogate parents are dealt with in the trilogy, very well. Peter is not Marvel's Clark Kent. He is not Spidey's disguise. Peter is the person we care about and Spidey is that person uninhibited by his everyday woes, but a heavy burden for Peter to have on him. It's a great paradox.

P.S. In your list of inaccuracies to the source, you said that killing Harry was bad. He died saving Pete in the comics too. Yes, it was his own trap but deciding Peter has always been his friend is no more illogical than after realizing Peter did not directly kill his father, that he should help two friends who are about to die, especially when he is partially in love with one of them. That is what we call nitpicking.

 

[ultimatefan]

I think this kind of argument with Spidey is bollocks anyway, Spider-Man was never intended to be something "arthouse", Stan Lee always intended the character to appeal to as large a readership as possible, the comic has always been a mix of action and adventure, comedy and character drama, Lee simply realized better than other writers and editors from his time what the readers wanted, that´s why the character´s been a cash cow from the start and the things that have appealed to movie audiences are basically the same that appealed ro the comics readers.

 

[Spoarz™]

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.

Absolutely wonderful post Kev, I couldn't agree more with you. I absolutely love the Spider-Man movies.

 

[DX]

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.

*claps* Well done, Kevin. This is a great post.

I absolutely agree with you. I love this franchise.

 

[The Joker]

I thoroughly enjoyed Spider-Man 1&2.

The third one has some merits, mainly stemming from Harry's plotline. But, on the whole, it was a mess of a movie, and I think it deserves most of the criticism it gets.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

NovemberRain, I'm not going to argue with you. Your mind is obviously made up.

But I think you illustrate a fan who will not give any sort of credit to the series. As a small point, it is true producers dictate the movie/plot be a certain way to ensure big money returns, but Raimi and his creative team bend over backwards (much moreso in the sequels than the first one) to make sure it is a story with some merit worth telling. The second movie is about choice, sacrifice and growing up. Part of growing up is balancing responsibility. Peter couldn't handle his responsibility so he reverted back to childhood, which many college kids do. They just don't want the responsibility that comes when leaving and being in the real world. But at the end he is striking a balance he couldn't think of in the first.

And yes it is silly to think you can have it all perfectly though, and the third is partially about his ego ballooning and and him becoming an oblivious glory hog who ignores his girlfriend and takes her for granted. Changes you hate (say Sandman killing Uncle Ben for example) lead this man with great pride down a dark road for vengence thinking he can be judge, jury and executioner and he falls down hard. The symbiote was forced for money and unneeded and probably hurt the movie in the long run...but Raimi does use it as a catalyist for Peter to unleash his demons on Sandman, Harry and even MJ. He finds redemption, like Harry Osborn, in forgiveness. Hence why he does not become like Eddie Brock/Venom. As an adult he was given temptation with his responsibilities, but he resisted. All three are morality plays of growing up.

I'm not saying you have to like these movies. I'm just saying there is an artistic integrity in them not seen in any other set of three superhero films. Batman became souless action figure commercials by Batman Forever, Superman began losing credibility in Lester's reshoots of SII and lost its way in Superman III. And the less said about X3, the better.

I think Raimi tried to raise the bar with each film, and while he failed to do so in Spider-Man 3, his movie, I think, was pretty decent. But Spider-Man 2 was an amazing accomplishment that gets its praise because it is just a very good movie, that has the essence of the character. Peter Parker is the star of the show in the comics. The reaosn he stands out to every other superhero is the human nature of Peter Parker and his relatability. The geek who becomes an average guy who has the same problems as ALL OF US. The movie captures that. Love, friendship, money, school, work, rivalries and taking care of relationships with his surrogate parents are dealt with in the trilogy, very well. Peter is not Marvel's Clark Kent. He is not Spidey's disguise. Peter is the person we care about and Spidey is that person uninhibited by his everyday woes, but a heavy burden for Peter to have on him. It's a great paradox.

P.S. In your list of inaccuracies to the source, you said that killing Harry was bad. He died saving Pete in the comics too. Yes, it was his own trap but deciding Peter has always been his friend is no more illogical than after realizing Peter did not directly kill his father, that he should help two friends who are about to die, especially when he is partially in love with one of them. That is what we call nitpicking.

Exactly, this is what i said, and it has always been a cornerstone of the character, and, especialy in Spiderman 2, it is presented SUPERBLY. The scene that makes it for me is in the party were EVERYTHING goes wrong for Peter, he goes to grab the last bit of food on a tray, someone else takes it just before him, he grabs a drink from a tray, thinking he is finally successful, only to find empty.

Honestly who hasnt been through a period like that in their life? I know i have, which is why i relate to Spiderman 2 and Peter in it so much.

Credit to November Rain for putting his argument forward very well, but sorry NR, i have to disagree.

 

[Mr Jide]

Oh please. The comic book movie genre as a whole is in a state of perpetual mediocrity. The spider-man movies are just 3 elements of mediocrity in an even bigger mediocre sector.
There are points that Kevin made which I agree with but I agree more with the comments Odin made.

Sam Raimi simply doesn't get spider-man. Want to know why the first movie did so well? 1) it's a friggin spider-man movie, the name alone will sell tickets. 2) it was the first time spider-man had been atempted to be realised as a theatrical movie and 3) spider-man was able to capitalise on the events that occured on 9/11. These 3 factors is what really made the first spidey such a hit.

Can you honestly tell me that the story and acting was of a great standard? David Koepp's miserable script was lackluster and he even had the nerve to recycle bits of dialogue he wrote for screenplays of other films.
TMags didn't do anything particularly special either. He pretty much recycled his performences from previous films he's starred in. I mean seriously, acting like a down-trodden, social misfit doesn't require oscar callibur dexterity.

Weak-minded people over the years have done a brilliant job in, convincing themselves that, those wanting more from these movies, equates to wanting mindless action and a complete rip from the souce material. I for one am fully aware that these movies are for everyone. Do people honestly think that the cartoons were simply made just for the fans too?? Yet, some of the cartoons generally, have done a much better job in adapting the source material than the movies have.

I'm all for making changes......as long as it is for the better and helps move the story along but when pointless changes are made, for the sake of compromising what works best in favour of making a quick buck and insulting the intelligence of the audience that is where problems arise.

First of all, Raimi claims to be a fan and to have read the comics?? Right. I bet his ass didn't even read the first 50 issues of ASM. I get that opinions are what they are and if people like these movies that's great. Just don't exepect anything significantly better because, when one subscribes to mediocrity and thats subscription does exceptionally well, more of the same will ensue. Many people wonder why sm3 was a mess?? Its obvious. People can blame Arad all they want but if these movies and the people making them are so good at what they do, they would have adjusted schedules and other factors to make sure that the end product delivered but what most fans of these movies got was...and I'm using a kinder word than most of you here have used to describe sm3, a complete suck-fest.
This doesn't surprise me because while sm2 was still showing in cinemas I made this prediction and despite the movie's incredible financial success, it was critically a disasterous let down.

All 3 movies do have their good points though and I'll give credit where its due but just like alot of you here who relentlessly praise this movie despite its faults, I'm one of few fans who are more aware and dissapointed by the faults, which seem to outweigh the good.

The first problem with these movies is, it short changed itself by making MJ the centre of the series, which is every shade of wrong.

Raimi seems ashamed of the source material's primary media and unfortunately, he's not the only comic book director guilty of this. Why do you think films like Harry Potter and LOTR do so well? It's partly because the movies know the world they're based in and where the characters are from. I can't relate to a hobbits, dwarfs and elves BUT because the director and script writer has respected me enough to, allow for me to be immersed into the world in which their characters live, I can empathise and have an interest in whats going on. As a member of the audience, I've been respected enough to be given a chance as opposed to directors such as, Raimi taking me for a fool and force feeding me to bare witness to what he thinks is better for me to watch instead of allowing us all to see things how they should be.

The characterizations are half-assed and when attempts are made to really capture the fundimentals of the characters they are either delivered miserable or too few and far between.
As for the underlying lessons and themes, we're often thrown back into square 1 by the end of the movie.
SM1 as half-assed as it was, had the excuse of being an origin movie where the movies and characters could expand but SM2 felt like a rehash of sm1, save for a few scenes, which involved Doc Ock. Don't get me started on the bastardization of ock's character though. As great as Molina was, the character was unecessarily changed, just to fit Raimi's odd sense of personally connecting the villain to the hero. Its a cliched formula that gets old real quick and Raimi has ruthlessly applied this to every villain in every spider-man film. It's pathetic, really. Raimi's additional over mellowdramatic scens are filled with poor pacing and stupid character details. Come on, MJ splits with flash, gets with harry but kisses spider-man and then falls for peter...all in 1 movie. By sm2, MJ loves peter but is in a relationship with John, hoaring herself out to both, seeing which ones gives her the most attention...then in sm3, after that wet and empty speach she gave at the end of sm2, she cheats on peter with Harry just because she's going through a rough patch and selfishly wants to be at the forefront of everyone's attention, as witnessed after she's been replaced at the theatre.

Then there's the inconsistancy of cg effects as well as glaring plot holes. Sandman teaming up with venom, the butler...need I say more? Ugh!

I'm greatful that we live in a time where we can actually have spider-man movies but if the people involved are going to be selfishly half-assed about it, then don't bother. I want people involved with these movies who aren't afraid to tackle the fact that these movies should be what they are and not something less because the director doesn't think audiences can't handle and accept it. I'm not going to applaud Raimi's efforts because frankly I expect more, with the budget and resources at his disposal. There's enough material from the comics that are great pieces of literature that the movies can adapt and apply wisley, regarding characterizations (spidey in particular).

These movies need new blood and a new take on the characters. Sure, there's no guarantee that things will be better but there's also no guarantee that it won't be either. I'm all for taking the inevitable risk.

 

[Sarah the nerd]

I always thought it said a lot about the quality of the trilogy that even its weakest episode was really good...

(and great thread!)

 

[Blader5489]

The third one has some merits, mainly stemming from Harry's plotline. But, on the whole, it was a mess of a movie, and I think it deserves most of the criticism it gets.

Most of the criticisms applied to SM3 can (and should) be applied to the previous films as well, but there is such an immense double standard among those who consider SM1/2 to be "masterpieces" that the argument is headache inducing before it even begins.

 

[The Ones]

Oh please. The comic book movie genre as a whole is in a state of perpetual mediocrity. The spider-man movies are just 3 elements of mediocrity in an even bigger mediocre sector.
There are points that Kevin made which I agree with but I agree more with the comments Odin made.

Sam Raimi simply doesn't get spider-man. Want to know why the first movie did so well? 1) it's a friggin spider-man movie, the name alone will sell tickets. 2) it was the first time spider-man had been atempted to be realised as a theatrical movie and 3) spider-man was able to capitalise on the events that occured on 9/11. These 3 factors is what really made the first spidey such a hit.

Can you honestly tell me that the story and acting was of a great standard? David Koepp's miserable script was lackluster and he even had the nerve to recycle bits of dialogue he wrote for screenplays of other films.
TMags didn't do anything particularly special either. He pretty much recycled his performences from previous films he's starred in. I mean seriously, acting like a down-trodden, social misfit doesn't require oscar callibur dexterity.

Weak-minded people over the years have done a brilliant job in, convincing themselves that, those wanting more from these movies, equates to wanting mindless action and a complete rip from the souce material. I for one am fully aware that these movies are for everyone. Do people honestly think that the cartoons were simply made just for the fans too?? Yet, some of the cartoons generally, have done a much better job in adapting the source material than the movies have.

I'm all for making changes......as long as it is for the better and helps move the story along but when pointless changes are made, for the sake of compromising what works best in favour of making a quick buck and insulting the intelligence of the audience that is where problems arise.

First of all, Raimi claims to be a fan and to have read the comics?? Right. I bet his ass didn't even read the first 50 issues of ASM. I get that opinions are what they are and if people like these movies that's great. Just don't exepect anything significantly better because, when one subscribes to mediocrity and thats subscription does exceptionally well, more of the same will ensue. Many people wonder why sm3 was a mess?? Its obvious. People can blame Arad all they want but if these movies and the people making them are so good at what they do, they would have adjusted schedules and other factors to make sure that the end product delivered but what most fans of these movies got was...and I'm using a kinder word than most of you here have used to describe sm3, a complete suck-fest.
This doesn't surprise me because while sm2 was still showing in cinemas I made this prediction and despite the movie's incredible financial success, it was critically a disasterous let down.

All 3 movies do have their good points though and I'll give credit where its due but just like alot of you here who relentlessly praise this movie despite its faults, I'm one of few fans who are more aware and dissapointed by the faults, which seem to outweigh the good.

The first problem with these movies is, it short changed itself by making MJ the centre of the series, which is every shade of wrong.

Raimi seems ashamed of the source material's primary media and unfortunately, he's not the only comic book director guilty of this. Why do you think films like Harry Potter and LOTR do so well? It's partly because the movies know the world they're based in and where the characters are from. I can't relate to a hobbits, dwarfs and elves BUT because the director and script writer has respected me enough to, allow for me to be immersed into the world in which their characters live, I can empathise and have an interest in whats going on. As a member of the audience, I've been respected enough to be given a chance as opposed to directors such as, Raimi taking me for a fool and force feeding me to bare witness to what he thinks is better for me to watch instead of allowing us all to see things how they should be.

The characterizations are half-assed and when attempts are made to really capture the fundimentals of the characters they are either delivered miserable or too few and far between.
As for the underlying lessons and themes, we're often thrown back into square 1 by the end of the movie.
SM1 as half-assed as it was, had the excuse of being an origin movie where the movies and characters could expand but SM2 felt like a rehash of sm1, save for a few scenes, which involved Doc Ock. Don't get me started on the bastardization of ock's character though. As great as Molina was, the character was unecessarily changed, just to fit Raimi's odd sense of personally connecting the villain to the hero. Its a cliched formula that gets old real quick and Raimi has ruthlessly applied this to every villain in every spider-man film. It's pathetic, really. Raimi's additional over mellowdramatic scens are filled with poor pacing and stupid character details. Come on, MJ splits with flash, gets with harry but kisses spider-man and then falls for peter...all in 1 movie. By sm2, MJ loves peter but is in a relationship with John, hoaring herself out to both, seeing which ones gives her the most attention...then in sm3, after that wet and empty speach she gave at the end of sm2, she cheats on peter with Harry just because she's going through a rough patch and selfishly wants to be at the forefront of everyone's attention, as witnessed after she's been replaced at the theatre.

Then there's the inconsistancy of cg effects as well as glaring plot holes. Sandman teaming up with venom, the butler...need I say more? Ugh!

I'm greatful that we live in a time where we can actually have spider-man movies but if the people involved are going to be selfishly half-assed about it, then don't bother. I want people involved with these movies who aren't afraid to tackle the fact that these movies should be what they are and not something less because the director doesn't think audiences can't handle and accept it. I'm not going to applaud Raimi's efforts because frankly I expect more, with the budget and resources at his disposal. There's enough material from the comics that are great pieces of literature that the movies can adapt and apply wisley, regarding characterizations (spidey in particular).

These movies need new blood and a new take on the characters. Sure, there's no guarantee that things will be better but there's also no guarantee that it won't be either. I'm all for taking the inevitable risk.

Agreed 100%

 

[SalaciousVC]

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.

pretty much sums up everything

 

[DACrowe]

Oh please. The comic book movie genre as a whole is in a state of perpetual mediocrity. The spider-man movies are just 3 elements of mediocrity in an even bigger mediocre sector.
There are points that Kevin made which I agree with but I agree more with the comments Odin made.

Sam Raimi simply doesn't get spider-man. Want to know why the first movie did so well? 1) it's a friggin spider-man movie, the name alone will sell tickets. 2) it was the first time spider-man had been atempted to be realised as a theatrical movie and 3) spider-man was able to capitalise on the events that occured on 9/11. These 3 factors is what really made the first spidey such a hit.

Can you honestly tell me that the story and acting was of a great standard? David Koepp's miserable script was lackluster and he even had the nerve to recycle bits of dialogue he wrote for screenplays of other films.
TMags didn't do anything particularly special either. He pretty much recycled his performences from previous films he's starred in. I mean seriously, acting like a down-trodden, social misfit doesn't require oscar callibur dexterity.

Weak-minded people over the years have done a brilliant job in, convincing themselves that, those wanting more from these movies, equates to wanting mindless action and a complete rip from the souce material. I for one am fully aware that these movies are for everyone. Do people honestly think that the cartoons were simply made just for the fans too?? Yet, some of the cartoons generally, have done a much better job in adapting the source material than the movies have.

I'm all for making changes......as long as it is for the better and helps move the story along but when pointless changes are made, for the sake of compromising what works best in favour of making a quick buck and insulting the intelligence of the audience that is where problems arise.

First of all, Raimi claims to be a fan and to have read the comics?? Right. I bet his ass didn't even read the first 50 issues of ASM. I get that opinions are what they are and if people like these movies that's great. Just don't exepect anything significantly better because, when one subscribes to mediocrity and thats subscription does exceptionally well, more of the same will ensue. Many people wonder why sm3 was a mess?? Its obvious. People can blame Arad all they want but if these movies and the people making them are so good at what they do, they would have adjusted schedules and other factors to make sure that the end product delivered but what most fans of these movies got was...and I'm using a kinder word than most of you here have used to describe sm3, a complete suck-fest.
This doesn't surprise me because while sm2 was still showing in cinemas I made this prediction and despite the movie's incredible financial success, it was critically a disasterous let down.

All 3 movies do have their good points though and I'll give credit where its due but just like alot of you here who relentlessly praise this movie despite its faults, I'm one of few fans who are more aware and dissapointed by the faults, which seem to outweigh the good.

The first problem with these movies is, it short changed itself by making MJ the centre of the series, which is every shade of wrong.

Raimi seems ashamed of the source material's primary media and unfortunately, he's not the only comic book director guilty of this. Why do you think films like Harry Potter and LOTR do so well? It's partly because the movies know the world they're based in and where the characters are from. I can't relate to a hobbits, dwarfs and elves BUT because the director and script writer has respected me enough to, allow for me to be immersed into the world in which their characters live, I can empathise and have an interest in whats going on. As a member of the audience, I've been respected enough to be given a chance as opposed to directors such as, Raimi taking me for a fool and force feeding me to bare witness to what he thinks is better for me to watch instead of allowing us all to see things how they should be.

The characterizations are half-assed and when attempts are made to really capture the fundimentals of the characters they are either delivered miserable or too few and far between.
As for the underlying lessons and themes, we're often thrown back into square 1 by the end of the movie.
SM1 as half-assed as it was, had the excuse of being an origin movie where the movies and characters could expand but SM2 felt like a rehash of sm1, save for a few scenes, which involved Doc Ock. Don't get me started on the bastardization of ock's character though. As great as Molina was, the character was unecessarily changed, just to fit Raimi's odd sense of personally connecting the villain to the hero. Its a cliched formula that gets old real quick and Raimi has ruthlessly applied this to every villain in every spider-man film. It's pathetic, really. Raimi's additional over mellowdramatic scens are filled with poor pacing and stupid character details. Come on, MJ splits with flash, gets with harry but kisses spider-man and then falls for peter...all in 1 movie. By sm2, MJ loves peter but is in a relationship with John, hoaring herself out to both, seeing which ones gives her the most attention...then in sm3, after that wet and empty speach she gave at the end of sm2, she cheats on peter with Harry just because she's going through a rough patch and selfishly wants to be at the forefront of everyone's attention, as witnessed after she's been replaced at the theatre.

Then there's the inconsistancy of cg effects as well as glaring plot holes. Sandman teaming up with venom, the butler...need I say more? Ugh!

I'm greatful that we live in a time where we can actually have spider-man movies but if the people involved are going to be selfishly half-assed about it, then don't bother. I want people involved with these movies who aren't afraid to tackle the fact that these movies should be what they are and not something less because the director doesn't think audiences can't handle and accept it. I'm not going to applaud Raimi's efforts because frankly I expect more, with the budget and resources at his disposal. There's enough material from the comics that are great pieces of literature that the movies can adapt and apply wisley, regarding characterizations (spidey in particular).

These movies need new blood and a new take on the characters. Sure, there's no guarantee that things will be better but there's also no guarantee that it won't be either. I'm all for taking the inevitable risk.

Wow that was an angry rant. It really is kind of like the best of hits of Mr. 7000.

Seriously, I disagree with just about everything you said, but I'll just try to keep it brief.

It is true that Spider-Man 1 being the first Spidey movie, much less only 8 months after 9/11 contributed to it being such a big hit. But the movie did have a special quality to it that caused it to be such a phenomenon. I personally think the second is much better, but the reason people love the first so much is it was the first movie in a long time to be a summer movie with some actual soul. It wasn't centered on the action and the SFX, but on Peter Parker's journey. Yeah the plotline is pretty generic when you think about it (not to mention some glaring plotholes), but it is these characters being performed so well. Maguire is nothing like Peter Parker in real life, but he is so good at his interpretation of the character audiences identify him as it and are completely empathetic to all his trials and tribulations. It is the fact that it stands tall and high above most summer blockbuster fare.

It does capture the tone and spirit of Stan Lee's original comics of the character. It is light fun, romantic, action packed, sweeping but also melodramatic and incredibly endearing with its character relationships and interactions. It is why 92% OF CRITICS LOVED IT, only SM2 trumping it with 95% OF CRITICAL ACCLAIM. That tends to suggest these movies are more than just mindless mediocre cornerstones of mediocrity in the mediocre sector of a genre defined by mediocrity to paraphrase. These movies have humanty and soul that make them stand out.

As for the rest of your complaints--you ridiculously claim that Raimi has never read more than a few Spider-Man issues (considering he ****ing directed three movies and wrote one screenplay, that is an incredibly inane charge) and complain that it isn't like the comics you read growing up. All subjective, so no point in arguing. But funny that you say that fanboys have brainwashed themselves into thinking you just want mindless action, yet you can be accused of the same by implying that all fans of the movies have lower standards and fail to understand the character and just take what we can get.

P.S. The trilogy is marked with very good acting. Maguire, Dafoe, Molina, Franco, Harris, Simmons and even Church were all very memorable characters in these films.

 

[chaseter]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2072165605

What SM3 should have been...

 

[bellepheron]

I would generally agree with Kevin that what we got was a good, enjoyable trilogy.

Spiderman was a very good opener, I had my issues with it not sticking to the source at 1st (organic webbing, using mj not gwen stacy) but have sinced come to realise that these movies are a culmination of all Spidey folklore (not just the original comics) and the producers had to pick and choose what would concievably be good in a movie.

Spiderman 2 was a masterclass in super hero movie making no matter what some of the doubters on here say. The story was great and the build up of drama and conflict was effective (something SM3 unfortunately lacked). The villain was incredible, as were all the action scenes (the fight on the train may never be bettered). It gained great critical acclaim and deservedly so.

Spiderman 3 was the weakest of the 3 as most people would agree. Too many plots, characters etc its all been said before. It does still have some great scenes though and on the whole is alot better than most other superhero flicks out there.

The biggest negative from these movies is that their success has created the constant stream of crap Superhero films we have to tolerate today.
In hindsight alot of people on these boards (including myself) think they could have done alot better but the Sony execs and Sam Raimi didnt have the benefit of hindsight! On the whole we got a good trilogy, and a great one in superhero terms!

Bring on Spidey 4!

 

[kward711]

Oh please. The comic book movie genre as a whole is in a state of perpetual mediocrity. The spider-man movies are just 3 elements of mediocrity in an even bigger mediocre sector.
There are points that Kevin made which I agree with but I agree more with the comments Odin made.

Sam Raimi simply doesn't get spider-man. Want to know why the first movie did so well? 1) it's a friggin spider-man movie, the name alone will sell tickets. 2) it was the first time spider-man had been atempted to be realised as a theatrical movie and 3) spider-man was able to capitalise on the events that occured on 9/11. These 3 factors is what really made the first spidey such a hit.

Can you honestly tell me that the story and acting was of a great standard? David Koepp's miserable script was lackluster and he even had the nerve to recycle bits of dialogue he wrote for screenplays of other films.
TMags didn't do anything particularly special either. He pretty much recycled his performences from previous films he's starred in. I mean seriously, acting like a down-trodden, social misfit doesn't require oscar callibur dexterity.

Weak-minded people over the years have done a brilliant job in, convincing themselves that, those wanting more from these movies, equates to wanting mindless action and a complete rip from the souce material. I for one am fully aware that these movies are for everyone. Do people honestly think that the cartoons were simply made just for the fans too?? Yet, some of the cartoons generally, have done a much better job in adapting the source material than the movies have.

I'm all for making changes......as long as it is for the better and helps move the story along but when pointless changes are made, for the sake of compromising what works best in favour of making a quick buck and insulting the intelligence of the audience that is where problems arise.

First of all, Raimi claims to be a fan and to have read the comics?? Right. I bet his ass didn't even read the first 50 issues of ASM. I get that opinions are what they are and if people like these movies that's great. Just don't exepect anything significantly better because, when one subscribes to mediocrity and thats subscription does exceptionally well, more of the same will ensue. Many people wonder why sm3 was a mess?? Its obvious. People can blame Arad all they want but if these movies and the people making them are so good at what they do, they would have adjusted schedules and other factors to make sure that the end product delivered but what most fans of these movies got was...and I'm using a kinder word than most of you here have used to describe sm3, a complete suck-fest.
This doesn't surprise me because while sm2 was still showing in cinemas I made this prediction and despite the movie's incredible financial success, it was critically a disasterous let down.

All 3 movies do have their good points though and I'll give credit where its due but just like alot of you here who relentlessly praise this movie despite its faults, I'm one of few fans who are more aware and dissapointed by the faults, which seem to outweigh the good.

The first problem with these movies is, it short changed itself by making MJ the centre of the series, which is every shade of wrong.

Raimi seems ashamed of the source material's primary media and unfortunately, he's not the only comic book director guilty of this. Why do you think films like Harry Potter and LOTR do so well? It's partly because the movies know the world they're based in and where the characters are from. I can't relate to a hobbits, dwarfs and elves BUT because the director and script writer has respected me enough to, allow for me to be immersed into the world in which their characters live, I can empathise and have an interest in whats going on. As a member of the audience, I've been respected enough to be given a chance as opposed to directors such as, Raimi taking me for a fool and force feeding me to bare witness to what he thinks is better for me to watch instead of allowing us all to see things how they should be.

The characterizations are half-assed and when attempts are made to really capture the fundimentals of the characters they are either delivered miserable or too few and far between.
As for the underlying lessons and themes, we're often thrown back into square 1 by the end of the movie.
SM1 as half-assed as it was, had the excuse of being an origin movie where the movies and characters could expand but SM2 felt like a rehash of sm1, save for a few scenes, which involved Doc Ock. Don't get me started on the bastardization of ock's character though. As great as Molina was, the character was unecessarily changed, just to fit Raimi's odd sense of personally connecting the villain to the hero. Its a cliched formula that gets old real quick and Raimi has ruthlessly applied this to every villain in every spider-man film. It's pathetic, really. Raimi's additional over mellowdramatic scens are filled with poor pacing and stupid character details. Come on, MJ splits with flash, gets with harry but kisses spider-man and then falls for peter...all in 1 movie. By sm2, MJ loves peter but is in a relationship with John, hoaring herself out to both, seeing which ones gives her the most attention...then in sm3, after that wet and empty speach she gave at the end of sm2, she cheats on peter with Harry just because she's going through a rough patch and selfishly wants to be at the forefront of everyone's attention, as witnessed after she's been replaced at the theatre.

Then there's the inconsistancy of cg effects as well as glaring plot holes. Sandman teaming up with venom, the butler...need I say more? Ugh!

I'm greatful that we live in a time where we can actually have spider-man movies but if the people involved are going to be selfishly half-assed about it, then don't bother. I want people involved with these movies who aren't afraid to tackle the fact that these movies should be what they are and not something less because the director doesn't think audiences can't handle and accept it. I'm not going to applaud Raimi's efforts because frankly I expect more, with the budget and resources at his disposal. There's enough material from the comics that are great pieces of literature that the movies can adapt and apply wisley, regarding characterizations (spidey in particular).

These movies need new blood and a new take on the characters. Sure, there's no guarantee that things will be better but there's also no guarantee that it won't be either. I'm all for taking the inevitable risk.

you do know that things have to be changed from the comics in the films considering the comics came out 40 years ago.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Venom was in the movies? Oh yeah that cameo he had.

 

[Arcturus]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2072165605

What SM3 should have been...

LOL, brilliant.

Raimi should take notes!

 

[Mr Jide]

you do know that things have to be changed from the comics in the films considering the comics came out 40 years ago.

Really?

If you're going to bother quoting my post at least read read it.

 

[November Rain]

Most of the criticisms applied to SM3 can (and should) be applied to the previous films as well, but there is such an immense double standard among those who consider SM1/2 to be "masterpieces" that the argument is headache inducing before it even begins.

This is how i feel...

spidey 3 mimmics heavily on what was given or allowed in spidey 2, yet for many people that's the greatest superheroe film of all time.

almost every fault pointed out to be in spidey 3, i could also spot in the second film.

I could possibly spot it in the first film too, but the first film is quite the nostalgia ride so i tend to leave it alone in my criticism, i think first films in series should generally be allowed to get away with more stuff just because...

 

[Mr Jide]

Wow that was an angry rant. It really is kind of like the best of hits of Mr. 7000.

Nah, this was more like a sample of my greatest hits album.

Seriously, I disagree with just about everything you said, but I'll just try to keep it brief.

Fair enough.

It is true that Spider-Man 1 being the first Spidey movie, much less only 8 months after 9/11 contributed to it being such a big hit. But the movie did have a special quality to it that caused it to be such a phenomenon. I personally think the second is much better, but the reason people love the first so much is it was the first movie in a long time to be a summer movie with some actual soul. It wasn't centered on the action and the SFX, but on Peter Parker's journey. Yeah the plotline is pretty generic when you think about it (not to mention some glaring plotholes), but it is these characters being performed so well. Maguire is nothing like Peter Parker in real life, but he is so good at his interpretation of the character audiences identify him as it and are completely empathetic to all his trials and tribulations. It is the fact that it stands tall and high above most summer blockbuster fare.

See, in retrospect I actually prefer sm1 over sm2 because despite all 3 movies being shamefully mediocre, sm1 is merely a set up movie for the rest to follow, so I can accept the liberties taken, which restrained the movie from doing a lot more. I know TMags is a good actor but I wouldn't say he did a really good interpretation of Peter, simply because the script, which dictated his character traits were poor. Sure, it skimmed the surface of capturing the spirit of the character/comics but unfortunately that's all it did. I could empathise for a few scenes but for the most part empathy didn't come into it. It was either blatant sympathy (which I just couldn't relate to) or simply a non-stop eye rolling extravaganza.

It does capture the tone and spirit of Stan Lee's original comics of the character.

I completely disagree. All these movies for the most part managed to do was, skim the surface in trying to capture the spirit of the comics and thats when they even bothered to try.

It is light fun, romantic, action packed, sweeping but also melodramatic and incredibly endearing with its character relationships and interactions.

The romance played a bigger part than it should have, the action was short lived (not that I'm expecting a 20minute action orgy) and for the most part lacked creativity, the melodrama was forcefully over melodramatic in a soap opera kind of way and the character relationships were hardly endearing. It lacked excitement and suspense. What we got was typical run of the mill stuff, coupled with lame dialogue and the characters, especially peter talking and looking like a fool...."oh boy yeah"

It is why 92% OF CRITICS LOVED IT, only SM2 trumping it with 95% OF CRITICAL ACCLAIM.

Fortunately for me, I'm a free thinker. I don't care what people who get paid to have an opinion think. I wonder what percentage of those critics are actually die hard spider-man fans who've been activelyreading the source material for 20 years or more??

That tends to suggest these movies are more than just mindless mediocre cornerstones of mediocrity in the mediocre sector of a genre defined by mediocrity to paraphrase. These movies have humanty and soul that make them stand out.

And here is where the distinction needs to be made. Maybe as a movie, these films are quite good BUT as spider-man movies, these movies are simply mediocre and that's me being extremely nice. These spider-man movies will forever be compared to other movies in its genre and it is very easy to hail them as good movies, when the genre overall is saturated with crappy movies that are being made just for the hell of it, capitalising on a trend with no real heart, compassion or soul injected into the work of bringing these characters to life.

As for the rest of your complaints--you ridiculously claim that Raimi has never read more than a few Spider-Man issues (considering he ****ing directed three movies and wrote one screenplay, that is an incredibly inane charge) and complain that it isn't like the comics you read growing up.

Are you serious?? So because Raimi directed 3 spider-man movies and wrote a crappy screen play that makes him an expert and the bastion of authority on the spider-man mythos? I've read fanfics by 9 year olds who've written better screen plays than Raimi could ever hope to be associated with. The movies speak for themselves, Raimi claims to have read the comics and I stand by my comment that the guy probably didn't even read upto issue 100 of ASM. It shows very clearly. He lacks the imagination, courage and thought of bringing what worked so well in the to what could just as easily work well or even better on film.

comicsAll subjective, so no point in arguing. But funny that you say that fanboys have brainwashed themselves into thinking you just want mindless action, yet you can be accused of the same by implying that all fans of the movies have lower standards and fail to understand the character and just take what we can get.

I'm not saying those that like the movies have lower standards. I'm saying that Raimi has worked at and brought a low standard to these movies and because these are the only spider-man movies and they just so happen to be a money making machine, its easy for fans, especiall bias ones to simply accept what they've got. After all, the more money these movies make, the more movies we'll see and lets be honest, as fans we'll never get tired of wanting to see spider-man BUT keeping things in perspective, I feel that these movies should be working at a higher standard and should deliver more than they have in the past. Most fans here are simply content with all thats been shown but should a new take occur, then a real discussion can take place because there'll be something to compare but most fans here will take whats given because there is nothing else. I simply refuse to delude myself into thinking these movies are great when I believe that in this day and age and with the resources available these movies could be better, providing someone who isn't afraid to tackle the source material for what it can be assed to tell what should be great stories and not make movies primarily as a vehicle to sell merchandise.

P.S. The trilogy is marked with very good acting. Maguire, Dafoe, Molina, Franco, Harris, Simmons and even Church were all very memorable characters in these films.

Very good acting I would credit to Dafoe, Franco and Molina. The rest hardly stretched their acting abilities to warrent brilliant performances. Church for example, was wasted talent, he simply wasn't used as effectively as he should have been.

 

[Mr Jide]

I could possibly spot it in the first film too, but the first film is quite the nostalgia ride so i tend to leave it alone in my criticism, i think first films in series should generally be allowed to get away with more stuff just because...

My sentiments pretty much.

 

[November Rain]

NovemberRain, I'm not going to argue with you. Your mind is obviously made up.

Whatever it may seem, i'm generally fairly level headed and I don't believe to be too bias or mean towards any specific genre. I just have a hard time seeing what you guys sometimes see.

The hulk gets bashed for being inaccurate and spidey 2 is just as inaccurate while it's points are flawed

But I think you illustrate a fan who will not give any sort of credit to the series.

I tend to give credit where it's due and i'm consistent throughout all the genre.
if i have some issues with one filim and it's inaccuracies, by nature i must do the same for other films.

It this thread was solely about the first film then fair enough, i feel it pushed some boudaries. However the second and third didn't. they overalll complicated and diluted relatively simple stories and spidey's relationships with people in order to tell a muddled unrealistic love tale.

this was done in daredevil, supes 2, ghost rider and other superhero films and they are heavily noted but in spidey's case, they aren't highlighted as much.

As a small point, it is true producers dictate the movie/plot be a certain way to ensure big money returns, but Raimi and his creative team bend over backwards (much moreso in the sequels than the first one) to make sure it is a story with some merit worth telling.

Alright here is a question.

REgarding the 40 years of story telling history and all the adaptation of spidey and ock and his legacy that the story told in the second film best suited and followed the story told in the first film and provided a strong enough link to base the last film off?

The second movie is about choice, sacrifice and growing up. Part of growing up is balancing responsibility. Peter couldn't handle his responsibility so he reverted back to childhood, which many college kids do. They just don't want the responsibility that comes when leaving and being in the real world. But at the end he is striking a balance he couldn't think of in the first.

Ultimately the second film (for me) doesn't take into account the actions of the first film. His girlfriend is nearly killed on 3/4 occassions, some directly related to spidey and after all's said and done there doesn't come across to be a strong enough sense of responsibility towards here.

The same can be said towards the scene with his aunt. Pete's aunt nearly gets crushed with a safe door, gets kidnapped, thrown down a building twice and yet he'd rather swing off as spidey than come back to comfort here. She's getting kicked out of her appartment and he's taking money off her, he doesn't even think about moving back in to help with the rent, or winning some comp to raise funds.

Also his fascination for MJ is somewhat unhealthy and honestly, there is nothing in Pete for MJ to really be attracted to (or at leas in what came off on the screen).

Ultimately, the lessons learnt aren't about juggling responsibility because it still and always was about MJ. He wanted to be with her so his powers shut down, he wanted to save her so they turned on again. Honestly, it could have had nothing to do with responsibility, rather self presevation or the presevation of that which was near to him.

It's not as if the increasing crime wave or the fact ock was still lose commiting crimes tha got him to change his mind.

the tale (for me) shows you can have your cake and eat it if you're a superhero and that isn't the case. It also completely underminds the brilliant ending of the first film which i thought was an incredible way to go about things.

And yes it is silly to think you can have it all perfectly though, and the third is partially about his ego ballooning and and him becoming an oblivious glory hog who ignores his girlfriend and takes her for granted. Changes you hate (say Sandman killing Uncle Ben for example) lead this man with great pride down a dark road for vengence thinking he can be judge, jury and executioner and he falls down hard. The symbiote was forced for money and unneeded and probably hurt the movie in the long run...but Raimi does use it as a catalyist for Peter to unleash his demons on Sandman, Harry and even MJ. He finds redemption, like Harry Osborn, in forgiveness. Hence why he does not become like Eddie Brock/Venom. As an adult he was given temptation with his responsibilities, but he resisted. All three are morality plays of growing up.

Again with the rich back story, was this tale really the best pickings they had to deal with a story of this nature. Do they really have to re-characterise 3/4 main characters because they think the story is That good, better than anything else done in 40 years, Really?

Was it that good that it needed, Mj to cheat on peter for attention, pete to become a hypocrite for chasing his father's killer but not relating to harry chasing his, pete to be completely uninvolved in his uncle's death, a non-sentient symbiote, a goaless sandman and venom and cheapen harry's death (one of the best comic deaths to date)?

Again i give props where it's due but this film was clearly about cramming and milking the franchise, in nearly 3 hours, nothing's changed except for harry's death and peter and mj being rocky, so we end up back to where we pretty much were at the end of the first film (minus harry). After 4/5 years as a hero, spidey/peter with all his knowledge still acts like a child. SO much so, his actions directly lead to eddie's death and he puts it to the back of his mind, while allowing a dangerous criminal he cant defeat to go free.

I'm not saying you have to like these movies. I'm just saying there is an artistic integrity in them not seen in any other set of three superhero films. Batman became souless action figure commercials by Batman Forever, Superman began losing credibility in Lester's reshoots of SII and lost its way in Superman III. And the less said about X3, the better.

I look at films individually, not collectively. there are always good films and bad films.

I think Raimi tried to raise the bar with each film, and while he failed to do so in Spider-Man 3, his movie, I think, was pretty decent. But Spider-Man 2 was an amazing accomplishment that gets its praise because it is just a very good movie, that has the essence of the character.

It's strange because there are quite a lot of elements of spidey 2 that doesn't have elements of the character in it. It has a very simplified look at one of the most complex characters out there. I mean look at Armed and dangerous, a 90s 25 minute cartoon that shows far more depth towards spidey (and ock) than a 2 hour film could, surely you aren't saying that cartoon morning writers should be better than movie writers?

I mean there's nothing you don't get from that episode

interaction with love interest, great execution of peter parker, regretful role as spidey, reinvention, innovation as spidey, great tutor/student interaction with ock, great banter as spidey with ock, spidey thinking with his feat, spidey unable to physically beat ock (which he was more than capable of doing in the film), quick change scenes to not arouse any suspicious.

Peter Parker is the star of the show in the comics. The reaosn he stands out to every other superhero is the human nature of Peter Parker and his relatability.

how many times have you bent over to do your shoe laces and you've been hit in the head 3 times?

How many times in uni have you had spit bombs spat at you during xmas


HOw many times have your parents been short on cash and you don't cough up the money to help but rather spend the cash on tickets to see a girl's play?

How many times have you facied someone from 4 to 21 years of age?

Movie spidey lives in a dream world. He web slings with pizzas, he's adored by his loving public, he's idolised, he's more loved than superman who thros planet sized kyptonite into space to save BILLIONS.

he's not a super intelligent person who could make billions of his web shooters but instead spends all his time crimefighting saving people who don't give two ****s, working for a boss who secretly hates him, living with an aunt who despises his alter ego who just can't cut a break, yet his sense of duty still pushes him on.

Here's the super kicker and wait for it....

NO one should WANT to be spider-man

and that's the secret to a good film.

No reward, no love, no pay, no girl, no rent, no job, no sleep, no respect, no sense of achievement, forever living in perpetual guilt.

yet he still goes on. That's where you relate because you go, 'at least i'm not this dude, my life's not nearly half as bad' but in stead he's glamourised and kids shout his name..

wtf?

spiderman in a NUT SHELL is getting a world renouned globel prize winner professor to teach basic maths at a primary school level because he made a promise to his dying wife.It's that simple

his skills and years of knowledge are wasted and he hates kids and gets nothing out of it but he made a promise and once in a while a lil bastard will say thank you but the kids hate him, the head master hates him and the parents hate him. Not only this, he's under stimulated and has long days with low pay.

that's what i want on screen. It's a simple formulae that can be adapted to pretty much any scenario or job in life. Once you stray too far away from this, you lose the magic

The geek who becomes an average guy who has the same problems as ALL OF US. The movie captures that. Love, friendship, money, school, work, rivalries and taking care of relationships with his surrogate parents are dealt with in the trilogy, very well. Peter is not Marvel's Clark Kent.

I don't think you've been watching the same films as me. Supes went missing and there were paper articles asking about him, same happened with spidey.

He is not Spidey's disguise.

Ahh, you missed it. So many people miss it.

Peter parker's real persona is closer to spiderman's than his parker persona. This Again is highlighted in the animated episode

'I really really hate clones'

the episode deals with spidey's from different dimensions coming together. the iron spidey comes from a world where uncle ben never died. He is brash and over confident, rich gets his girl and all the love and respect from his adoring fans.

THIS IS PARKER PERSONIFIED

the only reason 616 parker isn't like this is because he failed with regard to his uncle. So to keep others safe he plays a facade in real life as if he was never bit and crimefights during the night but in his spiderman guise, he allows more of his TRUE self out with his brash over cockyness and he does this to let off the steam he gets of still not being where he could be in the normal day world.

again, are you saying that a cartoon writer should be better than a multimillion dollar budget movie writer and that a cartoon writer should bring more depth to a character than amovie writer?

Peter is the person we care about and Spidey is that person uninhibited by his everyday woes, but a heavy burden for Peter to have on him. It's a great paradox.

it's not always the case, parker's real life is just as much burden as his dealings with spiderman. Good stories either get the balance or flip it round a bit. the best stories are which the issues as peter parker are more prolific (for me).

P.S. In your list of inaccuracies to the source, you said that killing Harry was bad. He died saving Pete in the comics too. Yes, it was his own trap but deciding Peter has always been his friend is no more illogical than after realizing Peter did not directly kill his father, that he should help two friends who are about to die, especially when he is partially in love with one of them. That is what we call nitpicking.

Again i would say Killing harry is bad, he was never killed, he died at his own hand, at the hand of the goblin legacy which in the comics had now claimed 3 lives, in the films it only claimed one and that was the problem.

so i stand by this one. His sacrifice was in vain, not only this but pete decided to have a long chat with sandy about forgiveness instead of getting his friend to the hospital again, something he at least attempted in the comics.

of all the course of actions he could have attempted he made the wrong choice and it was just the easy route.

 

[November Rain]

ps, don't mind the big fonts, they are just there to highlight points, not as a shouting rant.

 

[bellepheron]

November Rain your point about Harrys death is just nitpicking to complain about the movies not sticking to the source material (as was already said). He did die by his own hand because he CHOSE to throw himself under a glider with two huge spikes on the end. He did this to sacrifice himself to save Peter, his motives behind his actions are the same as the comic its just represented differently in the film.

All this complaining about it sticking to the source but if it had we'd have had ridiculous storylines such as the one you mentioned where 6 extra dimensional peter parkers all have a chat, or how about the symbiote would have been brought to earth is a spaceship bringing back Spidey and his merry band of superheros back from fighting aliens on the the planet Zurg (I cant remember the specifics)!

The makers of this movie have some artistic license to change some of the source to fit the film medium better and to appeal to the general public. MR Jide complains about how many of the critics that loved SM and SM2 have read 20 years of source material, probably NONE! These people are paid to give their opinion on a movie, not an exact transfer of the source to film and their views generally reflect the publics. Probably 80% of the people who saw this film at the cinema know very little about the source material and have never read a comic, and to be honest probably dont care about it either.

They're who Sony directed these movies at, the casual viewer, not the nitpicking die hard fans who would have found fault with anything Sony had produced. And in trying to make 3 generally great movies for all to enjoy they have succeeded.

 

[November Rain]

November Rain your point about Harrys death is just nitpicking to complain about the movies not sticking to the source material (as was already said). He did die by his own hand because he CHOSE to throw himself under a glider with two huge spikes on the end. He did this to sacrifice himself to save Peter, his motives behind his actions are the same as the comic its just represented differently in the film.

I'm unable to truelly comment on this because to properly do so, i'd need spectacular spider-man infront of me, so i'll wait untill tomorrow to do so if that's alright.

All this complaining about it sticking to the source but if it had we'd have had ridiculous storylines such as the one you mentioned where 6 extra dimensional peter parkers all have a chat, or how about the symbiote would have been brought to earth is a spaceship bringing back Spidey and his merry band of superheros back from fighting aliens on the the planet Zurg (I cant remember the specifics)!

Alright, you've completely missed my points here.

1. the I really really hate clones section is only there to easily help highlight the fundamentals of peter parker nominal behaviour and how it's altered but still rooted.

2. I'm not talking about copying stories, creative license is fine as long as coincidences and dues ex machina do not compromise or insult viewer's intelligence. The alien symbiote trilogy achieved in bringing a new dimension to the venom character with creative license without insulting the intelligence of the viewers and it was well recieved. Having a black goo meteorite land near you in a park is just as bad as bringing something back from an alien war.

If you can't tell a tale right, don't bother telling it at all.

I don't consider these to be nitpicks and again with regards to harry's death, i'll wait for tomorrow to help illustrate my point.

The makers of this movie have some artistic license to change some of the source to fit the film medium better and to appeal to the general public.

That's all gravy

MR Jide complains about how many of the critics that loved SM and SM2 have read 20 years of source material, probably NONE!

Here lies the dillemma.

As I said earlier, One of the main goals of this project (as well as making a profit) is that it should advertise its base to make people more aware of it.

the studios have decided that these comic book characters have enough potential to make a profit on the big screen BASED on their stories and fan base of what they have achieved in other mediums. So if a story is good enough for a comic (note i say story, not it's direct execution), then why feel the need for drastic changes in order to accomodate it into another medium.

Now if you get someone who has watched that film and doesn't like it and goes off the whole genre, how can you fault them because the film is giving a misleading representative of the genre and a potential fan has been alienated.

There are a few of my friends i had when i was younger who don't see on screen the characters i've been telling them about for years and would feel the same way because the films leave most movie goers with nothing but a mild sense of entertainment and fans with nostalgia.

That's all fine and dandy but the genre is not striving to encourage a larger comic fan base or even dare i say, touch people.

These people are paid to give their opinion on a movie, not an exact transfer of the source to film and their views generally reflect the publics. Probably 80% of the people who saw this film at the cinema know very little about the source material and have never read a comic, and to be honest probably dont care about it either.

It would seem you're long term goals aren't similar to mine.

I'm looking to get the genre to the oscar winning levels of lotr where a fantasy tale is taken seriously and creates awareness for the source material.

As you've rightfully said, these movies don't inspire people to wanna pick up a comic or an arc a film is based off and go read it to compare. It's not a fault of the comics not having strong enough stories (otherwise they wouldn't have lasted for 4 decades), it's a fault of the depiction and attitude towards the genre by everyone involved from the creative team to the people watching it. No one's ready to truelly test the source material in a serious style.

They're who Sony directed these movies at, the casual viewer, not the nitpicking die hard fans who would have found fault with anything Sony had produced. And in trying to make 3 generally great movies for all to enjoy they have succeeded.

It may just seem that you don't have confidence in the base source material and that people won't buy it...

i'm not talking about all the fancy stuff around it, i mean really grounded base stuff, teh stuff most fans should be able to recite from the top of their heads, core knowledge from amazing fantasy 15.

look at this for example, here's a simple question.


IN amazing 15, parker has no angst with the fight dude and just lets the robber go because he was above it.

in the movies, not only does he have a revengeful reason to do this but ultimately goes after the 'wrong' person and bases he reasoning on factors he couldn't have controlled (klint could have killed him regardless of whether the robber got out or not).

now how does that help the base core of who peter parker is?

if you're mis-selling the base, your not selling the intended product. ALthough it's changed considerably since this, ULtimate spiderman managed to capture this essence of changing everythign else but keeping the base when it launched. A peter parker should be recognisable in every format. i feel he is lost on the silver screen.