Spider-Man movie series in retrospect

[November Rain]

touché. I agree (inspite of all my typos) we have showcased some interesting points and counterpoints here.

I think that SM2 was him just not being able to catch a break or find his flow. He was getting caught up in "disturbances" and wasn't delivering pizzas on time because he was doing his Spidey thing. So, he got fired. His only source of income is an unsteady job where he is already in debt for taking loans from the kind Miss Brant by taking pictures that makes himself look bad (I think the train icident was the turn around for Spidey in these movies for public image). These are the reason he cannot pay rent. And since he is out so much late at night being Spider-Man what time he has left he likely devotes to getting too little sleep and doesn't get his studies done (hence his near failing of Conners' class). He's so poor he can't help Aunt May (I know your beef with that point), his best friend hates his alter ego and that is straining their friendship as his friend thinks he is hiding his alter-ego (and not that they are one in the same) and worst of all the girl he loves and is in love with him, he has pushed away "to protect her," and thus she is moving on with her life, leaving him even more miserable.

The spidey public image thing has always been strage for me. Apart for some scenes of the daily bugle's headlines, no one else has ever shown any hatred for him, tramps, random people, kids running on the street, the whole of new york were helping him against the goblin, train ride, outside the bank with ock, on the way to see mj's play and all the way through the third despite his 'evil' change.

I understand 2 identifies some struggles he has with his life but in the spidey 2 trailer, they all seem to play an even part, in the film, there are strong ties to MJ with his powers cutting directly twice after encounters with her. IF he had power cuts after being late with connors, or after an argument with harry or after being fired from another job as well, then there would have been more of a balance and that i don't mind. The balance was not there.

I also think in order to help him make his decision, ock should have orchestrated a way (at the bank) to have the battle have innocent bystanders get hurt. This (along with having ock win the tussle outright) would allow Ock to come across as more of a menace, threat and also would allow the bugle to blame it all on spidey, putting his reputation under fire. THe whole 'spidey does no good' and the 'they will turn to hate you' speech done by goblin in the first film will play back and add as another catalyst to have him stop. This could easily be highlighted by spidey saving someone and getting crap (leading to another power cut).

This strengthens parker and ock overall and is a proper reason to have parker stop that doesn't make him .

It i s a culmination of suffering. When he quits being Spidey he does better in school, saves his grades (one questions where his income is coming at all at this point), is ignoring his responsibilities, so he feels great (your typical college kid) and to top it all off has the time and peace of mind to pursue MJ. He wisens up and becoems Spidey again, but seems to feel the need to abandon MJ again, until she won't let him.

As for the wisening up, some things bug me about that and it comes down to instances where other people's lives (including his own) are in danger, like in the fire or at when he attempts to jump from some buildings. At those moments he realises what he needs to do so his head's in the right place but his powers aren't. It always just conviniently seems to be MJ who makes his spidey sense go off or makes his eyesight and full powers return. There's really no need for that drammatic tie in. Just the same way it was how putting MJ on the floor made him (apparently realise) the symbiote was bad. Heck, the majority of the biggest things that have occurred to spidey have resulted in being because of MJ.

Getting his powers (taking her pic)
Going wrestling and leading to uncle ben's death (to buy her a car)
Last Fight with Osborn (she was captured on bridge)
Losing his powers once (missing her play and seeing her with john)
Losing powers again (hearing she is going to get married)
Giving up spiderman (being with her was a large part of a culmulative reason)
Gaining powers back (large catalyst was her kidnapping)
REgaining a balance in his life (because of her)
Getting the symbiote (in the park when he was there with her)
Fighting harry and blowing her face up (over fact he was seeing her)
Removing symbiote from him (after realising he hit her)
reconciling with harry (in order to save her (once again))


in the most significant parts of this peter's life, MJ is not too far away from the scene or is directly a catalyst. It's all too coincidental.

In SM3 he somehow has struck a compromise. How? I don't know it's a movie. There are patches when his life is going great in the comics before something comes and knocks it all down to hell (just like this movie). Yes, MJ was the catalyst for the turn around but she was not the reason that all the facets of his life were falling apart. They were clearly showcased in SM2 to be the fault of having the Spidey alter-ego.

In an earlier post i made a long list and said the majority of those reasons were actually down to peter parker as an individual and not his spider-man persona, He handled some situations very immaturely and never really showed much of a spine and was happy to get walked over by his boss and peers and landlord to some extent.

The only real thing that changes is spidey's mood towards this, the only thing that you see really changing is his school but everything else is really implied and not shown. He has less on his conscience. The direct link to his spiderman antics aren't made clear.

What I am saying is you are taking one aspect of this equation and misconstruing it to be the centerpiece. You are saying "His life sucks and he doesn't dating MJ....His life doesn't suck and he is dating MJ...there must be a connection!" By the same token, I could go "Look he doesn't know Gwen Stacy and his life sucks...Look he knows Gwen Stacy now and his life is great!" It is a correlation that doesn't work, IMO.

But please respond as this has still been fun.

The reason i am making that correlation is because that is what is coming across on screen.

The same way as how him stopping being spiderman doesn't showcase him getting a job or getting rent or helping his situation with harry or allowing him to spend more time with his aunt or MJ.

He's still clumsy (although there is evidence to show that may be due to his glasses) as shown in the raindrops scene
He still gets bullied as shown at the beginning of spidey 3
Jameson still treats him like turd
He still isn't shown with a job (both in raindrops or in spidey 3)
He still gets no love from his landlord.
He still wasn't able to help out Aunt may financially or emotionally

The only thing him stopping being spidey shows is...

he working during the day, he was fixing his bike and he didn't care if there was crime happening. He also was able to make it to MJ's play

Personally, i've always liked a spidey who rarely managed to have a balance and the fact he got it so easily in 3 with all the apparent struggles he had in two didn't sit easy with me.

 

[Mr Jide]

Not quite sure that is instant death for those cops, but they would certainly have wicked neck aches.

I'll say this, it is humanly possible for a normal man to kill another man with a single punch to the head. Now, imagine a super being like sandman, distorting his body into a 6ft giant fist and smacking you to the point you are literally flying through the air off the top of a truck and crash landing through the wind screen of a car, 1) you'd be lucky that the punch itself didn't kill you (and we know the cop was still alive at this point because he was screaming) and 2) the fact that enough force was behind it to send you hurling through the air into a car is more than enough to make sure you never see the light of day again...That cop died on impact.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3uXWxyQeZkM&feature=related

 

[Mr Jide]

How? I really think that bernard telling harry what really happened to his father was a very good idea. It was also emotional to.

Yes, it was emotionally funny in a pathetic way. The butler decides to make the revelations years after it actually happened, while all the while, allowed for Harry to go nuts and misplace his hatred. Also, why would he be nursing the wounds of a dead man? and it gets even better, the story dictates that the butler knew Norman was the goblin and somehow managed to know what the stab marks of the glider's blade looks like This is what your beloved Raimi's writing abilities equates to.

As for the death, my previous post says how I feel about it.

Upon observing all your posts, its quite clear that you're easily pleased. Logic and common sense clearly isn't a requirement for your enjoyment.

 

[Mr Jide]

The spidey public image thing has always been strage for me. Apart for some scenes of the daily bugle's headlines, no one else has ever shown any hatred for him, tramps, random people, kids running on the street, the whole of new york were helping him against the goblin, train ride, outside the bank with ock, on the way to see mj's play and all the way through the third despite his 'evil' change.

Here's where the problem lies. First of all, JJ in these movies is a poor adaptation of his comic book counterpart (much like most things with these movies). He runs his mouth about badmouthing spider-man and Peter confirms this, yet we see no evidence to support these claims. Now sure, when we see spidey doing something heroic, like saving the kids from GG, it would be crazy for the people of NY to start lynching spidey but logic would suggest that Raimi, shoot scenes where the people are confused as to them not understanding why spider-man is doing something good. Raimi has really messed up this whole spidey public image business. This aspect would have been better handled through out all 3 movies if Raimi bothered to showcase people having different opinions of spidey but instead public opinion was mutually one sided and made no sense, when pete is complaining to JJ that he's turned the whole city against him...and people say that sm2 is movie making at its best?? Wow.

I understand 2 identifies some struggles he has with his life but in the spidey 2 trailer, they all seem to play an even part, in the film, there are strong ties to MJ with his powers cutting directly twice after encounters with her. IF he had power cuts after being late with connors, or after an argument with harry or after being fired from another job as well, then there would have been more of a balance and that i don't mind. The balance was not there.

Exactly! Like I've said before, these movies were ultimately doomed from the start of the first movie with the opening ines about this story being all about MJ and funnily enough, Raimi stuck by his words, these stories are all about MJ, shockingly to the point that these movies are more about her that peter/spider-man.
MJ was the root of all of Peter's troubles, happiness and overall well being. During the dock ock bank scene, spidey runs out web fluid...are we supposed to believe that, instead of worrying about the rest of the people nearby, especially his aunt who almost got slammed by a volt door that, spidey is thinking consciously or subconsciouly about MJ? There's simply no excuse for the overall bad quality of writing here when one considers the talent, alleged fanboyism and other resources put into these movies. Also Odin, thanks for posting up the NOTL vid because in that 20minute episode alone, we got perfect characterizations and development that showed more competence than what Raimi and co couldn't achieve after 3 films.

I also think in order to help him make his decision, ock should have orchestrated a way (at the bank) to have the battle have innocent bystanders get hurt.

Here's another problem, people did get hurt. The cops he mercilessly lobbed 20ft into the air. I think Raimi is too obssessed with death and serious injury while simultaneously neglecting to show, just how important it is for spidey to be too responsible to try and stop these things from happening. I personally think that far too many people either die or get injured and is treated in such a trivial manner to the point where it's like, "ok, whatever". Spidey is supposed to be the people's champ. There isn't a situation too big or too small for him but seeing some of these people get hurt and to see it being shrugged off only emphaises just how painful it is to see how high a pedastal MJ is put on.

This (along with having ock win the tussle outright) would allow Ock to come across as more of a menace, threat and also would allow the bugle to blame it all on spidey, putting his reputation under fire. THe whole 'spidey does no good' and the 'they will turn to hate you' speech done by goblin in the first film will play back and add as another catalyst to have him stop. This could easily be highlighted by spidey saving someone and getting crap (leading to another power cut).

Unforunately, Raimi and his band of overpaid writers lack the capacity to apply principle reasoning.

As for the wisening up, some things bug me about that and it comes down to instances where other people's lives (including his own) are in danger, like in the fire or at when he attempts to jump from some buildings. At those moments he realises what he needs to do so his head's in the right place but his powers aren't. It always just conviniently seems to be MJ who makes his spidey sense go off or makes his eyesight and full powers return. There's really no need for that drammatic tie in. Just the same way it was how putting MJ on the floor made him (apparently realise) the symbiote was bad. Heck, the majority of the biggest things that have occurred to spidey have resulted in being because of MJ.

This only underscores why I think Raimi doesn't get spidey and why these movies were pretty much doomed from the get go. I can't believe that Raimi actually followed through when he decided to make spider-man's story all about MJ. It cheapens every other character and makes peter/spidey perhaps the most shallow of the series. Seriously, what spider-man books was Raimi reading?

Getting his powers (taking her pic)
Going wrestling and leading to uncle ben's death (to buy her a car)
Last Fight with Osborn (she was captured on bridge)
Losing his powers once (missing her play and seeing her with john)
Losing powers again (hearing she is going to get married)
Giving up spiderman (being with her was a large part of a culmulative reason)
Gaining powers back (large catalyst was her kidnapping)
REgaining a balance in his life (because of her)
Getting the symbiote (in the park when he was there with her)
Fighting harry and blowing her face up (over fact he was seeing her)
Removing symbiote from him (after realising he hit her)
reconciling with harry (in order to save her (once again))

I'm so furious, I don't even what to comment on this!

in the most significant parts of this peter's life, MJ is not too far away from the scene or is directly a catalyst. It's all too coincidental.

...and blatantly too in your face. Raimi couldn't even be subtle about it but I suppose by mercilessly continuing with such a botch up within 3 movies, there's no point in being subtle because audiences have lapped it up each and every time.

In an earlier post i made a long list and said the majority of those reasons were actually down to peter parker as an individual and not his spider-man persona, He handled some situations very immaturely and never really showed much of a spine and was happy to get walked over by his boss and peers and landlord to some extent.

You know, through out most of my time here, I've often told people to look back at the early 60s comics to see how peter was characterized and by the looks of things, its something I'm going to have to keep on doing, just to make a point. Lets simply focus on Peter, post-spider-bite. He actually developed a backbone and had the courage to say what was on his mind at times or at least we got to se what he was thinking. Clever narration or at least decent direction could have showcased this while all the while still making Peter be the good guy that he is and making him simultaneously accessible and all the more easier to relate to. After 3 movies, to see Peter still characterised how he was in sm1 is a gross error of character misinterpretation.

He still wasn't able to help out Aunt may financially or emotionally

This is perhaps one of the worst things anyone can do when adapting spider-man's story in any media. In the comics, Aunt May was priority and what's more is, it's not as though it's an unrealistic act of behaviour or should be identified simply as, an elemen of the comics. This characetrization is very much a reality and had/has the potential for character development and progression to ensue but this was senselessly tossed away in favour of the damsel in distress tradition but in the case of these movies, it was ridiculously milked beyond belief.

 

[Stevens25]

For me,one of the most wasted opportunities in part 3(or in the whole series,for that matter)was when Spider-man gets the symbiote and becomes darker and more "evil." Here is the perfect chance for Raimi to have had JJ. and the Bugle ruin Spider-man's image and put that uncertainty out there as to whether or not Spidey was actually helping the public. But,I don't really recall Spider-man ever doing anything really bad while wearing the black suit(at least not in public). Again,the cartoon series got it right. I would have also liked to have seen Spidey actually go to the Bugle and threaten Jameson. He has the black suit and is getting more pissed off and arrogant by the day. So,why not pay a little visit to the main reason for his bad image problems? Peter Parker lost control while wearing the suit around MJ and Harry,but that's it. It would've been nice to have seen Spider-man lose all control around the public. Maybe just sit by and watch while a bank was getting robbed or something along those lines. Something that would've but fear into the public and make them question whether or not Spider-man was a hero or the criminal that Jameson always said he was.

 

[November Rain]

It's not really fair to say the 90s cartoon got it right considering it pretty much has defined the symbiote suit we see today.

It was the first to use the whole 'makes you evil' storyline so in that regards, it was pretty much the entire basis of the symbiote adaptation used in spidey 3.

 

[Stevens25]

True,I guess I just liked alot of what I saw in that series and wished they would've used a bit more of that for the film. I did like the film,but it wasn't as dark as I wanted or expected.

 

[Spider-Jay]

The spidey films are disposable



Apart from comic book fans or people with young families, i don't know a single person who likes them or owns a copy. They'll watch it if its on tv or if it's on in the cinema, but it's just so they can say they have. They are somewhat forgettable.



the only real thing that sticks out over the whole franchise is an upside down kiss and That kiss was iconic. The rest will be clumped together with the early millenia trend for superhero films.



This i can assure you is true.

The films are disposable?

Tell that to Sony, who have created one of the most successful movie franchises in history.

The movies have easily made Spider-Man one of the most popular pop icons beside Harry Potter and Jack Sparrow.

Say what you want, about the the quality of the movies, but the impact they've had on present pop culture is nothing we can ignore. The Spidey brand has never been larger.

As for the their long-term impact on pop culture, then I'd agree, with the kiss being the only thing most would remember. However I'd also add Doctor Octopus seeing as how he is one of the most imaginative and visually exciting villains on screen.

And for a comic book movie that is a remarkable achivement. Just because the movies don't have that one scene that stand immortalized in our memory doesn't mean they weren't good.

Batman Begins was amazing yet it didn't have that one iconic scene that moviegoers will remember. Yet its one of the best films I've ever seen.

As for DVDs, again I could say the same thing for Batman Begins. Only difference being there are no young kids that have the movie, only comic book fans.

If there's one thing this franchise will be remembered for, it would be the fact that it is undoubtedly the most popular and successful comic book movie franchise ever- an industry that continues to grow and produce a large pie of the box office. That not mean much in the grand sceme of things, but at least it will have that distinction to cement itself in movie-making history. And I'm fairly confident that this comic book movie boom can be attributed to the Spider-Man franchise. And as comic book fans, that's all the more important to us.

However, I have a feeling I may have misinterpreted your post LOL! And I'm just too lazy to retype a new answer : P

 

[November Rain]

The films are disposable? tell that to sony

I don't have to tell that to sony, they've already told me that in their product. A product that they don't believe can sell itself that they have to release 15 minutes of footage to draw people in. They are willing to butcher a movie experience in order to get crowds in. That's hardcore advertising, not hardcore quality.

they have created one fo the most successful movie franchises in history.

The movies have easily made Spider-Man one of the most popular pop icons beside Harry Potter and Jack Sparrow.

Say what you want, about the the quality of the movies, but the impact they've had on present pop culture is nothing we can ignore. The Spidey brand has never been larger.

The most sucessful movie franchise in history????

here's a secret. Heck I'll give you 2.

Spoiler

YOu're wRoNg

Spoiler

and....

Spoiler

YOu're Crazy

Alright, I've stated the upside down kiss as something fairly pop culture iconic. Apart from that what do you have to warrant this series about being most popular pop icon?

Also what do you have to confirm the spidey brand has never been larger? Do you have a figure on the increase of spider-man related hits on the internet? Do you have figures supporting the increase and peaking of sales of spider-man comics and merchandise? Have the Dvd sales of these films peaked with every sequel? Have the records set by the films' predecessors been toppled by each sequel?

or is this post purely based on individual bias opinion?


now you may say that i have a bias opinion as well but at least it is backed up with evidence to aid my reasoning.

 

[Spider-Jay]

I think you read my post wrong.

Never did I say it was the most successul franchise in movie history.

Never did I say it was the most popular icon.

 

[November Rain]

jay, you say that in your first sentence, look at the quote i took off you. Saying one of would rate it in a top five bracket, it certainly isn't that high

 

[Spider-Jay]

jay, you say that in your first sentence, look at the quote i took off you. Saying one of would rate it in a top five bracket, it certainly isn't that high

???

Did you even read the part you quoted me in?

There's a large difference between "the most" and "one of the most".

And unless you have a solid definition that "one of the most " means it has to be in the top five, then I'd have to say that's a definition based purely on personal belief.

 

[November Rain]

you win

 

[Mr Jide]

The films are disposable?

Actually, all films are, if you really think about it.

Tell that to Sony, who have created one of the most successful movie franchises in history.

When you say success, you're talking financial, which of course can't be disputed. However, despite the fact that a movie can make heaps of dough, it doesn't mean that it's exempt from from moving in a better direction. For example, the James Bond movies have been a staple in cinema history. It is the longest running and most successful movie series of all time, where every film has performed well financially. DAD made a lot of money but the film was craptastic. It was so bad that they had to take Bond's story back to his origins and we're talking about estarting a movie series that has been running for as long as spidey comics have been out and that is since 1962.

The movies have easily made Spider-Man one of the most popular pop icons beside Harry Potter and Jack Sparrow.

Were you in a coma pre 2002?? Spider-Man has been a popular pop icon for decades. In fact spider-man, superman and batman are the top 3 most iconic comic book characters of all time. The funny thing is, while supes and bats had 4 movies each and spidey had none, spidey's status in popularity didn't decline not once and nor did the populraity of supes and bats completely outshine spidey too.
You mention Potter and Sparrow...pfft so what? They're nothing all that special. Consider that someone like spider-man who's been in the public eye for almost 50 years, has only managed to get 3 movies within the last 5 years. Do you believe that spidey's status of popularity was in question prior to the films? This really does show that, even if spidey didn't have any movies, he'd still be a leading pop icon.

Say what you want, about the the quality of the movies, but the impact they've had on present pop culture is nothing we can ignore. The Spidey brand has never been larger.

What impact would that be? The only impact these spidey movies have had are, some stupid changes made to the comics, revenue helping marvel to get out of debt, sony and marvel's fat cats getting richer and of course the fact that we're actually seeing what is supposed to be spider-man in a theatrical movie and that's pretty much it. The merchandising is merely cashing in on the movies, those only appeal to overzealous kids but other than that, nothing's really changed.

As for the their long-term impact on pop culture, then I'd agree, with the kiss being the only thing most would remember. However I'd also add Doctor Octopus seeing as how he is one of the most imaginative and visually exciting villains on screen.

Not really. Sure, the upside down kiss is probably the most memorable scene to the average joe but the machines in the matrix sequals were pretty much doc ock with no human attached. Had the matrix sequals not been bogged down with a complicated story, I don't see how one could be so overzealous into believing that doc ock is one of the most imginative and visually exciting villains they've seen. Characters like the terminator, T100, hell even agent smith are more memorable than Doc ock. If doc ock had been given the depth and characterization that adhered more closely to the source material then you'd have a leg to stand on but sadly, that isn't the case.

And for a comic book movie that is a remarkable achivement. Just because the movies don't have that one scene that stand immortalized in our memory doesn't mean they weren't good.

Actually, with me, the film suffered in that, they had one or two scenes that were great but because they were too few and far between, it ended up being one of many factors that ruined the movies overall. Hell, I'd even go as far as to change my mind and say that there are only two iconic scenes that best describe these movies and both scenes shamefully appeared in sm1 and they are, the upside down kiss and of course, the final swing at the end.

Batman Begins was amazing yet it didn't have that one iconic scene that moviegoers will remember. Yet its one of the best films I've ever seen.

Nobody cares about having iconic scenes in batman, its not a paramount concern. After the abomination that was Batman and Robin, the focus was just trying to get a batman movie made and made right. The same thing happened with Bond in DAD, which resulted in trying to go back to early connery era and we ended up getting the brilliant CR.

As for DVDs, again I could say the same thing for Batman Begins. Only difference being there are no young kids that have the movie, only comic book fans.

Now you're making sweeping statements. I know many people who aren't into comics and they don't own a single spider-man movie but they own BB, simply because they find it to be a more interesting and appealing movie, where things happen and aren't too ridiculous.

If there's one thing this franchise will be remembered for, it would be the fact that it is undoubtedly the most popular and successful comic book movie franchise ever- an industry that continues to grow and produce a large pie of the box office.

First of all, that isn't fact, secondly, you make it sound as though no other comic book series of films stands a chance of perfoming equally to the spidey movies or better. The way I see things as of now, I'd say that these new batman films are looking pretty damn good so...

That not mean much in the grand sceme of things, but at least it will have that distinction to cement itself in movie-making history.

Again, you're talking prematurely here. You seem to be pretty sure that no other comic book movie(s) can match up to the standard that you hold the spidey movies in.

And I'm fairly confident that this comic book movie boom can be attributed to the Spider-Man franchise. And as comic book fans, that's all the more important to us.

I hate that this happens but if we exclude the blade movie, you do realise that there was this little film directed by Brian Singer called, X-men that came out in 2000 right? A sequal to that was never in doubt. the spidey movies although upto that time was in a legal battle can still be attributed as a follow up to the trial run of the x-men movie which was generelly well recieved and that's when everyone jumped on the bloody bandwagon.

 

[Spider-Jay]

As for how popular the Spider-Man frnachise is, my theory is simple:

Movie industry>>>>>>>comic book industry

In terms of size.

Prior to the movies, Spider-Man had a large following, however this mostly resided with comic book fans and young children who were able to watch TV.

However, we all know that the movie industry is by far the largest and most powerul form of entertainment media out there.

Not everyone, reads comics. Not everyone watched cartoons. But everyone watches movies. And by everyone I mean everyone.

Now you could say "Well that doesn't mean Spider-Man owns the movie industry". And of course you'd be right. Let's see however:

Franchise total: $2,495,718,076 (6th all-time) That's a damn lot of people seeing the Spidey movies.

Franchise average: $831,906,025 per movie (4th all-time)

Spider-Man 1: record breaker

Spider-Man 3: record breaker

As you can see, the franchise has been near the top of the movie industry and because of this, its only natural that the fanbase would grow larger. Its simply logic. By entering into a larger, more powerful medium, how can your fanbase dwindle? The comic books may have less readers, but that could be said for every comic book out there. With the movies, more general audiences are getting a glimpse of Spidey and based on these numbers, they love him.

Which is why you can see Marval and DC's greater attention to the production of movies for their franchises.

However, I agree with November Rain and Jide about the quality of the films. Not bad, but could have been done much better. Hopefully we'll see more faithfulness in the new installments.

 

[Spider-Jay]

Actually, all films are, if you really think about it.

When you say success, you're talking financial, which of course can't be disputed. However, despite the fact that a movie can make heaps of dough, it doesn't mean that it's exempt from from moving in a better direction. For example, the James Bond movies have been a staple in cinema history. It is the longest running and most successful movie series of all time, where every film has performed well financially. DAD made a lot of money but the film was craptastic. It was so bad that they had to take Bond's story back to his origins and we're talking about estarting a movie series that has been running for as long as spidey comics have been out and that is since 1962.

Unfortunatley you are correct. Especially after SM3.

Were you in a coma pre 2002?? Spider-Man has been a popular pop icon for decades. In fact spider-man, superman and batman are the top 3 most iconic comic book characters of all time. The funny thing is, while supes and bats had 4 movies each and spidey had none, spidey's status in popularity didn't decline not once and nor did the populraity of supes and bats completely outshine spidey too.
You mention Potter and Sparrow...pfft so what? They're nothing all that special. Consider that someone like spider-man who's been in the public eye for almost 50 years, has only managed to get 3 movies within the last 5 years. Do you believe that spidey's status of popularity was in question prior to the films? This really does show that, even if spidey didn't have any movies, he'd still be a leading pop icon.

Of course. I'm only saying his popularity has only increased with the movies. the margin is undetermined, but its still an increase.

What impact would that be? The only impact these spidey movies have had are, some stupid changes made to the comics, revenue helping marvel to get out of debt, sony and marvel's fat cats getting richer and of course the fact that we're actually seeing what is supposed to be spider-man in a theatrical movie and that's pretty much it. The merchandising is merely cashing in on the movies, those only appeal to overzealous kids but other than that, nothing's really changed.

I'd disagree. My impact would be the comic book mmovie boom. Although you believe it began with X-Men. Different opinion, its cool.

Not really. Sure, the upside down kiss is probably the most memorable scene to the average joe but the machines in the matrix sequals were pretty much doc ock with no human attached. Had the matrix sequals not been bogged down with a complicated story, I don't see how one could be so overzealous into believing that doc ock is one of the most imginative and visually exciting villains they've seen. Characters like the terminator, T100, hell even agent smith are more memorable than Doc ock. If doc ock had been given the depth and characterization that adhered more closely to the source material then you'd have a leg to stand on but sadly, that isn't the case.

True.

Now you're making sweeping statements. I know many people who aren't into comics and they don't own a single spider-man movie but they own BB, simply because they find it to be a more interesting and appealing movie, where things happen and aren't too ridiculous.

I could say the same thing about Spider-man. In the end, its dead argument. Unless we can get DVD sales for the films. Is there a site that keeps track of that kinda stuff?

First of all, that isn't fact, secondly, you make it sound as though no other comic book series of films stands a chance of perfoming equally to the spidey movies or better. The way I see things as of now, I'd say that these new batman films are looking pretty damn good so...

I'm sorry it sounds that way. But as of right now it is fact. Although I totally agree with you that the Batman films seem to be headed in the right direction. Especially with Nolan at the helm. However, that's just specuataion and right now the fact is SM is the highest grossing CB franchise.

Again, you're talking prematurely here. You seem to be pretty sure that no other comic book movie(s) can match up to the standard that you hold the spidey movies in.

Like I said, I have a feeling the Batman series will give Spidey a run for its money (and be of better quality while at it).

I hate that this happens but if we exclude the blade movie, you do realise that there was this little film directed by Brian Singer called, X-men that came out in 2000 right? A sequal to that was never in doubt. the spidey movies although upto that time was in a legal battle can still be attributed as a follow up to the trial run of the x-men movie which was generelly well recieved and that's when everyone jumped on the bloody bandwagon

Again, I'd debate that. X-Men was successful no doubt but it wasn't the record-breaking eye opener that Spider-Man was. At least in my eyes. Of course I could be wrong.

In the end, my reasoning for the movie franchise being a success is based purely on box office performance. As for quality, well. we all know that is based on opinion. Although I personally believe SM1 and 2 were GENERALLY seen as good movies.

 

[Mr Jide]

However, we all know that the movie industry is by far the largest and most powerul form of entertainment media out there.

Actually it's the internet.

Spider-Man 1: record breaker

Spider-Man 3: record breaker

I'd say this was made purely based on marketing. The first movie it was kind of expected as it was the first and was marketed aggressively and the third movie showed promise of awesome things but that turned out to be a dud as you are no doubt, aware.

Which is why you can see Marval and DC's greater attention to the production of movies for their franchises.

I can't really comment too much on DC but with Marvel I do see some changes but we'll have to see because with Quesada in charge, we're about to get some major changes that contradict any furue plans the movies have for the characters.

However, I agree with November Rain and Jide about the quality of the films. Not bad, but could have been done much better. Hopefully we'll see more faithfulness in the new installments.

Here's hoping.

 

[Spider-Jay]

Actually it's the internet.

Damn you got me there.

I'd say this was made purely based on marketing. The first movie it was kind of expected as it was the first and was marketed aggressively and the third movie showed promise of awesome things but that turned out to be a dud as you are no doubt, aware.

Ahh, 'tis the truth you speak.

 

[Spider-Jay]

Double Post

 

[DACrowe]

The spidey public image thing has always been strage for me. Apart for some scenes of the daily bugle's headlines, no one else has ever shown any hatred for him, tramps, random people, kids running on the street, the whole of new york were helping him against the goblin, train ride, outside the bank with ock, on the way to see mj's play and all the way through the third despite his 'evil' change.

I understand 2 identifies some struggles he has with his life but in the spidey 2 trailer, they all seem to play an even part, in the film, there are strong ties to MJ with his powers cutting directly twice after encounters with her. IF he had power cuts after being late with connors, or after an argument with harry or after being fired from another job as well, then there would have been more of a balance and that i don't mind. The balance was not there.

I also think in order to help him make his decision, ock should have orchestrated a way (at the bank) to have the battle have innocent bystanders get hurt. This (along with having ock win the tussle outright) would allow Ock to come across as more of a menace, threat and also would allow the bugle to blame it all on spidey, putting his reputation under fire. THe whole 'spidey does no good' and the 'they will turn to hate you' speech done by goblin in the first film will play back and add as another catalyst to have him stop. This could easily be highlighted by spidey saving someone and getting crap (leading to another power cut).

This strengthens parker and ock overall and is a proper reason to have parker stop that doesn't make him .



As for the wisening up, some things bug me about that and it comes down to instances where other people's lives (including his own) are in danger, like in the fire or at when he attempts to jump from some buildings. At those moments he realises what he needs to do so his head's in the right place but his powers aren't. It always just conviniently seems to be MJ who makes his spidey sense go off or makes his eyesight and full powers return. There's really no need for that drammatic tie in. Just the same way it was how putting MJ on the floor made him (apparently realise) the symbiote was bad. Heck, the majority of the biggest things that have occurred to spidey have resulted in being because of MJ.

Getting his powers (taking her pic)
Going wrestling and leading to uncle ben's death (to buy her a car)
Last Fight with Osborn (she was captured on bridge)
Losing his powers once (missing her play and seeing her with john)
Losing powers again (hearing she is going to get married)
Giving up spiderman (being with her was a large part of a culmulative reason)
Gaining powers back (large catalyst was her kidnapping)
REgaining a balance in his life (because of her)
Getting the symbiote (in the park when he was there with her)
Fighting harry and blowing her face up (over fact he was seeing her)
Removing symbiote from him (after realising he hit her)
reconciling with harry (in order to save her (once again))


in the most significant parts of this peter's life, MJ is not too far away from the scene or is directly a catalyst. It's all too coincidental.




In an earlier post i made a long list and said the majority of those reasons were actually down to peter parker as an individual and not his spider-man persona, He handled some situations very immaturely and never really showed much of a spine and was happy to get walked over by his boss and peers and landlord to some extent.

The only real thing that changes is spidey's mood towards this, the only thing that you see really changing is his school but everything else is really implied and not shown. He has less on his conscience. The direct link to his spiderman antics aren't made clear.


The reason i am making that correlation is because that is what is coming across on screen.

The same way as how him stopping being spiderman doesn't showcase him getting a job or getting rent or helping his situation with harry or allowing him to spend more time with his aunt or MJ.

He's still clumsy (although there is evidence to show that may be due to his glasses) as shown in the raindrops scene
He still gets bullied as shown at the beginning of spidey 3
Jameson still treats him like turd
He still isn't shown with a job (both in raindrops or in spidey 3)
He still gets no love from his landlord.
He still wasn't able to help out Aunt may financially or emotionally

The only thing him stopping being spidey shows is...

he working during the day, he was fixing his bike and he didn't care if there was crime happening. He also was able to make it to MJ's play

Personally, i've always liked a spidey who rarely managed to have a balance and the fact he got it so easily in 3 with all the apparent struggles he had in two didn't sit easy with me.

I'll leave it as this, as we've both spoken on the subject well. I think that MJ is the biggest reason for him in regards to creating a balance and regressing when he gave up Spider-Man/losth is powers. We agree. I was merely pointing, while she was the biggest reason, theo ther reasons were unrelated and more to do with him being Spider-Man and unable to get his work done, get to a job/class on time or have enough money to hel pAunt May or pay the rent, as well as estranging his best friend, Harry. MJ was just the biggest reason (it probably went MJ, Harry, money and so forth).

I was merely disagreeing MJ was the reason he was unable to do those things. I do admit MJ is the main driving force behind Peter in these movies, but that doesn't seem neccesarily bad to me. In the efirst I'd say it is more Uncle Ben, but in the sequels it is obviously more MJ, but some of it I think works very well. For example, I think considering how much Peter covetsw MJ in these movies, punching her HARD across the face is the furthest he could sink and notice and for the audience to notice. Even moreso than killing a guy who he thought murdered a relative, which is vengence (something audiences all too willingly accept) or blowing up his treacherous former friend's face (or acting like a jackass while dancing).

I think making it their love story made it easily accessible to mainstream audiences and the actors have enough chemistry that even when their characters get frustrating (the middle section of SM3), they are still endearing enough to root for and overall like (though SM3 may have dented them somewhat). As a fan I can see why we'd seeth through the teeth as Peter has never been about one girl or fixated on loving one so much. With that said, I have mixed feelings because I wish they had done the MJ/Peter/Gwen/Harry/Flash love pentagon correctly, but I think dropping Flash was a somewhat wise idea for pacing issues and narrowing it gave SM1 and SM2 a more narrow but simple structure, when having too much love going around certainly hampered SM3.

So, I' mixed on the decision, but this seems more stemming from your hate of making MJ such a prominant player and outside of Gwen Stacy playing a small part in SM3, the only love interest in Peter Parker's life. But that is another discussion where I can see both sides having points but think the Spidey movies are strong enoguh, I can accept it. Not simply because they are Spidey movies (which would mean I should like the FF movies, X3 and Schumaucher's Batman movies by that logic), but because I think they're good movies.

And therein lies the rub for our discussion.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S.

As for the whole disposable argument. I think to the fans of the movie they are pretty damn good. Yeah this mostly includes ocmic book geeks (like we talking here and most now magically like the first two and are split right down the middle on the third), casual fans of the movies (who do exist, but is the smallest group) and children/families who enjoy watching these movies.

But considering the types of films discussed on these boards and posters favorites, that describes most of 'em. A movie series that has a number of fans, a larger number of geeks who over obsesses and scrutinize them and children who grow up on them not judging and offering nostlgia to the parents of experiencing something with their kids. Everyone else? They mostly liked the movies in tehaters as a fun disoposable night of entertainment and don't think/dwell on the mmuch and their memories of them are a fuzzy thing. They also then maybe rent the DVD or buy it and watch it a few times that year when it is new and in vogue and afterwards only watch it when it is reran on cable as background filler or when nothing else is on.

You know what I just described? The public reception of the Spider-Man movies; yes. I also described the general tone to the Star Wars trilogy, the Indiana Jones movies, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future and the Pirates movies.

Certain images will stick in pop culture and from Spidey I expect it to be how "with great power," has become a much more popular catchphrase with the public, the upside down kiss, the image of Doc Ock and maybe the symbiote. But otherwise it is just a nostolgic memory people have of seeing in theaters and an unwatched DVD that they'll watch when TBS shows reruns of it sometimes. Just like Superman 1978.

But hey that's considered a classic by the geeks who memorize every line and every character without lines in Star Wars or remember simply who the Asian kid in Indiana Jones 2 is.

This logic of it being disposable applies to all summer popcorn flicks, because that is their very nature. If you're expecting The Godfather, Raging Bull or Cassablanca longevity from one to come back to and learn something new from...good luck. The closest we came from taht was Jaws and Close Encounters, and those were the two that began the summer movie fare.

 

[November Rain]

I'll leave it as this, as we've both spoken on the subject well. I think that MJ is the biggest reason for him in regards to creating a balance and regressing when he gave up Spider-Man/losth is powers. We agree. I was merely pointing, while she was the biggest reason, theo ther reasons were unrelated and more to do with him being Spider-Man and unable to get his work done, get to a job/class on time or have enough money to hel pAunt May or pay the rent, as well as estranging his best friend, Harry. MJ was just the biggest reason (it probably went MJ, Harry, money and so forth).

I'll let this one lie since i've adressed it before

I was merely disagreeing MJ was the reason he was unable to do those things. I do admit MJ is the main driving force behind Peter in these movies, but that doesn't seem neccesarily bad to me. In the efirst I'd say it is more Uncle Ben, but in the sequels it is obviously more MJ, but some of it I think works very well. For example, I think considering how much Peter covetsw MJ in these movies, punching her HARD across the face is the furthest he could sink and notice and for the audience to notice. Even moreso than killing a guy who he thought murdered a relative, which is vengence (something audiences all too willingly accept) or blowing up his treacherous former friend's face (or acting like a jackass while dancing).

I'm of the frame of mind that having such a coincidental reoccurring plot device like mj and having all done under the guise of love is simply too easy and hinders the relatability of the character in general.

I think making it their love story made it easily accessible to mainstream audiences and the actors have enough chemistry that even when their characters get frustrating (the middle section of SM3), they are still endearing enough to root for and overall like (though SM3 may have dented them somewhat). As a fan I can see why we'd seeth through the teeth as Peter has never been about one girl or fixated on loving one so much. With that said, I have mixed feelings because I wish they had done the MJ/Peter/Gwen/Harry/Flash love pentagon correctly, but I think dropping Flash was a somewhat wise idea for pacing issues and narrowing it gave SM1 and SM2 a more narrow but simple structure, when having too much love going around certainly hampered SM3.

The problem is there was a noticeable drop betwen maguire and dunst's chemistry since the first film (where they were an item) to the latter films (when they aren't) and this does come across on screen.

So, I' mixed on the decision, but this seems more stemming from your hate of making MJ such a prominant player and outside of Gwen Stacy playing a small part in SM3, the only love interest in Peter Parker's life. But that is another discussion where I can see both sides having points but think the Spidey movies are strong enoguh, I can accept it. Not simply because they are Spidey movies (which would mean I should like the FF movies, X3 and Schumaucher's Batman movies by that logic), but because I think they're good movies.

Making other people potential love interests for parker may not be the way forward. I don't mind MJ playing a central love role interest as long as that interest doesn't overule all the other thing.

And therein lies the rub for our discussion.

voila

 

[November Rain]

P.S.

As for the whole disposable argument. I think to the fans of the movie they are pretty damn good. Yeah this mostly includes ocmic book geeks (like we talking here and most now magically like the first two and are split right down the middle on the third), casual fans of the movies (who do exist, but is the smallest group) and children/families who enjoy watching these movies.

But considering the types of films discussed on these boards and posters favorites, that describes most of 'em. A movie series that has a number of fans, a larger number of geeks who over obsesses and scrutinize them and children who grow up on them not judging and offering nostlgia to the parents of experiencing something with their kids. Everyone else? They mostly liked the movies in tehaters as a fun disoposable night of entertainment and don't think/dwell on the mmuch and their memories of them are a fuzzy thing. They also then maybe rent the DVD or buy it and watch it a few times that year when it is new and in vogue and afterwards only watch it when it is reran on cable as background filler or when nothing else is on.

You know what I just described? The public reception of the Spider-Man movies; yes. I also described the general tone to the Star Wars trilogy, the Indiana Jones movies, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future and the Pirates movies.

Certain images will stick in pop culture and from Spidey I expect it to be how "with great power," has become a much more popular catchphrase with the public, the upside down kiss, the image of Doc Ock and maybe the symbiote. But otherwise it is just a nostolgic memory people have of seeing in theaters and an unwatched DVD that they'll watch when TBS shows reruns of it sometimes. Just like Superman 1978.

But hey that's considered a classic by the geeks who memorize every line and every character without lines in Star Wars or remember simply who the Asian kid in Indiana Jones 2 is.

This logic of it being disposable applies to all summer popcorn flicks, because that is their very nature.

Your comment about how fans of films liking things can be said about anything really. fans of people who like getting pooed on are going to like films about other people getting pooed on.

Here we are talking about the movies as an entire collection so we are talking about people who are likely to get all three and see them as a trilogy. I don't know anyone apart from myself who has one, let alone three. I don't even have all three. I bought the second one but refuse to watch it and only have it as a reference point to base discussions on. I would say most fans would end up getting the box set and same with families but i can't see many casual fans collecting them all, 2 out of 3 max, This is also excluding the notion of being bought the box set as a present.

I think well known trilogies such as lord of the rings, indiana jones,superman (some parts), james bond, the god father, star wars and back to the future have an edge over some of the more modern films sagas such as kill bill, the matrix, spidey, x-men, pirates of the carribean and that's simply they were better made.

Here's the point, I don't think the spidey films should be marketed (or filmed) as summer block busters because spidey as a character isn't an all out action hero, no does he have these wonderful tales of fantasy and adventure. He's supposed to be a relatable character with a crap life, they've over glamourised his appeal and subsequently taken from what made him stand out nearly 50 years ago. He should be the furthest from the representation of superman but actually on the silver screen, he's the closest.

If you give the audience this pre-conception, then they might flock in to watch of an evening but it's not going to capture the imagination of a generation (which i have to say the original matrix movie did) which has probably made one of the biggest cinematic impacts (probably behind lotr) this century.

 

[November Rain]

If you're expecting The Godfather, Raging Bull or Cassablanca longevity from one to come back to and learn something new from...good luck. The closest we came from taht was Jaws and Close Encounters, and those were the two that began the summer movie fare.

I've isolated this segment because it's really the root of this conversation.

What is wrong with ultimate expecting more? It seems the pattern that comes with a franchise (which seems to happen all the time) is that with the thought of a sucessful return, people get complacent and it's been seen in a drop of quality as films go on.

Although i hate to use it as an example but HULK went out there and didn't do what it wanted or didn't break the waves it intended. Because there wasn't as much profit there, they went back to the drawing board and built things up again. Although i don't think the problems they addressed were the actual issues, they have pushed (in their eyes) the boundaries of what a hulk story could be and more of a striving than what would have occurred if the first film was fine. Why does there seem to be more passion from that team than this sucessful team who should be only be in it for pride (since they can expect certain numbers).

Why should money motivate more than the passion of telling a good story?

I mean (and i know this isn't shared by everyone) that transformers managed to sell a better story for less money and i felt, even if briefly, that certain characters translated perfectly onto the big screen (prime, megatron, jazz, ironhide, ratchet, 1/2 starscream, 1/2bumblebee).

meh

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Action movies are popular because humans like violence. Love stories are popular because they work so well for moral values and adultery control. Extraordinary once in a life time events are popular because most humans who watch movies have boring ass lives.
There’s you’re Spider-Man flick, right? Not for me.
None of those three aspects were particularly well done.
I couldn’t bare the over glorified fake romance in SM2 and the struggle between good and evil in SM3 was practically nonexistent or at least barely important. The film that holds at least some consistency in my eyes is the original Spider-Man movie.
You could see Peter’s struggles and lessons taken seriously till the very ending, which is the best ending in the whole trilogy. And which unfortunately, let’s face it, ultimately hurt the rest of the franchise because, I agree, it all regressed from there. Because, hey, you got to have Peter and MJ together eventually, right? Bah.
The first movie was kind of childish and yet grew up as it went while the sequels are just silly games arguably for ‘adults’.

That said, Spider-Man is not the kind of movie franchise that I would take extremely seriously. It is truly a shame that talented and powerful people work backwards - appeal to kids through kids’ stuff, instead of with adult themes, so kids would learn and have something genuine to look up to. It was so in the comics and it is so in the movies. Stan Lee had talent but if he really wanted to tell a true young adult story with the same action and family values, why not write a cop novel? Instead he decided to write a comic book about masked people running around the city punching each other out.
Spider-Man is fun but as I grew I moved to other much more serious stuff. And I am very disappointed that the films that reflect my maturity are very rare.