The Amazing Spider-Man The Gwen Stacy thread

[david icke]

I think the problem is that, the cheese and the less favourable scenes in Raimi's movies are too overpowering and a massive distraction that completely takes the viewer out of what's going on as well as disrupting the consistency of the characters' behaviour and personalities.

When reading the comics as a kid even by today's standards the source material was better handled, concieved and executed than what was showcased in the movies and I personally believe it to be down to Raimi having a rather limited understanding of what spidey is all about and his skills as a movie-maker.

In short, I think the spidey movies were just too silly to be fully appreciated by certain people such as myself. As stated before, those silly moments regardless of how long they last are just too much of an adverse distraction that spoil the overall experience.

His skills as a movie maker? His movie making skills are fine, I dare say there are very few people would have been able to get spidey down on film so well physically, Raimi was perfect for that. His skills are such that he was able to get an extremely low budget movie made to such effect that it became a worldwide phenomenon in horror circles.

As for how much he understands spidey, i think he gets him pretty well, as well as most cb writers, it's just that in movies, that are constrained by such things as time and money, it is far more difficult to get this universe down to the level of satisfaction that a monthly series of comics , with no time or budget constraints, can do. I mean, there is actually a very strict limit to how much spidey they can realise onscreen, never mind missing out on some cb conventions as think bubbles, which go a long way in the books to establishing a rapport between the audience and character.

and as for the cheese...this is mainly a Spider-man3 complaint i think you have....and no-one is debating that there were some right crappy decisions made in regards to that movie. but, there was still ample drama for the most part, and if you are irked to the point of dismissing the entire series, you are overreacting, someone is always going to find problems with an adaptation, no-one is going to make the perfect Spider-man movie you personally want, so get ready to watch some things you would have done differently when watching these movies. Just try not to let them overshadow what you did like, because you will just be cheating yourself out of enjoyment. But, if you are so picky as to have entire iconic sequences ruined for you because of a simple thing like mask removal, you will most probably never be satisfied in any significant way with any movie adaptation of your beloved material.

 

[Ajendo]

His skills as a movie maker? His movie making skills are fine, I dare say there are very few people would have been able to get spidey down on film so well physically, Raimi was perfect for that.

I disagree. I think Raimi is a mediocre film maker and his spidey films have a lot left to be desired. I suppose it's easy to praise or discredit his work on spider-man as he's the only director who'se made the films but to me, it's clear he set himself up with limited vision and introduced lame concepts and modeled his 3 movies on the first 3 superman films. The sum of all the movies' parts are glaring dissapointments. I believe that there are plenty of better directors out there who could have done/do a better job and I look forward to Webb's movies on the basis alone that, it's going to be a new and different take.

His skills are such that he was able to get an extremely low budget movie made to such effect that it became a worldwide phenomenon in horror circles.

Imo the evil dead movies are overrated but they're suitably fun movies. Raimi's not void of being able to do good work but, sure, he can do great stuff but imo the spidey movies don't fit that category. Raimi's just lucky he's the first spidey director and I doubt he would have made an epically horrid movie, none of his spidey movies are of such a standard but they're no way anything spectacular or special.

As for how much he understands spidey, i think he gets him pretty well, as well as most cb writers, it's just that in movies, that are constrained by such things as time and money, it is far more difficult to get this universe down to the level of satisfaction that a monthly series of comics , with no time or budget constraints, can do.

I disagree vehemently with this. Raimi's take on the characters were piss poor and it has nothing to do with screen time. Peter Parker gave the impression that he learned some sort of lesson each film but as a person, as a character he didn't change from when we first met him at the start of spider-man 1. MJ is one of the worst written characters in film history, Jameson was a joke, bordering the edge of being patheticness, don't get me started on Brock/Venom. The only charcter(s) who were worth their salt was Harry. Raimi coming up with these lame characters like Hoffman, overplaying tired jokes, mishmashing characters and telling poorly executed, predicatble stories was borderline embarrassing.

I don't care about the movies being perfect but what I expect, which isn't too much to ask for are better attempts at trying to interpret the source material. The cartoons, the games, hell even the comics have done better jobs at reinterpreting, making changes and taking liberties with the mythology. There are many movies that base their screenplays on a source material and do excellent jobs with their execution. Raimi's error was that, he was trying to reinvent the wheel. At first, I felt for Parker but then he just came off as heroically stupid and that's because Raimi felt that was the best way to portray the character. Also, SM2 infuriated me to no end, when MJ was the single factor in the world that served as his motivation. Tragic.

I mean, there is actually a very strict limit to how much spidey they can realise onscreen, never mind missing out on some cb conventions as think bubbles, which go a long way in the books to establishing a rapport between the audience and character.

So we should settle for completely different characters altogether that merely bare the names of these comic book figures, if we're lucky? Many people don't care for direct page lifts or months or years worth of mythology compressed into a 2hour movie. What we want are the characters as they are or changed for the better to be part of a compelling story that doesn't try to hide by lame jokes to distract the audience from seeing just how mediocre a representation these films are of material that's perpetuated the existence of these films being made in the first place.

and as for the cheese...this is mainly a Spider-man3 complaint i think you have....and no-one is debating that there were some right crappy decisions made in regards to that movie. but, there was still ample drama for the most part, and if you are irked to the point of dismissing the entire series, you are overreacting, you are always going to find problems, no-one is going to make the perfect Spider-man movie you personally want, so get ready to watch some things you would have done differently when watching these movies.

This is mainly a complaint for all 3 movies. The cheese is all too apparant and leaves an overbearing, long lasting impression that tarnishes the overall movie(s). As stated, I want changes, I have no problem with certain liberties being taken but not at the expense of what works or because changes want to be made for change's sake. I want to see real interactions of drama and not some sappy, silly-concieved and poorly executed, sleep-inducing dialogue scenes that are an embarrassment. Also, Raimi has underestimated the audience and treated us like fools and that's based on many of the comments he's made regarding "creative" decisions he's made, yet, other directors, post the release of his spidey films have done exactly what Raimi felt wouldn't work or the audience wouldn't accept and have proven Raimi simply doesn't know wtf he's talking about. I remember watching an interview with Matt Vaughn where he indirectly blasted Raimi. it was so refreshing to hear and proves just how reigned in so many people are when it comes to Raimi.
Again, Webb's movies could be just as bad or worse than Raimi's but the fact and hope is, that, the opportunity for an alternative take on the mythology is there and right now, that's all the optimism I and many others need for now.

 

[TheSlag]

and I find it very interesting that once again my meaning has been twisted to suit a poster who just wants to post something smartassian.

Smartassian?? LOL.. I am also fluent in Slagasian too.

Umm.. take a breathe there buddy. Sheesh

When did I say i wouldn't be interested in the Gwen Stacey storyline being used at some point? I would love it if you pointed that out.
What I said, and have said to you in previous discussions on the matter, is that it is not the type of story that they should start off the franchise with, neither should Spider-man be turned into a dark 'Seven' type Fincher series, that is what he wanted to do, that is what he has said, he wanted to do a dark spider-man series.

Where did I say you "would not"?

I was simply replying to your "you folk" comment. It appears you and Kaw have a running discussion going on that I have not read (nor care to). I was simply replying to your "interesting" blanket "folk" comment.. which had no quote of other posts to expand on it.

As far as Fincher's take on SM, and how it would of been. I don't know, but it would have been interesting to see.

Yeah, use the Gwen Stacey story, but in a developed franchise that has been running for a while, 3 , 4 , 5 films down the line.

Totally agree, but that IS a darker storyline than what us "folks" got in Raimi's verse.

edit: Oh, and all those Spider-man books you grew up reading when you were a kid? Those were written for you, you were the prime target audience, yes, adults can enjoy them too, and did, they had good characterisation, and some dark emotions and situations in there, but they were also full of the goofy s*** as well, go back and look at them..Doc Ock marrying Aunt May...The Hypno-Hustler...the Rocket Racer....any number of villans and situations, they had spidey commenting himslef on the ridiculous situations in his life,...I'm not saying it's good to go overboard with goofy jokes/material etc, but you seem to be making out that the serious drama in the SM films were overshadowed by humour, and there was plenty of fun in those books too, it wasn't all dark and grim stuff.

Hmm.. so you're saying those comics were written for Kiddos, but had mature/serious storylines, but the movies cannot?

And yes, the comics over the 40+ years has had some really stupid goofy oddball **** in them, no doubt. But over that span, you're bound to get some of that. I guess that is WHY those arcs/time period are NOT considered classics.

But WHY would you model a movie after THAT, as opposed to the classic arss?

I'm tempted to get a stopwatch and time all the drama up against the CHEESE, I'd guess cheese would measure out at about 3%(maybe even less) of the films, but y'know, don't let that stop you bang on and on about it as if we got a series of Adam West type spider-man movies.

Good idea, it might just open your eyes to the level of cheese in these. 3% or whatever % may be fine for you, but I would prefer ZERO % cheese myself. Of course, cheese vs. humor is 2 different things to me.

Oh, and spidey quips, just wait til they start putting them in the movies, they will most probably make the tension of the action scenes into a McBain goof-fest. Some are good, most are throwaway. They will have the action set pieces set up in conjunction with the plot, and then have to sandwich in the quips, so they will be incredibly lucky to have any that fit, are genuinely funny, don't get old quick, are distinguishable from all the McBainisms prevalent in all action movies, and don't detract from the tension, it will be a fine balancing act, and I'm not surprised they did not go with so many in the 3 movies , as it's better to have him say nothing, than something crappy.

I have NEVER been a fan of Quips at high drama moments. And as you say, ur putting (or trying) words in my mouth, or stating things I NEVER said. They should NOT have Spidey Quiping at key/serious moments.

But, the "funny" parts should NOT come from Raimi's relatives EITHER.

 

[TheSlag]

Yeah, that 10sec moment with the Goblin really ruined the entire performance by Dafoe, let's focus on that tiny inconsequential negative and blow it out of proportion completely like some overly picky fan who has nothing better to do with his time.
Was it out of character? Did it ruin the entire performance? No, but let's get really picky anyway, let's forget about so much they got right.

Night and Day, lol, both characters were just like their comicbook counterparts, with some changes, some merely because of time constraints(Goblin), some to make the character more realistic so to be paltable for it's universe(Joker).
If you prefer Nolan's Joker so much to the Rami's Goblin, it's simply a case of you preferring the character, because, buddy, that is the Green Goblin in that movie, and you damn well know it.
edit: the Green Goblin has never had such a good story as 'the Killing Joke', maybe that made the difference when it came time to adapt.
I thought your arguments and opinions were consistent, but, of course you have to adapt them if you are going to come in a defend a poster such as Kaw, so all your talk in the past of how DaFoe's performance as the Goblin was great and that your only problem was with the outfit, that was all bs? Or is it this post that is bs?
Seems like one of them has to be, seems like you're pretty good at the old adapting yourself when it comes to your opinions and who you feel like backing up when their own weak-ass arguments run out of steam, lol.

LOL.. wow. Kaw is REALLY getting to you. I may need to go back and read the posts to enjoy "da show".

How about option C.. Neither is BS.

Or option C - you taking things out of contest. Dafoe was greatness as Osborn when the scenes were written well. Like with the "heart Osborn, the Heart" scene, where it showed off his ebbing madness.

But in scenes WHERE he was NOT written well (i.e. the Itsy Bitsy Spider.. or the Hero Falls speech after kidnapping Spidey) were NOT greatness and took away from a great performance.

And we DID NOT get any real Goblin Mind games in SM1, like we should of once Norman discovers Peter's identity.

And we DID NOT get the Goblin's greatest storyline (the Night Gwen Stacy Died) either.

So, actor = Greatness... how character was written = So So

COSTUME = TOTAL SUCKO

Clear enough now.. "Buddy"?

 

[david icke]

Ok, Slag, I went off on one a bit there i admit, lol, so thanks for that breath advice back there, i have now taken one and have taken all the cotton buds and wool out of my ears, nose and mouth...

Re: the goofyness, humour in Spidey comics...ok i highlighted some real goofballs back there, but there is a tone to the books that is humourous, so you can have a plotline where he gets his costume from a fancy dress shop, and it keeps coming apart, and gets shrunk in the water, and it fits, and is funny, and classic. you couldn't have that in 'Batman', and not just because Alfred is always there with the sewing machine/rubber sculpting mold-it kit.

Yeah, I love Fight club and Seven, and would love to see his SM movies, but he would not have treated the material right, doing it the way he wanted, Spider-man is not a dark avenger.
I was saying on the last page how I would do the Goblin/Gwen story...establish the movie universe first with some Spidey movies like the books, humourous, everyday guy who becomes superhero with attendant problems, top class soap opera etc...then upend that whole universe with the death of Gwen in movie 3 or 4, *that* would be revolutionary, like the original book. Far more revolutionary than doing it in the Batman series , which started off dark, or in a Fincher SM series that was dark toned from the outset.

 

[david icke]

I disagree. I think Raimi is a mediocre film maker and his spidey films have a lot left to be desired. I suppose it's easy to praise or discredit his work on spider-man as he's the only director who'se made the films but to me, it's clear he set himself up with limited vision and introduced lame concepts and modeled his 3 movies on the first 3 superman films. The sum of all the movies' parts are glaring dissapointments. I believe that there are plenty of better directors out there who could have done/do a better job and I look forward to Webb's movies on the basis alone that, it's going to be a new and different take.

Personally, i think the superman thing is coincidental, there were different writers on each movie.

Imo the evil dead movies are overrated but they're suitably fun movies. Raimi's not void of being able to do good work but, sure, he can do great stuff but imo the spidey movies don't fit that category. Raimi's just lucky he's the first spidey director and I doubt he would have made an epically horrid movie, none of his spidey movies are of such a standard but they're no way anything spectacular or special.

I don't see why that is something to particularly 'laughmyassoff' at, lmao, the first two Evil Dead movies are very highly regarded, and it's rare that a film director makes such an impact with such a low budget movie, it's not an achievement to be sniffed at. In your opinion, they are overated, that's fine, but that does not negate from the fact that they work very well as a movies, and are considered 'special' by a great many people, that is a fact.

I disagree vehemently with this. Raimi's take on the characters were piss poor and it has nothing to do with screen time. Peter Parker gave the impression that he learned some sort of lesson each film but as a person, as a character he didn't change from when we first met him at the start of spider-man 1. MJ is one of the worst written characters in film history, Jameson was a joke, bordering the edge of being patheticness, don't get me started on Brock/Venom. The only charcter(s) who were worth their salt was Harry. Raimi coming up with these lame characters like Hoffman, overplaying tired jokes, mishmashing characters and telling poorly executed, predicatble stories was borderline embarrassing.

Em, the character did go through changes, he wasn't the exact same by the end of 3 at all. this is a big myth perpetuated by folk who do not feel they got their own personal tastes met.

there are many cb/fantasy characters/adaptations you could say this about, Conan, Batman(before Nolan), The Hulk, V for Vendetta, The Punisher...but I don't think spider-man is one of them, yes, they are not ideal, but essentially the same character is there.

I don't care about the movies being perfect but what I expect, which isn't too much to ask for are better attempts at trying to interpret the source material. The cartoons, the games, hell even the comics have done better jobs at reinterpreting, making changes and taking liberties with the mythology. There are many movies that base their screenplays on a source material and do excellent jobs with their execution. Raimi's error was that, he was trying to reinvent the wheel. At first, I felt for Parker but then he just came off as heroically stupid and that's because Raimi felt that was the best way to portray the character. Also, SM2 infuriated me to no end, when MJ was the single factor in the world that served as his motivation. Tragic.

Yeah, with the whole Mj thing, y'know what? He was trying to be faithful to the books by condensing them into 3 movies, because the story in the books all eventually ended up at MJ and PP getting married, so he was trying to get that in.
But, the thing is, imo the marriage was a big mistake in the books, and this direction was a big mistake in the flicks, but he was faithful in going there, unfortunately.

and as for cartoons and other comics(I assume you mean Ultimate) adapting far better, em, that was my point, they have the advantage of not being time/budget compressed.
Computer games...are not comparable in this regard I feel.

Oh, and Pete can be heroically stupid in the books, with all that is going on in his life that is only natural sometimes.

edit: you could say not telling his girlfriend about the fact a super-villan who knew his secret id and was aware of her existence was gunning for him was a major **** up for one thing. Her life being in possible danger was more important than the possibility of her breaking up with him.

So we should settle for completely different characters altogether that merely bare the names of these comic book figures, if we're lucky? Many people don't care for direct page lifts or months or years worth of mythology compressed into a 2hour movie. What we want are the characters as they are or changed for the better to be part of a compelling story that doesn't try to hide by lame jokes to distract the audience from seeing just how mediocre a representation these films are of material that's perpetuated the existence of these films being made in the first place.



This is mainly a complaint for all 3 movies. The cheese is all too apparant and leaves an overbearing, long lasting impression that tarnishes the overall movie(s). As stated, I want changes, I have no problem with certain liberties being taken but not at the expense of what works or because changes want to be made for change's sake. I want to see real interactions of drama and not some sappy, silly-concieved and poorly executed, sleep-inducing dialogue scenes that are an embarrassment. Also, Raimi has underestimated the audience and treated us like fools and that's based on many of the comments he's made regarding "creative" decisions he's made, yet, other directors, post the release of his spidey films have done exactly what Raimi felt wouldn't work or the audience wouldn't accept and have proven Raimi simply doesn't know wtf he's talking about. I remember watching an interview with Matt Vaughn where he indirectly blasted Raimi. it was so refreshing to hear and proves just how reigned in so many people are when it comes to Raimi.
Again, Webb's movies could be just as bad or worse than Raimi's but the fact and hope is, that, the opportunity for an alternative take on the mythology is there and right now, that's all the optimism I and many others need for now.

Matthew Vaughn..the man who cast Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught. Many mistakes have been made in the annals of comicbook adaptations to the screen, and many are guilty of these crimes, lol.
I have not seen Kick-Ass yet, but I frickin' hate that moment in the tv spots when he breaks the fouth wall and nods to the audience when Red-Mist falls down on his ass. So I'm sure there will be just as many Kick-Ass fans a little miffed with some changes made as Spider-man ones, relatively speaking. But, the difference is , there was a direct interaction with the original writer/artist there, so it will be more faithful, a rarity in movie adaptations, and even then , that does not always guarantee a good adaptation.
and speaking of the creator of KA, Mark Miller said he felt McGuire was Ditko's PP made flesh in the first movie, and that is was very easy to be picky about the movie and ignore what he got right about it.
edit: there are varying opinons on these adaptations from respected sources, it's not so cut and dried as you make out.

 

[Ajendo]

Personally, i think the superman thing is coincidental, there were different writers on each movie.

Yeah with regards to the screenplay but Raimi steered the ship with the stories he wanted to tell, which inevitably resulted in a ship wreck by spider-man 3.

I don't see why that is something to particularly 'laughmyassoff' at, lmao, the first two Evil Dead movies are very highly regarded, and it's rare that a film director makes such an impact with such a low budget movie, it's not an achievement to be sniffed at. In your opinion, they are overated, that's fine, but that does not negate from the fact that they work very well as a movies, and are considered 'special' by a great many people, that is a fact.

I'm not dismissing the ED movies, I simply said that they were overrated. Also, there are many instances where low budget movies tend to fair well, purely on an artistic level because it forces the movie makers to be more creative and to maximise the talents of everyone involved. I've been calling for a lower budget since the 2nd spidey movie because a great spidey movie can do extremely well with a budget of $150million and that's assuming the right talent are involved.

Em, the character did go through changes, he wasn't the exact same by the end of 3 at all. this is a big myth perpetuated by folk who do not feel they got their own personal tastes met.

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's clear as day. Peter Parker had more character development in the entire Amazing fantasy issue #15 than he did in all 3 spidey movies. Peter was weak, still a social outcast, he had no backbone and lacked confidence as a person. In college, he still has lights shon in his eye and paperballs thrown at him. His voice, the way he talked had no confidence or conviction. Even when he was discussing ock's experiment over dinner, it just seemed false because Maguire's delivery and the horrible script never sold it. I find it alarming that it took a poor attempt at the symbiot bonding with peter to give peter a personality upgrade or change or what ever people want to call it.

there are many cb/fantasy characters/adaptations you could say this about, Conan, Batman(before Nolan), The Hulk, V for Vendetta, The Punisher...but I don't think spider-man is one of them, yes, they are not ideal, but essentially the same character is there.

A shallow, souless interpretation of the character, yes.

Yeah, with the whole Mj thing, y'know what? He was trying to be faithful to the books by condensing them into 3 movies, because the story in the books all eventually ended up at MJ and PP getting married, so he was trying to get that in.

I understand that but the journey he took peter on trying to get there was abysmall. Character interaction was limited. The character interaction we did get were poorly concieved and executed. The fact that Parker wasn't able to explore and expand his responsibilities further than a little beyond MJ is a joke. Throwing in Gwen and writing her in an absurd manner just because the character wasn't initially intended is even more obtuse. Peter's beloved Aunt May is in danger, even kidnapped and taken as a hostage, yet Peter's powers fluctuate. Peter finds out that MJ is taken away and Peter's powers return to full effect. There really is no excuse for shoddy writing and shoddy ideas when there are nearly 50 years of source material to at least steal ideas and concepts from.

But, the thing is, imo the marriage was a big mistake in the books, and this direction was a big mistake in the flicks, but he was faithful in going there, unfortunately.[/quote

I wouldn't have minded the marriage in the movies. The issue is the journey Raimi took to try and get there. There wasn't enough development that we saw in their relationship and as individual characters for a series of movies that were supposed to total at 6. Parker pining, crying and staring into space like a hapless wombat after his quest to be with the man-hopping MJ isn't good drama.

and as for cartoons and other comics(I assume you mean Ultimate) adapting far better, em, that was my point, they have the advantage of not being time/budget compressed.
Computer games...are not comparable in this regard I feel.

With regards to the comics, I was talking about both ultimate and the 616. 616 have made many changes and I for one do feel that computer games are comparable because they operate on the basis of a storyline they want to go with and use characters from the mythology. Time isn't the issue. All 3 spidey movies can be 2 hours long, have a set story worthy of interest and USE the characters from the mythology as opposed to the "shell-beings" Raimi used.

Oh, and Pete can be heroically stupid in the books, with all that is going on in his life that is only natural sometimes.

Of course but it's not something I would want to see consistently in every spidey movie, which is one of the reasons why his character essentially didn't change since spidey 1 because Raimi had Peter's character stuck in loser-geek mode. There are many other aspects to Peter's character and not once were they genuinely explored.

Matthew Vaughn..the man who cast Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught.

I didn't know Vaughn had anything to do with the casting of X3.

I have not seen Kick-Ass yet, but I frickin' hate that moment in the tv spots when he breaks the fouth wall and nods to the audience when Red-Mist falls down on his ass.

Kickass is a very good film and imo a superior enjoyable film than all 3 spidey movies. Vaughn incoporates some of the aspects Raimi chose to neglect or needlessly change because audiences allgedly wouldn't accept it, yet Vaugh does the exact opposite of Raimi's assinine logic and kickass is heralded and praised to no end by fans, audiences and critics alike.

So I'm sure there will be just as many Kick-Ass fans a little miffed with some changes made as Spider-man ones, relatively speaking. But, the difference is , there was a direct interaction with the original writer/artist there, so it will be more faithful, a rarity in movie adaptations, and even then , that does not always guarantee a good adaptation.
and speaking of the creator of KA, Mark Miller said he felt McGuire was Ditko's PP made flesh in the first movie, and that is was very easy to be picky about the movie and ignore what he got right about it.
edit: there are varying opinons on these adaptations from respected sources, it's not so cut and dried as you make out.

Cut and dried? Hardly. I'm merely stating my own opinion and as you've said, many respected sources have differing opinions. I couldn't care if Miller thinks Maguire in spidey 1 was the best thing since man discovered fire. Maguire's performance in spidey 1 was ok but the scripts and the stories in all 3 movies just didn't call for a more charismatic spider-man and charisma is a key characteristic of spider-man's that was sorely lacking.

 

[david icke]

Ok, i am not going to get into the muti quote thing anymore, but suffice to say in response to your points, there are things i do agree with you on...

a lot of the supporting characters, MJ, JJJ, left a lot to be desired, and some where just cameos essentially, Gwen, but in regards to PP, from what I understood he was in the early stages of his career in the movies, in SM1 he was just starting out, SM2 is set just 6 months after that, and in SM3 he was just starting to get into the swing of things, having his life go the way he wanted it to, and the story was about pride in that fact, and the fall that resulted, so maybe we would have got a more mature Pete in later movies, but still with some of those geeky qualities retained. He did grow as a character though in the movies, if not at the speed you desired, if you want to look at the time frame of the movies in comparison to the books, they are probably about the same in regards to character development.
It's the same as the Nolan Batman movies, they are also about Batman just starting out, look at what happenbs in TDK, Bm almost considers giving up because he doesn't know what to do about people being killed everyday because of the joker's threats, that's not the fully formed BM, we will probably see that guy in 3.
Unfortunately Raimi had the symbiote forced on him in SM3, so who knows how his original idea of a proud fall would have played out without the Venom/symbiote plotline, it is one of the big What Ifs of superhero movies now.
but, at the end of SM3 we do see a more sombre , serious Parker, and i wonder how that would have played into the next movie, him and Mj having been through the wars together now, wars with each other this time, that's the kind of thing that causes adults to mature and to know one another better.

So, in all, I think Pete could have been done better , but teh character is still there, and not *that* badly done at all.
as for Spider-man, yes, he is almost a guest star in his own movies as he is such an expensive sfx. I have my own ideal SM movie in my head too, one that involves spidey getting involved more with the drama, interrogating crooks for info, busting up bars etc, even getting into more incidents with the public like that elevator scene in 2(which was ok in that regard, not great), and I think McGuire is a good enough actor to have done that if it was required.
But yeah, superhero movies tend to have teh heroes saved for the action set pieces, and Spider-man is a weird one because he is supposed to be Pete's alter ego, he is supposed to act differently than Pete to some extent, so it's not like watching Logan when he is not Wolverine in action, the two are intertwined.
Probably the closest thing to what i would want to see with Spidey/Pete is with Batman/Bruce in TDK, we got a fair amount of scenes with Batman in conversation with good guys and thugs so that we got the seperate characeter from Bruce in the movie, and he was not jsut there for the action scenes.
Yeah,that is something i have always desired from the Spider-man movies, but i fear most filmakers will be restrained in this regard as they rely on the cgi for his appearances, and there is budget for this, but, hell surely they could have some more practical effects work done in regards to Spidey doing his thing and just interacting with the world more.

edit: and yeah, Matt Vaughn did some pre-production work on X-Men 3 before he jumped ship. He is a mate of Vinnie jones' as i understand, might have been a producer on one of his flicks. He also cast Kelsey Grammar i think.
and yeah, I am hoping I will feel the same way as you do about Kick-Ass, i just frickin hate those fourth wall breaking 'Naked Gun' type nods being put in the movie as the story was suppoosed to reflect to a degree what would ahppen if a kid really tried doing this. So, no matter how i feel about the rest of the movie, that will be a gripe of mine, and i am a big fan of the original books.

 

[Original Spawn]

What? Spider-man 2 is set 2 years after spider-man 1 and spider-man 3, well that we don´t know.

 

[david icke]

What? Spider-man 2 is set 2 years after spider-man 1 and spider-man 3, well that we don´t know.

Well, we know one thing for sure, your post is set 4 months after the conversation you just responded to.

But, I don't know what makes you think it's set 2yrs after SM1, apart from the fact it was made 2yrs later. I am sure I read somewhere that it was 6months between events. do you really think it would take two years before Harry and Pete had that conversation about his relationship with Spider-man, do you think 2yrs would pass before MJ and PP had a talk that referenced the kiss at the end of SM1. do you think PP would be so surprised that MJ had a boyfriend 2 yrs after telling him she loved him?

6 months baby, 6 months. Half your calender, give it a flip, check it out, not that long.

I would guess it would be a similar gap between SM2 and 3.

 

[Original Spawn]

I saw somewhere more than once and i remember some talk in the film with them saying that it has been 2 YEARS SINCE BENS DEATH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[david icke]

I saw somewhere more than once and i remember some talk in the film with them saying that it has been 2 YEARS SINCE BENS DEATH!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and when did Ben's death happen in SM1? When Pete was at high school, he then goes onto college in the same movie, so time passes in the first movie as well.
I am going to have a quick look for this '6 months' thing i read.
If I am wrong about that, it's still not two years between the movies, let's say a year passes during the events of SM1, as Pete makes the transition from high school to college, and then a year takes place between the very end of SM1 and SM2.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Ajendro, I agree completely with your assesment of cheese and sillyness and the dimisnishing of the overall authenticty and level of naturalism we should be treated with.

 

[david icke]

Original Spawn: i typed up this edit last night but it did not take, so....it does say there are 2 yrs between events uon the wiki page, but this is misleading, they are going by the Uncle Ben thing as well, it does not mean 2yrs took place between the end of 1 and start of 2...

in SM1 Pete goes from hs to college,...there is about 3 or 4 months that pass, the summer between that transition....then the first timw we see Pete talk of college, it appears he has been there and settled in, Doc Conners has fired him a couple of times, not to mention he got the job in the first place, so let's say a couple of months have passed of him attending college, at least, then we have the rest of the time spent on the movie, so , let's say there is about 8-12 months from Uncle Ben's death to the end of SM1, then there would be 1 yr between the end of 2 and start of 1.
I am not sure, but i think i may have been gettinbg mixed up with the time period between the end of Batman Begins and TDK which i think is 6 months. But, I didn't think it was 2yrs from the end of 1 to start of 2, that is a bit too long for how people are reacting at the start of 2 to the events of 1.

 

[david icke]

Ajendro, I agree completely with your assesment of cheese and sillyness and the dimisnishing of the overall authenticty and level of naturalism we should be treated with.

Is there any chance that one of you guys could point out these 'cheesey' scenes that , as ajendo puts it ' disrupt(es) the consistency of the characters' behaviour and personalities'

Because otherwise you are just being vague, and not backing up what you are saying. Someone might think you are being hyperbolic about a couple of humourous scenes in one of the movies, the third one, and speaking as if there are moments when the movies suddenly turn into the Batman tv show of teh 60s.

 

[NinjaCarm]

^

No I'm quite tired of explaining, it was a lot of unnatural and cheese throughout, period. You know when something feels unnatural - and was his whole trilogy, for the most part.

On forward to the reboot, full steam ahead.

 

[david icke]

^

No I'm quite tired of explaining, it was a lot of unnatural and cheese throughout, period. You know when something feels unnatural - and was his whole trilogy, for the most part.

On forward to the reboot, full steam ahead.

Ok, but let's be clear here, you're not backing up your critisicm in regards to 'the cheese' undermining the characters and drama, after all you completely agreed with everything ajendo said in regards to 'the cheese'.
and i'm not surprised you did not back up your 'cheese' crisicm, because this 'cheese' critisicm gets bandied about all too ofetn on these boards, and is completely blown out of proportion to the humourous scenes in the films.
the 'cheesies' as i will now be shorthandidly refering to them as, never actually cite scenes, or reasons for the undermining of characters or drama, they just keep banging on with the word 'cheese' like were the first men on the moon and have just discovered 'cheese' to bring back to Earth.
It's tiresome and on the whole without validity, and i have to thank you for backing that up with your avoidance of the issue in this post.

 

[Original Spawn]

I also saw that it takes place 2 years after spidey 1 but i´ll say something of 1 year and a half or 1 year but i don´t think that it was 6 months, also we can see the spider-man MTV series that toke place between that time.
I also think that raimi´s films weren´t that chessy, i liked 3 and 2 was awesome.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Ok, but let's be clear here, you're not backing up your critisicm in regards to 'the cheese' undermining the characters and drama, after all you completely agreed with everything ajendo said in regards to 'the cheese'.
and i'm not surprised you did not back up your 'cheese' crisicm, because this 'cheese' critisicm gets bandied about all too ofetn on these boards, and is completely blown out of proportion to the humourous scenes in the films.
the 'cheesies' as i will now be shorthandidly refering to them as, never actually cite scenes, or reasons for the undermining of characters or drama, they just keep banging on with the word 'cheese' like were the first men on the moon and have just discovered 'cheese' to bring back to Earth.
It's tiresome and on the whole without validity, and i have to thank you for backing that up with your avoidance of the issue in this post.

I have in the past. Done.

 

[david icke]

Well, whatever argument you came up with in the past, I would put it to you that about teh only scenes that are 'unnatural' due to cheesey humour, are the ones in the Daily Bugle, they are mostly played for laughs, but even then there is a hyper-reality to some of them, and even some reality now and again, as big characters like JJJ do exist in real life, holding court and being very demanding.
All the other realtionships, Harry/Norman, Pete/Norman, Pete/MJ, Pete/May and Ben, Pete/Harry, are played as serious drama, and none of that is undermined by the occasional veer into comedy. Whether you find that type of comedy cheesey or not, it has no bearing on the serious way people's interpersonal realtionships in the movies are handled.

 

[NinjaCarm]

Dude nothing on this earth or universe will ever convince me otherwise that Raimi and Sony waterdowned Spider-Man and made it cheesy.

 

[Young Superman]

Katie Cassidy for Gwen Stacy

 

[TheSlag]

Well, whatever argument you came up with in the past, I would put it to you that about teh only scenes that are 'unnatural' due to cheesey humour, are the ones in the Daily Bugle, they are mostly played for laughs, but even then there is a hyper-reality to some of them, and even some reality now and again, as big characters like JJJ do exist in real life, holding court and being very demanding.
All the other realtionships, Harry/Norman, Pete/Norman, Pete/MJ, Pete/May and Ben, Pete/Harry, are played as serious drama, and none of that is undermined by the occasional veer into comedy. Whether you find that type of comedy cheesey or not, it has no bearing on the serious way people's interpersonal realtionships in the movies are handled.

When they have cheesy/stupid moments that take you out of the moment (especially a serious moment)... that is just wrong.

Like for example, the cut away from the final battle in SM3 to JJ and the girl with the cheezy kiddo camera.. and JJ tries to buy it from her... and the "FILM"S EXXXXTRA" *wink *wink...

Soooo frickin bad. :

It's moments like this that leave a very sour taste in my mouth to Raimi's version, no matter how "brief" they may be, it;s their placement at such key moments that is a total turnoff.. and total.. take you out of the moment.

 

[david icke]

When they have cheesy/stupid moments that take you out of the moment (especially a serious moment)... that is just wrong.

Like for example, the cut away from the final battle in SM3 to JJ and the girl with the cheezy kiddo camera.. and JJ tries to buy it from her... and the "FILM"S EXXXXTRA" *wink *wink...

Soooo frickin bad. :

It's moments like this that leave a very sour taste in my mouth to Raimi's version, no matter how "brief" they may be, it;s their placement at such key moments that is a total turnoff.. and total.. take you out of the moment.

Yeah, I know, they are not perfect Spider-man movies, but they are not as bad as some folk make them out to be, they are still composed mainly of serious drama.

 

[TheSlag]

Yeah, I know, they are not perfect Spider-man movies, but they are not as bad as some folk make them out to be, they are still composed mainly of serious drama.

"some folk"!?!?!.... "SOME FOLK"!?!?!?!?!?

*Slowly I turn, step by step.... J/K

Yes, they are nowhere near bad IMO based just on the inapporiate servings of cheese (feel like I am ordering a pizza here), or more importantly the inappropriate timing of the delivery of said "cheese"... but.. they also had SOOOOOO MUCH MORE.... potential than they delivered.

And I guess we should NOT be surprised by the cheese either, given Raimi's track record in other films to "devliver... (hehe... delivered in 15 minutes (of the film) or your viewing is free... lol... Domino's and Raimi's Promise). lol