Spider-Man movie series in retrospect

[Mr Jide]

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


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.


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?

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.



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


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.


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



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.


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?





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).


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.

Brutally telling the truth, I like it.

 

[Mr Jide]

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.

You do realise that all you've done is succeed in proving my point. I've stated numerous times that a 100% translation is impossible and just won't happen. I don't expect it to happen either. Now, I'm glad you've acknowledged my comment on the fact that critics are merely people who get paid to give their opinion on movies because like every other human being I have a right to voice my opinions on these movies no matter how much it differes from those who think otherwise.

You say about 80% probably know very little or dont care about the source material and I'm aware of this and it's what angers me. Any intelligent person would realise this too and say, "well we've got close to 50 years of spider-man history with more than enough great stories that can translate brilliantly onto screen. How about with a few tweaks here and there we adapt some of these stories into great movies?" Do we get this level of thinking? No. What we get is, Raimi and co needlessly making assinine changes to the characterizations and overall story of spider-man. Like Odin has said and like I've been saying for years...these characters and stories despite its so called plots are more 2d than the stuff we get in the comics.

I don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend the concept of, adapting some of the abundantly great stories in a vast selection of source scripture.

Also, I'd just like to add that as great as it was seeing the first spidey vs sandman meeting with the "I'm the sherrif round these parts" line. I find it depressing that, that really wasn't spider-man being IN character. By the standards the movies set with their botched characterisations, that was merely spidey acting out of character, being big headed and self-indulgent when in fact the irony is, through out all 3 movies that was when he was most IN character.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Also, I'd just like to add that as great as it was seeing the first spidey vs sandman meeting with the "I'm the sherrif round these parts" line. I find it depressing that, that really wasn't spider-man being IN character. By the standards the movies set with their botched characterisations, that was merely spidey acting out of character, being big headed and self-indulgent when in fact the irony is, through out all 3 movies that was when he was most IN character.

That is indeed a very good point.

 

[bellepheron]

Jide why does it anger you that people who aren't comic book geeks can enjoy these movies without knowing the source material?
As I AM an intelligent person I can appreciate that they COULD have used 50 years worth of backstory to make great films, as it stands they put there own spin on things and made great films anyway.

Although it pains you to acknowledge it, SM and SM2 were well fantastically well recieved by critics and the public so your constant cries of mediocrity has no real basis, other than your personal opinion which of course you are entitled to.

Of course in hindsight there are bits that should be different, I dont agree with Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer or Venom having a ten minute cameo or GG wearing a power ranger suit and most people agree, but we have to appreciate what we got when these movies had the potential to be disastrous (as most superhero movies tend to turn out), overall what we got was of a very good standard.

We all know in hollywoods hands even the greatest of source material can be massacred over the course of one movie, never mind 3!

 

[kward711]

Jide why does it anger you that people who aren't comic book geeks can enjoy these movies without knowing the source material?
As I AM an intelligent person I can appreciate that they COULD have used 50 years worth of backstory to make great films, as it stands they put there own spin on things and made great films anyway.

Although it pains you to acknowledge it, SM and SM2 were well fantastically well recieved by critics and the public so your constant cries of mediocrity has no real basis, other than your personal opinion which of course you are entitled to.

Of course in hindsight there are bits that should be different, I dont agree with Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer or Venom having a ten minute cameo or GG wearing a power ranger suit and most people agree, but we have to appreciate what we got when these movies had the potential to be disastrous (as most superhero movies tend to turn out), overall what we got was of a very good standard.

We all know in hollywoods hands even the greatest of source material can be massacred over the course of one movie, never mind 3!

I agree with everything you said.

 

[kward711]

Also, I'd just like to add that as great as it was seeing the first spidey vs sandman meeting with the "I'm the sherrif round these parts" line. I find it depressing that, that really wasn't spider-man being IN character. By the standards the movies set with their botched characterisations, that was merely spidey acting out of character, being big headed and self-indulgent when in fact the irony is, through out all 3 movies that was when he was most IN character.

and that line was made up by Tobey Maguire.

 

[DACrowe]

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??



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.



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.



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.



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.

Okay these are the parts I do take some issue with.

First, I stated the critics simply to help paint a picture that these aren't vapid money making void blockbusters. I was pointing out the reason they are so popular among fans and more importantly to the franchise (as this where the money is) non-fans, is because they are movies with some warmth and human feeling. Critics vocalize this better. I'm not saying you have to like the same movies they like. I"m just saying the reason some fans like these movies is because as films they have artistic integrity and while being immesnely entertaining to the eyes, have depth of story and character (even if in broad, silly over-the-top strokes) to make them stand high above most summer tent pole "action fare." And it is the drama, the comedy, the romance and the action (which is quite good in the sequels, I thought) that makes them do this. I understand you may not like them as Spider-Man movies, but I'm just pointing out they are not mediocre movies like say X3, Daredevil or Batman Forever.


Next, I think it is hard to fathom someone saying with a straight face Raimi has not read more than 50 spidey comics (as your previous post before the quoted one did). All the actors say he made them read the first 100+ issues of Spider-Man comics, so it is hard to believe he hasn't himself. And given all the visual and story references throughout the movies past the origin, it is obvious Raimi has read them. YOu may dislike his adaptation or think his changes strayed too far from the source. But the man has obviously immersed himself in them. Even the ones he didn't like (he admits to having read over a dozen issues with or buildiing up to Venom alone, and not enjoying them). But when he can make references in his films to ASM #121, 122, #50, #135, #1, #3, #300, Annual #1, SSM #200, etc. in his movies, he obviously has been semi-versed in the lore and likely did read it growing up at least.

Also, I think what yo usay about some fans taking whatever they can get is true. The fans who call SM3 perfect, or say no one but Kirsten Dunst can play Mary Jane or that they prefer organics, etc. do fall into that category. But I think fans as a whole can distinguish something that is well made from something that is not. Most comic fans hate the Fantastic Four movies and that is the only taste of FF they have gotten in cinema, but they know a bad movie that was poorly made when they see one. Soemthing like Sam Raimi's work is leaps and bounds better because he infuses soul and integrity into his films, while Tim Story's movies feel like commercials for action figures, MTV and extreme sports gear.

Lastly, I never said any of the performances were brilliant, though Molina as Doc Ock came near and I think Maguire's performance of sustaining such genuine emotion and sympathy over three films deserves much praise. I just think those actors I listed while some were not stretched (Simmons and Harris most notably), they all gave very good performances that are quite memorable and leaves strong impressions. Therefore I think they are worth noting.

 

[DACrowe]

November Rain I read your post and it was very well written and you make your points well. I think a major point of contention though is that you interpret Peter Parker as the guise for Spider-Man and I see Spider-Man as the same person, merely uninhibited by social protocol and the woes of his life. This is a fundamentally different reading of the text and I don't think either of us will change the other's mind and that tends to make up 80% of the debate.

I do think the second Spidey, my favorite of the three, did a good job of showing why life as Spider-Man is a crappy one. Nothing goes right for him in the movie. At the end he does get the girl, but it was by her choice and not his. Yes, you could say he is having his cake and eating it too, but the price is paid in SM3. You are correct in that changing Spider-Man to being well admired in SM3 was a mistake. I think the city should be cautious of him, so Brock smearing his name hurts. But it is part of his ego growing because he thinks the world is going right for him and he is eating his cake.

That is why he loses MJ (temporarily) in the movie. That is why he does lose his best friend. You are right he was so egotistical he could not see how him wanting to kill Flint Marko was any different than Harry wanting to avenge his father. And with the symbiote on he failed to connect the dots until the end. That is why he is able to forgive Marko, becauseh e learned from Harry's example and their entire situation. The price of thinking he had it all is he lost his best friend, strained the relationship with the woman he loved and went to a very dark place where what he did affected him and by finding the meaning of forgiveness he was allowed to mature and at the end of SM3 we did come full circle. Except these aren't two kids who ramble about their love but two adults who silently consent to maturely try and pick up the pieces of their life. So it is still about these two people but through surviving the last two films they were allowed to grow up.

The second movie took from the first a great deal. Norman Osborn's grasp was felt on all of them, as was Uncle Ben's. Even MJ grew up. I mean every character took where they were at the end of SM1 and expanded on it. But I think that one is a fairly obvious argument and don't wnat to go in it all. As for Peter being careless in the second movie by not going to comfort Aunt May for example, yo uare right. That is out of character but a small flaw I think no one ever noticed as it was to have grandeur and cinematic impact. And who is to say he didn't do a loop and change and visit Aunt May? These are small plot holes that are there but are no different than say the heroes in Jurassic Park flying into the SUNSET at the end of the movie (which would mean they are headed to Hawaii instead of the central American mainland). The point is made cinematically, even if logically it is a plot hole.

I'd go on but I prefer to leave the rest as agree to disagree.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Okay, first off, i want to applaud Mr Jide and November Rain for making very thought out and genuine complaints about the Spidey trilogy as a whole. Some of both of your points i agree a lot with, but at the same time, i have to disagree with a lot of them as well.

I dont know about Mr Jide, but November Rain surely knows by now that i dont take any old **** as a good comic book movie. I truly believe, that we got 3 movies that were above average and presented Spidey/PP in a fairly accurate way, and in a way that approached character first, THEN moved onto everything else. My prime example that i have heard recently is people complaining about things like Spidey not quipping, or Harry and MJ dancing in the kitchen (and other scenes of that ilk). I feel in both instances(and others) these scene's/changes were necessary as we got to see people being, well, people. I'm sorry, but if i saw a guy quipping left, right and centre, while his mother/love of his life/friend/father figure was in danger, i wouldnt feel sympathy for that character in a million years. As for the kitchen scene in SM3 (and other, similar scenes in the trilogy), we got to see these characters being normal, and doing normal things, which is how we relate to them, and how we identify with them, which is why i wont complain about them, i'd take these things over a generic action scene any day.

Both of you guys mention mediocrity a lot in your posts, but compare the Spiderman movies to the likes of the 2 FF movies, Elektra, Blade: Trinity, LXG, Catwoman, and for me personally, the prime example, X3, which took the great themes and storytelling of the previous 2 movies, and threw them out of the window to give us the ultimate CB movie cliche that dissapointed on almost EVERY level IMO.

As a whole, i have plenty of complaints regarding the Spiderman movies, but when compared to some of the other **** we have had, these 3 (and in my eyes Spiderman 2 is up there with the best of ANY CB movies) are masterpieces.

 

[Mr Jide]

Jide why does it anger you that people who aren't comic book geeks can enjoy these movies without knowing the source material?

Lets get this straight. What angers me is, Raimi and co know the general audience don't have an indepth knowledge of the source material and so instead of adapting some of the numerous great stories that have been around for almost 50 years, these people decide to tell their own story that lacks the excitement, intrigue and genuine endearing concepts that made certain aspects of the comics so great. For 3 movies we've had a socially inept peter parker who is the subject of all forms of social ridicule. SM1-victim of high school bullying...which is understanding, realistic and true to the comics. SM2-he has his books knocked out onto the floor and people walk all over him as he's on the floor picking his stuff up....at university?? That sort of thing just doesn't happen. This isn't some cheesy, unrealistic, shabby straight to dvd college movie. Hell, Peter in the comics wouldn't have stood for the mistreatment he recieved at that level of education. SM3-In the middle of a freakin' science class, he gets spit-balled and light shon in his face . For some twisted reason that escapes me, Raimi feels that this makes for great movie-making and character development, yet, its pretty clear, Peter Parker hasn't progressed much as an individual.

As I AM an intelligent person I can appreciate that they COULD have used 50 years worth of backstory to make great films, as it stands they put there own spin on things and made great films anyway.

There's nothing wrong with putting their own spin on it but when they make assining changes to the point where it ruins the integrity and the overall richness of the characters and stories, thats where problems arise. They may be ok films but as spider-man films, they're simply half-assed, barely skimming the surface of the potential these movies have.

Although it pains you to acknowledge it, SM and SM2 were well fantastically well recieved by critics and the public so your constant cries of mediocrity has no real basis, other than your personal opinion which of course you are entitled to.

Your point being??
I've stated many times that I am speaking purely on my own behalf. That is all the basis I need to draw up complaints and criticisms. I'm a free thinker, I don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about these movies. As a spider-man fan and as a paying customer, my opinion is ultimately all that matters and that is what I'm doing. If you have a problem with it, tough.

Of course in hindsight there are bits that should be different, I dont agree with Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer or Venom having a ten minute cameo or GG wearing a power ranger suit and most people agree, but we have to appreciate what we got when these movies had the potential to be disastrous (as most superhero movies tend to turn out), overall what we got was of a very good standard.

Sounds to me like you're just settling overall and accepting things simply because it's available. I've said this many times before, I appreciate we're able to get spider-man movies but we live in a day and age where these movies should be made at a much better standard than what they actually are. Just because the majority of comic book movies suck, it doesn't mean that by comparrisson, the spidey flicks get a free pass. If these comic book movies were being made by the same studio then I'd see your point but these movies are produced and made by different parties and with the director claiming to be such a fanboy, coupled with all the resources available, these movies are simply huge dissapointments on an artistic level.

We all know in hollywoods hands even the greatest of source material can be massacred over the course of one movie, never mind 3!

True but when you have the likes of Raimi broadcasting just how much of a fanboy he is, one expects to actually see the enthusiasm represented onto film. Also, you sound like you're just willing to accept these mediocre movies because other films botch their source material. Sorry but thats an excuse I can't live with. Besides, there are other films that do the source material justice and in some cases surpass the source material.

 

[Mr Jide]

Both of you guys mention mediocrity a lot in your posts, but compare the Spiderman movies to the likes of the 2 FF movies, Elektra, Blade: Trinity, LXG, Catwoman, and for me personally, the prime example, X3, which took the great themes and storytelling of the previous 2 movies, and threw them out of the window to give us the ultimate CB movie cliche that dissapointed on almost EVERY level IMO.

Ahh, but imo these movies aren't mediocre. They are grade A garbage on almost every level. I'll give that the spidey movies are generally decently made movies but for me as spider-man movies, there's too much of a departure that cripples the movies, when there are themes and concepts that could and should have been used, easily with the resources available. The movies in bold were pretty much doomed from the start, they had no hope.

As a whole, i have plenty of complaints regarding the Spiderman movies, but when compared to some of the other **** we have had, these 3 (and in my eyes Spiderman 2 is up there with the best of ANY CB movies) are masterpieces.

I think that's the problem though. Too many people are busy comparing the spidey movies to other movies instead of analysing these movies solely for what they are as indvidual movies being made to adapt and successfully reinterpreting the source material. The spidey movies when compared to other comic book movies are quite good and its easy to see why people would label them masterpieces but when one isn't comparing these spidey movies to other flicks, I think its easier to judge them better when matching them up against the source material...at least for me anyway.

 

[Danger Mouse]

for November Rain. Couldn't agree with you more, especially on the last bit with the huge fonts.

 

[Mr Jide]

and that line was made up by Tobey Maguire.

...and you know that how?

 

[Blader5489]

...and you know that how?

Cast commentary, I believe. Either Maguire, Raimi, or Church pointed out that that was an ad-lib.

 

[Mr Jide]

Then thats great. Unfortunately like I said, it was an out of character moment which ironically was the most in character moment of all 3 movies. This sort of thing is what the spidey flicks need but obviously, we don't want these sardonic retorts every bloody second.

 

[DACrowe]

Sorry, kev. I think your thread has turned into a sotmping ground for "the movies are good," "no they're not!" arguments like every other thread on this board.

 

[Mr Jide]

But ultimately, that is the point of the thread. Looking back at what the 3 films had to offer. Its pretty clear that people will have diferent opinions on the matter and so far, I feel that every one who's been involved with the topic of discussion has, brought something of value, without turning this thread into a, "your supid for believing this"...or, "you're a jackass for thinking that".

 

[DACrowe]

Oh I agree. It is still the same arguments, but I do appreciate this thread is full of intelligent discourse and no name calling has been used.

 

[bellepheron]

Here's to reasonable debate! The reason I joined this site, but unfortunately a rarity on these boards! Jide we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic!

 

[Mr Jide]

haha...fair enough, my friend.

 

[Mr Jide]

Oh I agree. It is still the same arguments, but I do appreciate this thread is full of intelligent discourse and no name calling has been used.

Absoloutly.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Sorry, kev. I think your thread has turned into a sotmping ground for "the movies are good," "no they're not!" arguments like every other thread on this board.

I'm all for reasoned debate. I'd be disapointed if someone didn't respond to my initial post with a different POV.

 

[DACrowe]

indeed.

 

[November Rain]

unfortunately, i can't find my back issue of spectacula 200 where harry dies *sob*

so i'll have to look for the pages i'm referring to on the internet

as for the rest of the talk, i'll have to do it on monday since i'm supposed to be out with my girlfriend and her family.

I'm glad no one has taken offence by what i've written and that people have taken the time to read it and comment. I'm also glad it hasn't turned particularly ugly yet so it's all good.

I'll be back with another bite of reality (november rain style) tomorrow.

 

[November Rain]

Both of you guys mention mediocrity a lot in your posts, but compare the Spiderman movies to the likes of the 2 FF movies, Elektra, Blade: Trinity, LXG, Catwoman, and for me personally, the prime example, X3, which took the great themes and storytelling of the previous 2 movies, and threw them out of the window to give us the ultimate CB movie cliche that dissapointed on almost EVERY level IMO.

As a whole, i have plenty of complaints regarding the Spiderman movies, but when compared to some of the other **** we have had, these 3 (and in my eyes Spiderman 2 is up there with the best of ANY CB movies) are masterpieces.

Quick point here.

The faults with some of the others movies you mention are fairly obvious and anyone can spot them. I too have issues with them so i dont really go around flogging those dead horses if others are willing to do so.

The thing with the spidey franchise is that i feel that even though it's may have pushed boundaries, it hasn't even began to peak and I shouldn't just merely accept the standard it's showing simply because it is (apparently) better than everything else out there.

the whole genre (especially the franchises sitting comfortably) really have to push the boat out with regards to their narratives and story telling. I'm not bothered about special effects.

If you've seen some of my older posts, i've made arguments on whether there could be superhero based films without violence being shown altogether or any use of powers. I feel one could easily do this with a wolverine type film where the character is more than enough to carry a whole filim. I personally think the hulk (with violence of course) can carry two whole films without the need for a heavy showcase with a powerful nemesis because his psyche is so deep and interesting.

I want an oscar worthy tale from this genre and there's no way you can tell me it's not possible, there are countless tales that could easily be adapted well waiting to be utilised to their full or even plenty of mediocre stories waiting to be expanded and given proper depth.

I feel though this franchise has gotten comfy and the rate of increase in subsequent films is going to drop since (i feel) it's been dropping since the first installment but advances in CGI and gimmicks have helped cover this up.

I think we are being cheated and being made to feel guilty for asking for better quality as fans. All of this stuff they say about being fans and reading comics is all publicity trollocks because they've missed some real big points.

More than likely they've omitted these points in favour of telling 'THEIR' story and when that happens, what's the point of having the superhero name attached.

IN a nutshell, i feel to this day that the incredibles is the best representation superheroes on the big screen to date, and it's supposed to be a piss take. When the piss takes take its characters more seriously than the real media, then there are problems.