Spider-Man movie series in retrospect

[DACrowe]

Well i do think the movies oculd be more faithful, this is very true. I personally wish Gwen was introduced in SM1 (all though would it have been as overload as SM3 having two love interests? Perhaps.) and web-shooters. I mean the scene where he learns to web sling is priceless but it doesn't make up for the fact. I also wish Peter cracked more jokes. I'm convinced it is Sam's idea to keep him silent, because while the first draft of Koepp's Spider-Man was awful, Spidey (and Peter) was a smartass. Yet that got tossed with most of the draft as well. And the best wisecracks in the movies (the wrestler one and the Sandman armored truck one) were adlibbed by Tobey.

And there are other things I could complain about here and there (mostly with SM3). But I feel, with the first two films anyway, we got some very good movies. Maybe not perfect and not the movie I would have made, but the movies Sam Raimi made fit his style and senbilities while adherring, IMO, to hte spirit of the comics. Some say Raimi and co. were only paying lip service to the comics, I would disagree. In the golden age of Spidey (AF #15-ASM #150, IMO), Peter's life was ****ty, especially in the first 30 issues or so. But he was resilent. He *****ed, he whined but he got by and while Lee made his live a perpetual nightmare of problems and woes, he also had a knack for making it fun. The coffee bean gang was fun to hang out with, Spider-Man's exploits were fun. There was as much dazzle as there was angst.

I think the first two movies, particularly the second one, captured that feeling. The details are changed dramatically, but we still relate to Peter. he is still weighed down by the gguilt of Uncle Ben, being unable to help Aunt May, not being with who he loves, Harry's darkside 9though that was much later) and so on. But he does have a resilent side and is stilla fun character. Part of this is his wsiecracking jackass side not present in most of the films, unfortunately. But it is also the freedom and rush he gets being Spider-Mand the readers do too, reading his adventures and exploits. That is in the movie, and it cannot be denied that in all three movies that Raimi knows how to dazzle the audience with high flying fun. But unlike, say a Michael Bay movie, we know who is behind that mask and care about him and the villains for the most part (particularly in the first two) are so well developed we feel the stakes. Yeah, I would say the suspense isn't too high in some of the scenes (save for the train fight in SM2, and the GG ass whopping in SM1's finale), but the aw and wonder is, like the comics when kids read them (as it was originally the target audience alongside teengaers).

But here is the kicker, these movies succeed not because of that faithfulness at least in overall feeling, that I just touched upon. They succeed because these characters are so entertaining and endearing. These movies have won many Spidey fans who have never read the comics. While I know when some ome on the board and say **** like "Dunst is perfect as MJ, that is just how she should be!" pisses old school fans off, in general they have brought in fans of the character. The movies are escapist fun, but the reason they do so well as opposed to SR or the X-Men movies is just how much we join Peter Parker's journey. They (at least the first two) are very well stuctured adventures in the classical superhero form that yes, romance plays a big part in. The top-notch acting (even if no one is really stretching their skills to the brink) is very helpful in this area.

These movies are not perfect movies, and outside of SM2 I'd say not great ones either. But beyond the entertainment, to quote Peter Travers, they have a heart beat. A soul audiences can feel. And that is a major reason they have so many fans. I like them because just not in the superhero subgenre but in the summer action movie/popcorn flick genre in general, they stand tall as very good movies. Well directed, acted and in SM2's case written. Not to mention amazing visuals. I mean considering how bad most superhero movies are (even some more faithful adaptations such as the horrendous Ghost Rider) that just points to something special about these. Not looking at them as addaptations, but as movies they are extremely good and hold rank among the best of summer escapism. Mayben ot shoulder-to-shoulder with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc. but in the same league as them and Back to the future and Jurassic Park, etc.


As adaptations, as I"ve stated I feel the first two got what it felt like as a kid to read (in back issues and TPB for me ) the classic spidey adventures that Stan lee and later Gerry conway took us on. Fun escapism with awe and cool fights, but a sense of humanity, even if it is an overthetop melodrmaatic humanity, it is still there. They may not feel like modern Spidey comics (the '90s-to present) but for that I can only be thankful.

Cosmetically they are all wrong in adaptation form but instrinically I feel the first one in particular hold the secret to what has made Spidey so popular and accessible right from the get-go. And that is why these movies endure so well while people don't even remember movies from the years they were released (I, Robot, Blade II, the X-Men films, etc.).

Just my little chestnut of an opinion.

 

[MST3KPIMP]

Honestly the only Spidey that will stand times test is the 1st one. As flawed as it is it still retains the most plot and focus on characters. Pt.2 was a fantastically wrapped box with absolutly nothing inside which many misinterprated as genious. Pt.3 was so off the wall that it will probably accumilate a cult following and will--
be turned into a musical. But Spider-man in film has not been Spider-man from the comics no matter how much you squint your eyes.. just does'nt ring true. it's more product. What's most troubling is how many here have slowly allowed themselves to adjust to this product and insist it's quality stuff. Making money does not equal quality and I think this summer was a representation of this as so many high profile trilogies crumbled under the weight of theyre shallowness.

 

[Blader5489]

What's most troubling is how many here have slowly allowed themselves to adjust to this product and insist it's quality stuff.

You're right. I mean, God forbid if people actually like them!

 

[Spider-Vader]

I feel the biggest problem is that the first 2 mvoies wasted time that could be used for villians. Which means we'll be missing a bunch of good villians.

 

[DACrowe]

I thought SM3 pretty clearly showed 1 villain > multiple villains and focus on character - villains is good?

 

[The Joker]

One villain per movie is the best way to go. Spider-Man 1 and 2 proved that.

 

[Blader5489]

I think the 1 villain formula can only be used so much before the non-villain moments become repetitive. 3 villains is too much (unless one was just a minor thug), but I think after the 2nd movie in a franchise, it would be safe to move to a 2 villain formula.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Seriously people, explain to be why do you need so much predisposition as the single most important thing to make a character work?
And for the record - that’s an honest question, not an ego-mock.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I say 2 villians is good. Too many good characters so little time.....without going to far. (Past 6 movies)

 

[The Joker]

Spidey's top three villains have been done, with Sandman and Harry's Goblin to boot. The only other villain who I think really deserves to be done is The Lizard.

The rest are negligible, IMO.

 

[co2]

Spidey's top three villains have been done, with Sandman and Harry's Goblin to boot. The only other villain who I think really deserves to be done is The Lizard.

The rest are negligible, IMO.

Agreed, though I would maybe include Hobgoblin, but another Goblin on film would be too redundant. It was a great saga in the comics though.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd say it goes (not counting fan popularity or a certain character would be higher):

1. Green Goblin
2. Doc Ock
3. Green Goblin II
4. The Lizard
5. Hobgoblin
6. Kingpin
7. Kraven the Hunter (for just KLH alone)
8. Venom

Of those 4 have been done, Hobby would be redundant and Kingpin is unusable. So I say Lizard/Kraven would compliment each other well.

 

[November Rain]

One villain per movie is the best way to go. Spider-Man 1 and 2 proved that.

Actually in spidey 2, they did quite a poor showing of ock not even giving him enough time to properly showcase him.

he was a stripped to his bare minimum and only given an ounce of depth.

I mean which universe ock would you ever see happily running errands for a rich boy ex employer like harry osbourne. He should have merely threatened harry for his life in their first encounter for the tritium, it's not like he could have stopped him.

 

[November Rain]

Well i do think the movies oculd be more faithful, this is very true. I personally wish Gwen was introduced in SM1 (all though would it have been as overload as SM3 having two love interests? Perhaps.) and web-shooters. I mean the scene where he learns to web sling is priceless but it doesn't make up for the fact. I also wish Peter cracked more jokes. I'm convinced it is Sam's idea to keep him silent, because while the first draft of Koepp's Spider-Man was awful, Spidey (and Peter) was a smartass. Yet that got tossed with most of the draft as well. And the best wisecracks in the movies (the wrestler one and the Sandman armored truck one) were adlibbed by Tobey.

I'm not one for strict characterisation here unless it helps. I'd be completely happy with what was done in the first hulk, which was what i found to be the most realistic approach to handling the hulk story but that's for another thread.

web-shooters are something that may not be truelly necessary but if they decided to omit, they still needed something to showcase off his intelligence. Not only did parker not really shine but spidey's approach to fighting was hit stuff until it stopped moving, that's what the hulk does in fights.

The thing is 'Spidey doesn't have to be funny', His quips just have to have a sense of black comedy sarcasm. That all has to do with the delivery but maguire doesn't have that. He only managed to portray an unevolved parker from before his bite without any particular heroic qualities about him. In a nutshell he was very spider-boy and not much spider-man.

And there are other things I could complain about here and there (mostly with SM3). But I feel, with the first two films anyway, we got some very good movies.

this is only in comparison.

Even here though i do have to say that the first film did provide me with a decent nostalgia ride and for that i thank it but by the time the second one came, i needed more and it didn't provide it.

Maybe not perfect and not the movie I would have made, but the movies Sam Raimi made fit his style and senbilities while adherring, IMO, to the spirit of the comics. Some say Raimi and co. were only paying lip service to the comics, I would disagree. In the golden age of Spidey (AF #15-ASM #150, IMO), Peter's life was ****ty, especially in the first 30 issues or so. But he was resilent. He *****ed, he whined but he got by and while Lee made his live a perpetual nightmare of problems and woes, he also had a knack for making it fun. The coffee bean gang was fun to hang out with, Spider-Man's exploits were fun. There was as much dazzle as there was angst.

in the first film, he really had no major problems, he was living the life, moved away from his bereaved aunt without much care (even left her alone in the second film AFTER HER HOUSE EXPLODED!!!!!!!). In the second film, they made it seem like spidey was affecting all aspects of his life and he was unable to make the balance when in reality it was simply MJ. This is highlighted by the fact nothing has changed in spidey 3 and he's now on top of work, rent,love and spidey which is actually more than he had in the second film. This gives the impression he is not actually a hard grafter but a baby whiner who puts his own interests before others.

I don't actually know what we are supposed to get from the second film but it doesnt represent the woes and worries and types of final decisions made by every day peeps. It certainly regresses his maturity level we see him have at the end of the first film.

If you need to regress a character in order to tell a tale, perhaps that tale isn't worth telling

I think the first two movies, particularly the second one, captured that feeling. The details are changed dramatically, but we still relate to Peter.

How can you relate to peter, he gets to web swing during the day and has kids say 'Thank you mr spiderman'. Also when was the last time you were in a fight and the public or new york all came to your rescue?

Pete is in a bad spot in spidey 3 but it isn't because of spidey, it's because of MJ.

MJ is the reason his grades are fading
MJ is the reason his powers are cutting out (or the majority share holder)
MJ is the reason he lost his job
MJ is the reason he's not sleeping

it wasn't being spidey. He managed fine in the first film and managed fine in the third. What was different about the middle film? It was MJ.

The idea behind the tale was fine, having his powers cut out wasn't good and neither was putting too much of an emphasis on MJ. The execution was poor and fundamentally what it did was sidetrack doc ock who is one of spidey's greatest enemies.

If you are going to tell this sort of story, use a minor villain, don't waste time trying to squeeze ock in because you won't do him justice and that's exactly what happened.

he is still weighed down by the gguilt of Uncle Ben, being unable to help Aunt May, not being with who he loves, Harry's darkside 9though that was much later) and so on.

Alright, 3 points here...

from the evidence on the screen, parker is no longer weighed down by his uncle's past. IN 2 he makes no attempt to reconcile with his uncle's ghost and openly turns away from his great power/responsibility pledge (and it's never mentioned in the franchise again). For all i know he's done with his uncle. 3 just deals with the pain of his death rather than doing him justice.

IN all 3 films, peter makes no official attempt to help aunt may, even though her husband has died, her house has been blown up, helping her move or trying to pay any of her bills. He just comes and lays down all his guilt trips and worries. He doesn't even give her fifty bucks to open a bank account to get a free toaster. There is nothing you can show me to show this spidey doesnt give two hoots about his aunt. Heck, he lets her fall off a building twice and would prefer to swing off as spidey than come back as peter and asks if she's alright.

As for harry's darkside, again peter doesn't care and is about self preservation. If i was your friend and you just found out that i had (potentially) killed your father, i wouldn't rush you for info and then not see you again for months to make sure we were straight. Movie parker is all about taking care of number one and that was before the symbiote. He simply didn't care to get things straight with harry or tell the love of his life what went down. Not only this but the fact MJ knew pieces of the story and then didn't click that harry's going to be pissed at parker for killing his dad is also silly.

I always find it surprising that people say these things about spidey in the movies but when it comes to the crunch, he's so off the hero radar it's untrue, he's got very little redeeming qualities about him.

But he does have a resilent side and is stilla fun character. Part of this is his wsiecracking jackass side not present in most of the films, unfortunately. But it is also the freedom and rush he gets being Spider-Mand the readers do too, reading his adventures and exploits. That is in the movie, and it cannot be denied that in all three movies that Raimi knows how to dazzle the audience with high flying fun. But unlike, say a Michael Bay movie, we know who is behind that mask and care about him and the villains for the most part (particularly in the first two) are so well developed we feel the stakes.

You cannot honestly look me in the eye and declare ock was a well developed villain. This type of discussion requires a whole thread dedicated to itself but the evidence against this claim is very very high.

fun is a very tricky line because it's all in interpretation of what one wants when they go to the cinema, so i'll let this slide.

Yeah, I would say the suspense isn't too high in some of the scenes (save for the train fight in SM2, and the GG ass whopping in SM1's finale), but the aw and wonder is, like the comics when kids read them (as it was originally the target audience alongside teengaers).

Ah the train fight everyone loves.

I need to get some scans to illustrate my point here so i'll have to come back to it

But here is the kicker, these movies succeed not because of that faithfulness at least in overall feeling, that I just touched upon. They succeed because these characters are so entertaining and endearing. These movies have won many Spidey fans who have never read the comics. While I know when some ome on the board and say **** like "Dunst is perfect as MJ, that is just how she should be!" pisses old school fans off, in general they have brought in fans of the character. The movies are escapist fun, but the reason they do so well as opposed to SR or the X-Men movies is just how much we join Peter Parker's journey. They (at least the first two) are very well stuctured adventures in the classical superhero form that yes, romance plays a big part in. The top-notch acting (even if no one is really stretching their skills to the brink) is very helpful in this area.

The reason the film is sucessful happens to be due to branding. It's a well known brand similar to pirates, both trilogies don't really offer anything but they are a decent brand and offer a form of escapism while in the spidey sense gives an impression of what he's like. It's branding pure and simple.

These movies are not perfect movies, and outside of SM2 I'd say not great ones either. But beyond the entertainment, to quote Peter Travers, they have a heart beat. A soul audiences can feel. And that is a major reason they have so many fans. I like them because just not in the superhero subgenre but in the summer action movie/popcorn flick genre in general, they stand tall as very good movies. Well directed, acted and in SM2's case written. Not to mention amazing visuals. I mean considering how bad most superhero movies are (even some more faithful adaptations such as the horrendous Ghost Rider) that just points to something special about these. Not looking at them as addaptations, but as movies they are extremely good and hold rank among the best of summer escapism. Mayben ot shoulder-to-shoulder with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc. but in the same league as them and Back to the future and Jurassic Park, etc.

meh

As adaptations, as I"ve stated I feel the first two got what it felt like as a kid to read (in back issues and TPB for me ) the classic spidey adventures that Stan lee and later Gerry conway took us on. Fun escapism with awe and cool fights, but a sense of humanity, even if it is an overthetop melodrmaatic humanity, it is still there. They may not feel like modern Spidey comics (the '90s-to present) but for that I can only be thankful.

Cosmetically they are all wrong in adaptation form but instrinically I feel the first one in particular hold the secret to what has made Spidey so popular and accessible right from the get-go. And that is why these movies endure so well while people don't even remember movies from the years they were released (I, Robot, Blade II, the X-Men films, etc.).

Just my little chestnut of an opinion.

fair doos

 

[November Rain]

Back to my Harry osborn death people were talking about and them saying he died a hero in the comics, well actually it wasn't his intention...

Right, here it clearly shows that harry's heroic actions were not based on the fact he knew he was going to die doing a worthy cause, those actions were previous to the events that lead to his death. He was ultimately killed by his own hand or at least the legacy of the goblin due to the formulae.

It had nothing to do with why he saved them all.

His death in spidey 3 was an empty self sacrifice, which led to nothign since spidey was well within his power to get the webbing off him and avoid that blow, the webbing was not even on him tightly, he could have avoided the situation altogether. To make matters worse, he left him there and neigher him or MJ made any true attempt to save his life regardless of what happened.


ULtimately, i just wished to illustrate that harry's death in the comics had nothing to do with wanting to go out as a hero or making a sacrifice on other people's behalves. It was a sad a tragic poisoning that got him once he felt he was finally able to rid himself of the curse of the goblin it came back for a final bite and that's what made it tragic.

It was in no shape or form replicated in spidey 3 and this is why i don't believe my arguments are nitpicking.

 

[3dman27]

Seriously people, explain to be why do you need so much predisposition as the single most important thing to make a character work?
And for the record - that’s an honest question, not an ego-mock.

agreed talk is cheap

 

[Mr Jide]

Well i do think the movies oculd be more faithful, this is very true. I personally wish Gwen was introduced in SM1 (all though would it have been as overload as SM3 having two love interests? Perhaps.)

Personally, I think that if Raimi eally wanted to satisfy the fans while simultaneously giving the rest of the audience a good show I think he should have done exactly that. Introduce Gwen and MJ in the first movie. To me, Raimi doesn't know how to capture what really makes spider-man great and accessible. Yes, Peter is the every man and yes, he faces every day problems BUT he also has extraordinary things happening to him and as a human being, he goes through the countless lessons that life throws at him and that is something Stan Lee knew, understood and brilliantly put down on paper.

"This story is about a girl. That girl, Mary Jane Watson". That opening line pretty much signed off the death warrent to adapting the characters faithfully and also, killed off any realsitic approach to handeling real life romantic relationships.
Over the years I've said it many times and even Odin has said this in this thread alone. Peter obsessing over MJ fom when he's just a small child is unhealthy, unrealistic and makes no real sense, making it hard to really understand his character.

With all the girls/women Peter comes into contact with, we're supposed to believe he feels nothing because this girl, MJ who doesn't even know Peter exists is at the forefront of his mind?? That's just not right....furthermore, according to sm3, the symbiot projects its host's characteristics, so, when we see peter strutting down the street, eyeing up the ladies, is that Raimi now saying, "hold on, well actually peter loves girls and the only reason why we pushed for MJ because she lived next door but yeah as you can se, deep down, Peter would rather be with these hot-ass chicks"...again, makes no sense. Raimi, make up your damn mind!

One of the thing I loved about Stan Lee was that, he made peter real. In the comics, he wrote compelling, endearing stories where Peter's affections targetted more than one girl, especially when he'd get snubbed. We had, Liz, Betty and MJ. Hell, I think I remember he even let Betty or Liz think he was going out with another girl (when he actually wasn't). Things like that are real. Peter isn't a bad person, he's a good guy but he is still very much a human being who has needs, who has ill-thoughts towards people not to mention, all of this was part of his learning curve into growing up into a responsible adult. We're talking about a teenager, who was harshly victimised so, a little payback is understandable. Yet, these movies make peter seem like some sort of teary-eyed saint.

To be honest, if I knew we were going to get at least 6 movies if not more from these movies, then hell yeah, I would rather these movies take from the concepts that the comics offered. First love interest would be Liz, all the while introducing Betty and maybe even MJ...however, MJ wouldn't have as big a role in the first movie though.

Anyway, if we wanted to confine things more, then I'd gladly have stuck to simply MJ, Betty and Gwen, with proper characterizations to help things move foward while retaining a sense of logic and realism. Have Betty's role expanded a bit more, where we're able to see that, she's starteing to get romatic feelings for peter, have Gwen secretly having romantic feelings for Peter but being subtle and playing hard to get....have MJ be the hot, care free chick who has feelings for peter also but knows not to blatantly pursue because she knows that deep down Gwen and Peter have feelings for each other so, Peter and MJ subconsciously use each other as a means to "wake up" Gwen.
Its this sort of drama that works, compells and connects you to the characters because it's a real life everyday occurance. Stan Lee knew this. It keeps the non-action scenes moving and retaining excitement as opposed to the drawn out, slow, long winded boring speeches and characterisations we get.

 

[Mr Jide]

web-shooters. I mean the scene where he learns to web sling is priceless but it doesn't make up for the fact.

This goes back to my earlier comments in which I said, Raimi acts as though he's ashamed of the genre, the source material originates from. Audiences don't care about Peter having the super intelligence to create web-shooters, hell, the guy made a bloody costume that values at $thousands. Are we supposed to believe that along with the piano lessons peter recieved from aunt may, she also gave him a crash course in sewing and knitting?? Audiences are paying to see spider-man, so lets see him. Spidey's been around for the averahe joe to know who he is and that he shoots webs from a web device and most importantly, that he's a science nerd. Raimi is too up his own ass to think that audiences won't buy peter being smart enough to create web shooters because he'd be working and selling his inventions to multi-million dollar corporations...whatever...this is the same guy who calims to have read the comics? Ugh! Come on Raimi.

I also wish Peter cracked more jokes. I'm convinced it is Sam's idea to keep him silent, because while the first draft of Koepp's Spider-Man was awful, Spidey (and Peter) was a smartass. Yet that got tossed with most of the draft as well. And the best wisecracks in the movies (the wrestler one and the Sandman armored truck one) were adlibbed by Tobey.

I would really like to see this script just to see what peter's/spidey's dialogue is like. I mentioned in another thread that after watching the bloopers of sm3, I was shocked to see TMags act in such a jovial manner. Had he brought this attitude towards the character, we would have gotten a more accurate portrayal of the spider-man character. So I guess, once again, Raimi is to blame at hindering these spidey movies from what they should be. I don't get it, Raimi doesn't want spidey to talk, which byt the way if he did, we'd connect with the character a lot more. Yet, he consistently wants to butcher the character by repeatedly having spidey's mask come off so we can connect with the character....Um, Raimi which one makes more sense, assuming you want to successfully adapt the character???

I really hope to God Raimi has nothng to do with sm4. I'm just glad he's not writing or influencing the script at least but with the way he seems to be holding these movies back from it's full potential, I want his ass far away from these movies as much as possible.

And there are other things I could complain about here and there (mostly with SM3). But I feel, with the first two films anyway, we got some very good movies. Maybe not perfect and not the movie I would have made, but the movies Sam Raimi made fit his style and senbilities while adherring, IMO, to hte spirit of the comics.

As movies they may be ok at best...to me but as spider-man movies, they're simply half assed. SM1 gets more of a break because of the theme it dealt with it could have been used as an anchor to introduce and tell some of the geat stories held in the archives of its almost 50 years of source material BUT then again, these films automatically crippled themselves when Raimi decided that MJ was going to be the focal point of these movies, more so that Pere/spider-man himself. Adhereing to the spirit of something sometimes just isn't enough, especially when Raimi and the studio have access to the resources that they do. If these spidey movies were made on a budget of $80million and had for what ever reason had no access to marvel comics' sourcematerial, then I'd say these movies were pretty damn good BUT the fact is, these movies have mega budgets and more than enough access to the comics to draw inspiration from, yet the best Raimi can do is skim the surface, going toe deep, when he should be immersing everything he has at his disposal into capturing more than just the spirit but actually taking the many attributes in the comics that can easily work on film...in which there are more than enough to make more than 20 films. The way I see things, Raimi shouldn't have bothered making these spider-man films because its clear he only cares about trying to make his own characters. He should have stuck with trying to continue his series of veil dead or dark man if he's that bent on making superhero movies.

Some say Raimi and co. were only paying lip service to the comics, I would disagree. In the golden age of Spidey (AF #15-ASM #150, IMO), Peter's life was ****ty, especially in the first 30 issues or so. But he was resilent. He *****ed, he whined but he got by and while Lee made his live a perpetual nightmare of problems and woes, he also had a knack for making it fun. The coffee bean gang was fun to hang out with, Spider-Man's exploits were fun. There was as much dazzle as there was angst.

True and this is where Raimi fails once again. There is no dazzle where there's no action. What we get is a sleepy, hollow, slow, boring, tirsome, drawn out nonsense that sometimes makes you wonder if your watching the right movie. Imo, Raimi handled this better in sm3 but then again, with the way the characters were going on, it didn't seem like genuine behaviour on their part. What we need is a writer and director that can capture these real-life everyday occurances the way stan managed to put down on paper but onto film. This can and should be done.

I think the first two movies, particularly the second one, captured that feeling.

I disagree big time. Form the dialogue to the behaviour, it felt wooden, forced, unnatural and highly unrealistic. I saw no character progression and felt as though they were merely rehashing what occured in sm1.

The details are changed dramatically, but we still relate to Peter. he is still weighed down by the gguilt of Uncle Ben,

And that is one of the problems. The point of sm1 and at least by the end of that film was, Peter had paid the price for his mistakes and had now learned and understood what Uncle Ben was trying to teach him. I'm not saying he should completely rid himself of the guilt he feels for uncle Ben's death but sm2 failed at handeling this in the subtle way it should have been dealt with. SM2 should have had Peter feeling like he wanted to quit but after having the dream sequence involving uncle Ben, he should have woken up and realised once again the lesson that unle Ben had taught him and why Ben was dead in the first place. Peter's sense of responsibility should have kicked in and acted as a catalyst for his powers to return so he could go about his business BUT instead, the film dictates that MJ above all else is the nuber one focal point that hinders his powers. That right there spits all over the comics and allover the scenes and lessons that involve uncle Ben from the first movie.

Take sm3 for instance. Peter stands there like an idiot, watching the tv screen despite venom and sandman causing all sorts of havok, hell even after being told there's a hostage, peter still stands there. It's only after he hears that its MJ that he does anything about it and even then, he goes aaaaaaalllllllllllllllll the way back home to get his spidey costume, when under normal circumstances, he should have been wearing it under his civvies. But as you can see, the point is, MJ is the only drive here and that is quite sickening.

being unable to help Aunt May, not being with who he loves, Harry's darkside 9though that was much later) and so on. But he does have a resilent side and is stilla fun character. Part of this is his wsiecracking jackass side not present in most of the films, unfortunately. But it is also the freedom and rush he gets being Spider-Mand the readers do too, reading his adventures and exploits. That is in the movie, and it cannot be denied that in all three movies that Raimi knows how to dazzle the audience with high flying fun.

He's unable to help aunt may but takes money off her, moves out, paying rent to a land lord and buys a moped. Peter is supposed to be an intelligent human being, yet there is very little evidence to support this but I suppose that comes with the package when you have sam raimi directing these movies. How much money could peter save or at least contribute had he just stayed home. He doesn't even need the bike for obvious reasons and even if he wanted a bike, it would make more sense to get one, whislt staying at home....not to mention the interesting scenes we'd get with Peter sneaking in and out of the house as spidey, whilst trying not to be seen by his aunt. Th coimcs did this and even the cartoons saw the sense in this. Just one of the many reasons why the 90s animated series was so good.

But unlike, say a Michael Bay movie, we know who is behind that mask and care about him

Raimi doesn't think so. Thats why he feels the need to, uncharacteristically have spidey's mask come off so often. To remeber who's behind the mask.

and the villains for the most part (particularly in the first two) are so well developed we feel the stakes.

I'd say throughout all 3 movies, the most developed villain was Norman Osborn. Despite the crappy goblin costume and the fact that he comes off as a nice guy and only turns bad because of the aggression and insanity the goblin formula causes. He was easily the most developed and thats just after one film, never mind the two he cameos in. As for doc ock, his character was butchered and angers me the most as he is my favourite super villain. Once again, Raimi gives him the nice guy treatment and worsens it by giving him a wife and giving love advice. Ock should have been a hardboiled scientist who looked down upon his peers. Subtle changes are fine as evidenced by the 90s animated series but they *****fied the character and thats a huge shame. Sure Molina was great as where the action sequences but the character should have been so much more and better developed. As odin often keeps saying, doc ock in armed and dangerous alone in a 20minute cartoon was better developed alongside peter/spider-man himself were better developed than their counterparts in sm2. Also, these sympathetic villains cheapen and make redundant characters deservingof such treatment such as Dr Connors' the lizard. If Raimi actually bothered to get things right in the first place, a lot more people including himsle would be a lot happier and more appreciative of the movies he's made.

Yeah, I would say the suspense isn't too high in some of the scenes (save for the train fight in SM2, and the GG ass whopping in SM1's finale), but the aw and wonder is, like the comics when kids read them (as it was originally the target audience alongside teengaers).

That still isn't enough. With the resources available, I shouldn't have to settle for awe and wonder that is too few and far between. I want the magic to be a majority as it should be.

But here is the kicker, these movies succeed not because of that faithfulness at least in overall feeling, that I just touched upon. They succeed because these characters are so entertaining and endearing.

These movies succeed because the name of the movies are spider-man and their marketing strategies are some of the best you'll see of any product. SM3 was generally disliked, yet it made the most money at the fastest pace of all 3 movies. The characters and stories are shallow shadows of what they should be...again, with the resources available, I see no need to rejoice or be content. Its like having the latest super computer with a 60" monitor, yet the only games you'll play on it are Doom1 and 2 and it only shows up, using 12" of the 60" screen.

These movies have won many Spidey fans who have never read the comics.

Thats not exactly a hard thing to achieve though. People who know nothing of the source material have nothing to compare the movies to. What they see is all they've seen.

While I know when some ome on the board and say **** like "Dunst is perfect as MJ, that is just how she should be!" pisses old school fans off, in general they have brought in fans of the character.

But this only undrscores the comments I make about these movies being half assed. Boxing promoters who put on a fight that features Mike tyson and say, lennox lewis know its going to draw in a crowd but if the fight is over within the first round, do you think people will be happy? Of course not.

The movies are escapist fun, but the reason they do so well as opposed to SR or the X-Men movies is just how much we join Peter Parker's journey.

What journey would that be? As it is, Peter Parker is back in square 1. Spider-man is hated but we see no evidence of this, peter seeks revenge for uncle ben's killer on 2 occasions, yet the first guy is pursued by spidey and ultimately falls out of a window and then finds out that sandman was involved and so tries to actually kill him, yet he condemns harry foranting to do the same...these plot points are handled in an annoyingly shabby mnner. Peter has no reconciliation with uncle ben's ghost and worse yet, hold MJ in high regard over everyone and everything else. Nevermind the fact that the city could be burning down, as long as MJ's cosy that's all that matters, which ironically is a complete contrast from the comics...and you say they capture the spirit of the source material?

They (at least the first two) are very well stuctured adventures in the classical superhero form that yes, romance plays a big part in. The top-notch acting (even if no one is really stretching their skills to the brink) is very helpful in this area.

Agreed but unfortunately, thats speaking in general terms. spider-man is a specific and as a spider-man movie, I feel these flicks have failed in capturing his adventures and personal life in a adequaite structred manner. As for the romance, it plays a bigger part than it needs to and imo sorely hurts these movies...to the point that it becomes nonsensical.

These movies are not perfect movies, and outside of SM2 I'd say not great ones either. But beyond the entertainment, to quote Peter Travers, they have a heart beat. A soul audiences can feel. And that is a major reason they have so many fans. I like them because just not in the superhero subgenre but in the summer action movie/popcorn flick genre in general, they stand tall as very good movies. Well directed, acted and in SM2's case written. Not to mention amazing visuals. I mean considering how bad most superhero movies are (even some more faithful adaptations such as the horrendous Ghost Rider) that just points to something special about these. Not looking at them as addaptations, but as movies they are extremely good and hold rank among the best of summer escapism. Mayben ot shoulder-to-shoulder with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc. but in the same league as them and Back to the future and Jurassic Park, etc.

I read this and it translates to, these movies are ok at best, simply as movies. However, when compared to other movies of its genre, it stands a little higher because these movies are directed by a more able director than those of his peers within the same genre. These movies have awesome effects, however a lack of consistency hurts it but overall, when compared to the likes of batman and robin, catwoman, ghost rider and blade 3, you're getting something remotely watchable. 3 movies that have a steller cast but if you know nothing of the source material, I wouldn't bother trying to go back and read up because you'll find that the source material is wrong, even though they have a 40 year head start.

As adaptations, as I"ve stated I feel the first two got what it felt like as a kid to read (in back issues and TPB for me ) the classic spidey adventures that Stan lee and later Gerry conway took us on. Fun escapism with awe and cool fights, but a sense of humanity, even if it is an overthetop melodrmaatic humanity, it is still there. They may not feel like modern Spidey comics (the '90s-to present) but for that I can only be thankful.

The thing is, I feel like they scrape the surface of the original 60s comics but ultimately fail in its delivery and execution. For the most part I'm left bored and to be honest, as cliched as it sounds its usually some of the action sequences that fights to regain my interest.

Cosmetically they are all wrong in adaptation form but instrinically I feel the first one in particular hold the secret to what has made Spidey so popular and accessible right from the get-go. And that is why these movies endure so well while people don't even remember movies from the years they were released (I, Robot, Blade II, the X-Men films, etc.).



Just my little chestnut of an opinion.

And that right there is the key problem for me. I keep banging on about resources but you've proven I do so with good reason. The financial, human and comic scripture resources are at a level of availibility for these movies to be adapted in a way that satisfies the die hard fans and of course introduces and exposes the greatness to the general viewer. It mainly comes down to the likes of Raimi simply, doing what he feels like doing and what he's doing imo, is a half assed job where he wants to recreate the characters as opposed to adapting them. Like I said before, if Raimi is so bent on creating his own characters, he should stick to making evil dead and darkman movies. To quote my friend, Herr Logan's sig, originally posted by bathead,
"Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film."

 

[Mr Jide]

I feel the biggest problem is that the first 2 mvoies wasted time that could be used for villians. Which means we'll be missing a bunch of good villians.

With reagrds to sm2, I felt that as botched as Ock's character was, he could have done with more screen time, I mean seriously, Ock is one of spider-man's best visually entertaining villains and they didn't think to exploit this a little more.
Raimi is affluent in doing the bare minimum when it comes to these movies.

 

[Mr Jide]

Also, this business of mercilessly killing off the villains is so stupid. Did Doc Ock realy have to die? Just how good a superhero does Raimi want to make spidey if after 3 movies, he can't apprehend and put a single supervillain's ass in jail. Norman's dead. Ock is dead. Venom is dead. Harry is dead and sandman, despite being an escaped convict, an aid to manslaughter as it seems and of course killing countless cops and I'm sure a few bystanders, spidey sheds a tear, forgives Marko's dusty ass and lets him float away...wtf?!?!?

 

[November Rain]

maguire's spidey couldn't catch a cold.

 

[Blader5489]

Also, this business of mercilessly killing off the villains is so stupid.

What is the point os keeping them around? These aren't comics, you don't need to keep villains around for 40 years--and it's better that you don't, since rehasing villains for more than one movie shows a lack of creativity.

Hell, it wouldn't even be realistic (or at least, the movies' version of realistic) to have all of these super villains roaming around. It would just look too cartoony.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Also, this business of mercilessly killing off the villains is so stupid. Did Doc Ock realy have to die? Just how good a superhero does Raimi want to make spidey if after 3 movies, he can't apprehend and put a single supervillain's ass in jail. Norman's dead. Ock is dead. Venom is dead. Harry is dead and sandman, despite being an escaped convict, an aid to manslaughter as it seems and of course killing countless cops and I'm sure a few bystanders, spidey sheds a tear, forgives Marko's dusty ass and lets him float away...wtf?!?!?

Did Sandman kill anyone (other than Uncle Ben that is)? I see no proof of that. We know Venom did, but it never shows Sandman kill anyone other than Uncle Ben.

 

[DACrowe]

in the first film, he really had no major problems, he was living the life, moved away from his bereaved aunt without much care (even left her alone in the second film AFTER HER HOUSE EXPLODED!!!!!!!). In the second film, they made it seem like spidey was affecting all aspects of his life and he was unable to make the balance when in reality it was simply MJ. This is highlighted by the fact nothing has changed in spidey 3 and he's now on top of work, rent,love and spidey which is actually more than he had in the second film. This gives the impression he is not actually a hard grafter but a baby whiner who puts his own interests before others.

I don't actually know what we are supposed to get from the second film but it doesnt represent the woes and worries and types of final decisions made by every day peeps. It certainly regresses his maturity level we see him have at the end of the first film.

If you need to regress a character in order to tell a tale, perhaps that tale isn't worth telling


How can you relate to peter, he gets to web swing during the day and has kids say 'Thank you mr spiderman'. Also when was the last time you were in a fight and the public or new york all came to your rescue?

Pete is in a bad spot in spidey 3 but it isn't because of spidey, it's because of MJ.

MJ is the reason his grades are fading
MJ is the reason his powers are cutting out (or the majority share holder)
MJ is the reason he lost his job
MJ is the reason he's not sleeping

it wasn't being spidey. He managed fine in the first film and managed fine in the third. What was different about the middle film? It was MJ.

The idea behind the tale was fine, having his powers cut out wasn't good and neither was putting too much of an emphasis on MJ. The execution was poor and fundamentally what it did was sidetrack doc ock who is one of spidey's greatest enemies.

If you are going to tell this sort of story, use a minor villain, don't waste time trying to squeeze ock in because you won't do him justice and that's exactly what happened.


Alright, 3 points here...

from the evidence on the screen, parker is no longer weighed down by his uncle's past. IN 2 he makes no attempt to reconcile with his uncle's ghost and openly turns away from his great power/responsibility pledge (and it's never mentioned in the franchise again). For all i know he's done with his uncle. 3 just deals with the pain of his death rather than doing him justice.

IN all 3 films, peter makes no official attempt to help aunt may, even though her husband has died, her house has been blown up, helping her move or trying to pay any of her bills. He just comes and lays down all his guilt trips and worries. He doesn't even give her fifty bucks to open a bank account to get a free toaster. There is nothing you can show me to show this spidey doesnt give two hoots about his aunt. Heck, he lets her fall off a building twice and would prefer to swing off as spidey than come back as peter and asks if she's alright.

As for harry's darkside, again peter doesn't care and is about self preservation. If i was your friend and you just found out that i had (potentially) killed your father, i wouldn't rush you for info and then not see you again for months to make sure we were straight. Movie parker is all about taking care of number one and that was before the symbiote. He simply didn't care to get things straight with harry or tell the love of his life what went down. Not only this but the fact MJ knew pieces of the story and then didn't click that harry's going to be pissed at parker for killing his dad is also silly.

I always find it surprising that people say these things about spidey in the movies but when it comes to the crunch, he's so off the hero radar it's untrue, he's got very little redeeming qualities about him.


You cannot honestly look me in the eye and declare ock was a well developed villain. This type of discussion requires a whole thread dedicated to itself but the evidence against this claim is very very high.

fun is a very tricky line because it's all in interpretation of what one wants when they go to the cinema, so i'll let this slide.


Ah the train fight everyone loves.

I need to get some scans to illustrate my point here so i'll have to come back to it



The reason the film is sucessful happens to be due to branding. It's a well known brand similar to pirates, both trilogies don't really offer anything but they are a decent brand and offer a form of escapism while in the spidey sense gives an impression of what he's like. It's branding pure and simple.


meh

fair doos

I'm just cutting to the meat of your post to try and give (a hopefully brief) counterpoint and counterbalance.

First and foremost the first movie does feature a Parker with problems post-powers I'd argue. Besides the whole pesky thing about feeling guilt for his uncle's death-thingy, he does feel responsible for Aunt May getting attacked. He does deal with his best friend dating the love of his life, behind his back. He is always caught in the middle and between his guilt trips that cause him to puto n the costume he deals with a best friend passively aggressively and slowly has to fear that his loved ones are going to be attacked by some psychopath in a power ranger costume. Yeah, he is living it up in a swanky penthouse, but I recall he did so in the Spidey golden age of comics as well.

Now you'll point out none of those are financial or crippling problems, this is true. It was the glossiest of the three movies (though superior to SM3, by far). However, this is rectified in SM2 IMO. You seem to have really missed the point of that film. MJ is the centerpiece of his heartache because he has taken this responsibility to an unhealthy level and it is costing him. But MJ has nothing to do with him doing bad in school, losing his pizza job or having not enough money to pay the rent. That is all due ot being Spidey. The thing that cuts deepest to him, is he thinks it prevents him from pursuing MJ or love in general, but it is his own self-isolation that is the problem.

This movie does what you originally wanted, being Spider-Man sucks. He doesn't have the girl, gets no resepect for 2/3 of the movie and is stepped on at work, school and home by his bosses, peers and tennants. His best friend is estranged from him due to his secrecy and he also can blame himself for Aunt May not being able to pay the rent because of Uncle Ben's death.

He regresses. His journey is about turning his back on his responsibilities and trying to return to a more care-free adolesence. That is why he is wearing glasses agai, really. He is being very selfish and pursuing his own interests, much like a college kid will ignore classes and instead of playing on a playground will got get drunk and laid at a party. Given the tone of these movies and Peter's personality this is his rebellion against growing up. But like all, he must face his responsibilities and learn to balance them. That is what Peter does. Yes, for dramatic storytelling purposes he does not get his powers back until MJ is in danger, but he has already made the commitment to take on his responsibilities again at that point. But it is about balancing them. He (like most young people) was overwhelmed by it, but at the end it is about striking a balance. That is why he gets MJ and at the beginning of the next movies things are going so well for him. He struck a balance and embraced his responsibilities.

Now as for Aunt May and Uncle Ben, two characters who you think were neglected in SM2, I'd disagree. Throughout the movie Peter feels guilty for Aunt May's woes. He tries to give her the $20 back, but she won't take hand outs from her nephew. It is like a deleted scene in the first movie where Uncle Ben refuses to allow Peter to take a job to help pay the utilities. They don't think Peter needs to but he feels bad. You see this by his face when he talks to her or when they visit Uncle Ben's gravestone. That is when he admits his failures to Aunt May and she actually turns on him for the brieft of times, but easily the most powerful and real moment in the whole movie (or trilogy). He regains her respect, and yes he partially does this by becoming Spider-Man again and retaking his responsibilities (something that is hinted she knows of).

Yes, he swings away after saving her in SM2, but that is a cinematic image that is to make the audiences cheer, no different than the chopper flying West, AWAY from the mainland at the end of Jurassic Park into the sunset. No different than why did the blonde go upstairs where she heard chirpping in The Birds other than, Hitchcock said "Because I said so." For cinematic experience. I'd also point out that it happened similarly in one incident in the comics where he saved May from the Scorpion and swang away without returning, only she was scared of Spidey instead of happy HE SAVED HER. And who's to say that he didn't just do that so he can loop around a few blocks and Peter comes running up from the other direction? Methinks you are looking WAY too far into that moment.

As for Uncle Ben, yes he rejects Uncle Ben at first, again turning his back on his responsibilities and trying to prevent growing up (something Quesada wants right now in the comics). But after the fire incident and May's speech he seems to acknowledge he was wrong. He knows he has to become Spidey again and does. Just because they don't reiterate it for the umpteenth time does not mean it still doesn't matter to him. It clearly does in SM3 when he tries to avenge Ben Parker. I'd agree that at the end of SM3, they are saying Peter has grown past that phrase and does what he does because he thinks it is right and is no longer guilt ridden. A huge departure from the comics that I won't argue if you hate. But his guilt still present throughout all of SM3 until the last 10 minutes and all of SM2. He also admits to Aunt May (as he feels guilt for turning his back on Ben metaphorically), that "Uncle Ben tried to tell me something important and I threw it in his face." I'd completely disagree he didn't still take stock in the motto in that movie.

As for Harry, I'll just say that he probably made overtures to Harry thoughout the time between SM2 and SM3 but failed to make headway. That is implied as MJ knows Peter hasn't been able to get in contact with Harry at all recently. That also likely means he never told MJ who GG was, at it was moot to her at this point (or so he thought). Yeah that is bad communication, but that is a central focal point of SM3, if you recall. As for him not trying to comfort Harry after waking up in SM2, I'm sorry but he just woke up and found his best friend orchestrated his capture and near death and had helped out of selfishness fuel a mad scientist's dream of blowing up the city and MJ is at ground zero and he has about 5 minutes to do something before everyone in Manhattan gets vaporized. I wouldn't call it the best time for a heart to heart. He obviously tried later but Harry shut him off as implied in their interaction at the play and his conversation with MJ afterwards.

On Doc Ock, yes I'd say he was brilliantly achieved in the movie, SM2. Yeah, you may not like the origin but whether it was Molina, the script or the likely combination of the two (I say the latter), he had one of the mostmemorable screen presences of a comic book villain to date. I prefer Dafoe's Goblin as it is closer to the comics, but pretty much all non-fans rank Ock as #1 in the series and both joins the ranks of Nicholson's Joker, McKellan's Magneto and Pffiefer's Catwoman as the upper-tier of comic book movie villains.

He just oozed menace and pathos at the same time. You knew every second what Octavious was feeling and why he did what he did. You liked him after just a very small scene at the beginning of the movie, felt his pain in the hospital sequence and despised him for dropping Aunt May and his sardonic smugness in the cafe and train fight. And his death was operatic and affective. I'd say he was perfect in the movie in terms of a film character, faithfulness is another argument. But you asked whether I thought he was well developed? Absolutely. Just because we didn't get scenes of him staring at the camera and crying while hyperventalating doesn't mean he wasn't developed.

Finally, these movies are popular more than just being a brand. While they do well as a piece of pop culture because of their brand...they are moreso than just that. As I've said a thousand times, the movies have depth and soul. That is why the first two are over 90% on rottentomatoes and the third still fresh at 65%. That is why the first Pirates is in the 70s percentile and both the sequels were rotten, the next worse than the last. The reason they get so much praise is the first two, at least, have smart scripts for summer action movies, engaging and heartfelt performances all around in all three and a focus on the inner-lives of the characters over just the action or the jokes like Pirates, Transformers or other comic book movies. You may dislike them as adaptations and think they'd be better if more faithful, but they are good movies at the end of the day. That is why they are beloved with the same illogical attachment by some fans and a generation that Superman '78 was or the inferior ROTJ to the rest of the trilogy. If they were just a brand, they'd be as disposable as Pirates movies and just as critically dull.

 

[DACrowe]

Back to my Harry osborn death people were talking about and them saying he died a hero in the comics, well actually it wasn't his intention...

Right, here it clearly shows that harry's heroic actions were not based on the fact he knew he was going to die doing a worthy cause, those actions were previous to the events that lead to his death. He was ultimately killed by his own hand or at least the legacy of the goblin due to the formulae.

It had nothing to do with why he saved them all.

His death in spidey 3 was an empty self sacrifice, which led to nothign since spidey was well within his power to get the webbing off him and avoid that blow, the webbing was not even on him tightly, he could have avoided the situation altogether. To make matters worse, he left him there and neigher him or MJ made any true attempt to save his life regardless of what happened.


ULtimately, i just wished to illustrate that harry's death in the comics had nothing to do with wanting to go out as a hero or making a sacrifice on other people's behalves. It was a sad a tragic poisoning that got him once he felt he was finally able to rid himself of the curse of the goblin it came back for a final bite and that's what made it tragic.

It was in no shape or form replicated in spidey 3 and this is why i don't believe my arguments are nitpicking.

I'm sorry I do not see how this is anything beyond nitpicking.

I personally love SSM #200 and it is better than SM3, this is true. But I have no qualms with Harry's death in the mmovie.

I thought he went out very well. He did not go to that final fight looking to die a hero or sacrifice himself, he went to help his friend, Peter after realizing his mistakes and disgarding the Goblin legacy just like in the comics. Now, I would have preferred the irony of him dying by his own hand instead of that overrated piece of crap named Venom, but for the movie's needs to make Venom irredeemable and thematically the main bad guy, I understand why they chose for him to die like that. Yes, he died saving Peter, but it was just an instinctive move. For the movie's purposes Peter could not get out of the webbing in time (he took like 10 seconds after the fact. Why didn't he jump? Maybe the web's were that tight, I mean it was written that way that Peter was about to die.

After Harry leaps into the way Harry looks as shocked as Peter that he did that and as stunned by the two giant spikes sticking out of his chest as Peter does. He did not do it to redeem himself (though he did) by self-sacrifice, he without thinking did it to save a friend and only afterwards did it sink in what had happened. MJ was going to get help, but Harry knew it was too late and did not allow her. When Peter got down there after the battle was over, Harry told him it was too late, and considering he died 30 seconds later it was. Should Peter have tried to swing him to a hospital? In real life, yes but for the film it worked. I think it was pretty clear Harry was already dead and instead they just had the best scene of the movie. I mean do we complain that Obi-Wan didn't wisk Qui-Gon off to a healer of some sort instead of taking his master's last words? My point is again you are reading too much into it and it was a great moment. Is it any different than Captain Stacy refusing for Peter to take him any further and telling him to stop and let him give similar last words before dying? Well, Peter was such an ******* then in ASM #90 and should have ignored Cap and let him die groaning in his arms going to the hospital. We don't complain. Why? It's a comic book with unrealistic worlds of melodrama and hyper-reality. It pays off the emotion of the story well, even if it is contrived. Cap's death is a classic and Harry went out perfectly in the movie.

As a movie Harry redeeming himself was pivotal as his lastact. He did not die a sacrifical hero, but a friend helping a friend. It worked and just because it wasn't by his own hand and we didn't see Harry in an ambulance you say they ruined the character's end. I'd call that nitpicking, good sir.

Just 2 cents.