The Amazing Spider-Man The Gwen Stacy thread

[TheSlag]

Why? WHY?!?!?!?!?!!?

Back in the prehistoric days, readers had no advance knowledge of what was going to be in an issue or, really, when a comic was even going to come out! Many times, fans would be searching the stands for books that had been cancelled without them knowing. When Gwen Stacey died in issue #121 of The Amazing Spider-Man, it was a genuine shock to many people because you didn't expect a major character to really die. It just wasn't done! Her death had the same shock value to many readers as a death in the real world. It was sudden, unexpected and unfair. Gwen was one of the most loved characters in the Spider-Man universe and certainly a strong contender for "hottest babe" in comics. Nearly every comic geek had hopes of growing up and finding a woman like Gwen. Her unexpected death introduced a new feeling of uncertainty in comic books. Suddenly, death was a reality. Not necessarily Spider-Man, but certainly every other character in his book was now a potential target. Everyone was fair game and no one was safe.

http://www.popmatters.com/comics/spiderman-blue.shtml

The framing device for the incredibly beautiful and emotionally moving 6-issue limited series Spider-Man: Blue has Peter Parker in the attic of his Aunt May's home, where he is going through some of his old things. He uses an old tape recorder to record memories of his first true love, the late Gwen Stacy. Peter speaks as if talking directly to Gwen, recounting events from the time they had together. Dialogue from Spider-Man: Blue #6, Marvel Entertainment Group: New York City (December 2002), pages 20-22; written by Jeph Loeb, illustrated by Tim Sale; reprinted in Spider-Man: Blue hardcover collection (2003).
[Peter sits on the floor of the attic, recording his conversation with the late Gwen Stacy into a tape recorder.]

PETER PARKER: For years I've tried to make some sense of your death. Something -- anything -- that I could call "good" that came after all that . . . bad . . . And all the time I've been sitting up here talking to you, I remembered something I don't think I've told anyone.

The night of your funeral. MJ [i.e., Mary Jane Watson] came to see me at the apartment. I was . . . putting it mildly . . . rude to her. I just wasn't up for that "Life is a party and MJ is the cake" thing. But, something happened that night. I think now your death was MJ's wake-up call -- that we weren't going to live forever and the party was going to end. Gwen, I don't think Mary Jane Watson could've had a serious relationship with me until she realized how much we all lost with you gone. She would later become my wife. I had to learn to love again, and she taught me how--

MARY JANE WATSON: Peter . . .?

[Peter looks up and sees his wife, Mary Jane Watson, standing at the top of the stairs.]

MARY JANE WATSON: Hi.

PETER PARKER: MJ . . .? How . . . How long have you been listening . . .?

MARY JANE WATSON: Long enough.

PETER PARKER: I . . . I'm sorry, MJ. I didn't mean for you to hear . . .

MARY JANE WATSON: It's all right. I just came up to make sure you were okay.

PETER PARKER: Yeah. I'm okay . . .

MARY JANE WATSON: Will you do me a favor, Peter? Say "Hello" for me and -- tell Gwen I miss her to . . .

[Mary Jane leaves. The tape recorder continues to record, recording only silence for some moments.]

PETER PARKER: That was . . . MJ, Gwen. She says, "Hi" and I . . . And . . . um . . . I should get going.

I guess when I try and sum up how I get -- how I feel sometimes around this time of year [Valentines Day] . . . I feel blue. Not like I've been dipped in with the Tidy Bowl Man, but like in music, in jazz . . . in feeling blue. And I long for a time when a girl I knew with an incredible smile and so much good in her heart made me think . . . life can be great.

[KLIK, as Peter turns off the tape recorder.]

 

[Venom'sDad]

So really, why bother with Gwen?

Simply because, Peter grew up after Gwen's death. The world became different for him; therefore, he became more mature about who he is, who he has become, and the path he chose to follow as a somewhat of a protector of the citizens of NYC. He became a man; more so, then when Uncle Ben died.

Gwen's death changed his life forever.

 

[some guy]

Putting Gwen Stacy in the movie doesn't necessarily have to be predictable. While we know her ultimate fate in the comics, we've had three non-comic versions of Gwen who have remained alive. So there would still be the question of "will they really kill her off this time or won't they?" There was someone here who suggested a sort of alternate scene to throw people off. They could perhaps put a scene in the trailer where it looks as if she's saved, then it turns out differently in the actual film. In fact, in the original story, it did seem at first like Spidey saved her, then it turns out that he didn't.

 

[©KAW]

'No sense'?

How there is no sense in putting a crucial character that is supposed to die in the future? Maybe after Uncle Ben even the most crucial and important character. Not only the one that defined Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but also his greatest nemesis - the Green Goblin. You see, that's where Raimi has failed from the beginning. He just scratch out one of the most important aspects of Spider-Man history and that's how his stories became faint and cheap.

The importance of a character is not judged by his/hers time on screen, but by the way his/hers time is portrayed. It can also be implied in real life... you don't judge people by their years of life, but by the deeds they do while they are alive.

It's like saying -''why even bother with Boromir in 'The Lord of the Rings' when everyone knows that he will die by the end of the first book/film?''; or "why putting Theoden there and develop his character for two films when everyone could google-search that he will met his demise at the Battle of Pellenor Fields."

Raimi did nothing unexpected also... for three films MJ got kidnapped and we all knew she would survive that final battle, by the third film we all knew that again she will get kidnapped in the first place, not to mention that she would survive it. That's why Raimi's characters were empty shells, who only bore the names of the characters we knew from the comics and nothing more. They didn't develop, they didn't made the story of the films, but were only there to fill the time needed between the lame plot about a villain becoming a villain, Peter learning a lesson, but remaining the *****e he always was; and of course kidnapping and saving of MJ as a great climactic finale.

This time I personally am expecting characters which would represent a meaning to the story; which would evolve and develop, and not just themselves, but also help develop other characters, and in doing so creating a rich world that exists for its own... not just an empty shell of a world we got with Raimi's vision. That's why I think Gwen's character is essential, as a beacon and a turning point for the protagonist. So that the whole point of Spider-Man to not be 'just a story that's all about a girl' crap.

Well said.

It's great to see those who have a much broader vision for Spider-Man on the big screen. I don't know what to expect from the new director, but your words are the things that he needs to know.

Just think about it, all that is said here was about to come true, with David Fincher at the helm. He wanted to start the story of Spidey with the night Gwen died. The world would have seen why Spider-Man is such a great character, and the spark would have been a character driven film (more than just a cheap looking CGI fest), that would have set him apart from the thick of mediocrity. And it would have happened before The Dark Knight decided to borrow from greatness.

But alas...Sony chose cheese over substance...such a shame.

 

[sauronthegreat]

Well said.

It's great to see those who have a much broader vision for Spider-Man on the big screen. I don't know what to expect from the new director, but your words are the things that he needs to know.

Just think about it, all that is said here was about to come true, with David Fincher at the helm. He wanted to start the story of Spidey with the night Gwen died. The world would have seen why Spider-Man is such a great character, and the spark would have been a character driven film (more than just a cheap looking CGI fest), that would have set him apart from the thick of mediocrity. And it would have happened before The Dark Knight decided to borrow from greatness.

But alas...Sony chose cheese over substance...such as shame.

And that cheese reached it's highest point with the "NY Loves Spider-Man" parade, while the substance of the story was best served in the "let's make alliance" scene between Venom and Sandman. When I was watching that I felt ashamed for the whole movie making industry and all the money that was spent on that project.

One of the key things that makes me positive and optimistic about the new film is that it will not have that budget for them to think about grandiose things from the beginning. Let's make a good start for a franchise that is to last more than this previous 'twilight zone'. Let's just establish the characters, let's just establish THE Spider-Man (because even after three films we don't know the real JJJ, the real Gwen, not to mention MJ and Peter... and most important we never met Spider-Man!!!)

I can't imagine what David Fincher would have done with the same resources from the start, and I don't want to, because it would only make me sad. But what is done is done, and thank god it ended there where it ended. That trilogy, done by such a fan will exist for it's fans. It will always be there to remind us of it's mistakes and it would be wise if the new team used it and learned from it and never repeat mistakes it made.

 

[©KAW]

When you see Spider-Man being given a parade in his honor, coupled by giving him the key to the city, you know the people behind the films knows very little about the character at heart.

 

[Anwar]

Well, in the movies it sort of made sense. I mean, Spidey is the only superpowered hero out there and saved the city from the Goblin and Doc Ock, plus Jameson wasn't taken seriously by most folk anyways.

This time around they can reference other non-masked heroes for Jameson to say stuff like "What's he got to hide?". Or just ignore the "NYC hates Spidey" thing, as long as they don't go to the opposite side and make him loved by EVERYONE.

Hell, even in the recent SSM cartoon Spidey isn't that badly regarded by NYC and it's made clear that Jameson's reputation isn't that great for continually being wrong about Spidey.

 

[©KAW]

Basically, he gave us Superman, instead of Spider-Man. There was way too much love for Spidey.

 

[david icke]

Yeah, when I saw the stuff about the parade in the trailers etc, I thought they would bring all that down through black suited Spidey doing the evil acts in public, but they missed out on that.
It would have been better for Spidey to have redeemed himself somewhat in the public's eyes through taking down Sandman and Venom, the crowd unsure of Spidey when he showed up at the end battle.
But, y'know what, the way it was, it worked anyway, he's the only superpowered guy in town who could handle that scene, and the crowd were relived he showed up to take of it.
Yeah, we got some more of the mistrusted Spidey in 1 and 2, but for the story of pride that 3 was, it suited this one Spidey story to have him held up by the city like a Superman.
So, for a one off Spider-man tale like that, it was fine, he was held up like that for a reason of story, not just to change everything about for the sake of it.
It's interesting how people here are focusing on that concious deviation from the norm, for the sake of that particular story, and trying to hold it up as the norm for the 3 movies, when it was very clearly shown that Spidey *was* mistrusted by some of the public in the first two movies.

I also find it interesting that folk would prefer Spider-man to be mis-represented as a generally dark character by David Fincher, just because they feel that would be taken more seriously by the public.

 

[©KAW]

I don't know, the particular scenes from SM1 and SM2, where New Yorkers were standing up to TWO of Spider-Man's A-List villains, was cringe worthy. Where's the fear of the villains for one thing, why didn't GG toss a freakin' bomb at those people throwing crap at him, killing most of them? Seriously, someone should give those New Yorkers costumes and they should form their own KICK-ASS type group of idiotic heroes.

Folks wanted David Fincher because he's a better filmmaker, has more solid character driven, well acted and smarter films. Most importantly, he was going to start the franchise out with the night Gwen Stacy died story (not half-ass it like Sammy Boy). It's a story with dark elements that comes directly from the comics, how would he be mis-representing Spider-Man when it comes from the comics? It's not Spidey who kills her, and villains are suppose to have some dark elements to them, unless you prefer your villains spouting nursery rhymes (Green Goblin) or claiming that they're not bad (Sandy)...or even saving the city (Doc Ock).

 

[david icke]

I don't know, the particular scenes from SM1 and SM2, where New Yorkers were standing up to TWO of Spider-Man's A-List villains, was cringe worthy. Where's the fear of the villains for one thing, why didn't GG toss a freakin' bomb at those people throwing crap at him, killing most of them? Seriously, someone should give those New Yorkers costumes and they should form their own KICK-ASS type group of idiotic heroes.

It's good to see the common folk stand up to the villans, despite their fear.
A carriage of kids had their lives at stake, what , you think folk are going to be too scared to at least try and attack the villan when there are a large bunch of them?
The 'New York' line was cheesey but the concept was fine, just as it was in Superman II when a large group of people tried to do something about the 3 villans.
Yeah, that would have been good to see the Goblin throw a bomb up there though, but I fail to see the problem with such a notion of ordinary people standing up for themselves, your argument fails to have much logic for me. Since the people are in a large group they are braver, and they naturally want to try and do something, to stand up for themselves and others in danger.

Folks wanted David Fincher because he's a better filmmaker, has more solid character driven, well acted and smarter films. Most importantly, he was going to start the franchise out with the night Gwen Stacy died story (not half-ass it like Sammy Boy).

'Half ass it'....lol.
They did very well to incorporate decades of stories into a single film. What they did not do well was to adapt kaw's own personal idea of what a spider-man movie should be, I agree with you that they were a little half assed on that concept.
From reading your ideas on what the Spider-man movies should have been, it is becoming more apparent to me that your ideas are unrealistic, picky, inconsistent with your own logic(eg less kiddy... but New Goblin has to wear a moinster mask! Has to be just like the character from the comics... but we should have had David Fincher's dark interpretation, focusing on the darkest episodes of Spidey's life, while also making him darker than the concept was originally in the whole series), and ridiculous(have a black S&M costume for 3, somehow that would be more alien looking).
So, your constant bashing of the Raimi interpretation as being 'wrong', with a 100% negative slant in your every post, is not surprising to me, your arguments always twist the facts to suit your own prejudice and are usually illogical and ill thought out.
just as this latest one is.
But, you did come up with one good idea, an extra pumpkin bomb throw by the goblin, congradulations.

It's a story with dark elements that comes directly from the comics, how would he be mis-representing Spider-Man when it comes from the comics? It's not Spidey who kills her, and villains are suppose to have some dark elements to them, unless you prefer your villains spouting nursery rhymes (Green Goblin) or claiming that they're not bad (Sandy)...or even saving the city (Doc Ock).

Because it is one solitary dark spot amongst many, many, bright and colourful stories. Frickin hell, it's the reason the story is still talked about 30plus years on. There are many SM stories that are just as good, and better, that are not discussed so much, the reason that one is discussed so long after the fact is because of it's exceptional darkness.
Fincher has said that when he discussed/pitched doing the films, he would have had the whole series and character treated in a far darker light than what they are already known for, so it's only logical he should take a story that is 'the exception to the rule', and try to pass that off as just the usual type of thing to happen to Spidey.



and ...Yeah, lol, the Goblin was spouting nursery rhymes all through that movie, omg, did you see that flick?! It was like MrFreeze in B&R, he didn't do anything scary or evil at all!! They had Willem Dafoe in it and all he did was sing nursery rhymes! He was pretty good at it, good enough even perhaps for Sesame St, but no way should the Green Goblin's character be defined by a constant use of nursery rhymes!

Doc Ock... he's supposed to be a villan, and all he did was save the city like a superhero, omg! Maybe they should have called the movie 'Marvel team Up', because him and Spidey were the exacto mundo same people apart from the clothes they were wearing, they both saved the city! Weak!

and no villan in the history of mankind has ever declared themselves misunderstood, innocent or consider themselves a good guy, what an idea! As if!

edit: Ok, I just got back from dimension hopping over to the parallel universe where David Fincher got to do his dark Spidey trilogy. I looked up a site not unlike this one, called 'comicbookheroescommotion', and there was a poster called @WAK bemoaning the fact that the Fincher films were far too grimdark and were essentailly Batman films in all but name, and cape, that these Spider-man movies should have had far more humour and lighthearted moments, like the original comics, and that it would have been far better to have given them over to 2nd choice Sam Raimi, as he was a fan of the books growing up, and had the experience of doing kinetic comicbook action in his movies that would have benefited Spider-man's physics, poses and all round action. This poster seemed to have a real bee in his bonnet about the Fincher movies, so maybe they were completely without merit, and this particular filmaker had nothing to offer the series at all. Hmm...

 

[©KAW]

That's another thing, SM1 and SM2 (a bits of SM3) are too much patterned after Superman 1-3. No more New Yorkers playing heroes, it's cheesy as hell, especially with cheesy dialogue and a cheesy looking Goblin.

No, you totally missed the point, what I liked most about the David Fincher's idea, is that it starts off with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first love interest, they way it was in the comics. Just because you start the series off with a story that has dark elements, doesn't mean part 2 and 3 have to be the same. There can even be light moments within the 'Gwen Stacy' story, as well, her death wouldn't have came until the end of the flick. Although, I would love for someone to give me a darker, complex and scary ass Norman/Green Goblin. No, what I want is QUALITY, when you watch a film like SE7EN, what sticks out is the director knowing how to tell a great story and bring the best out of his actors. There's nothing inconsistent with what I want, I want a great quality Spider-Man film. And I don't think that it's impossible to make, as I didn't think that about Batman after seeing Batman & Robin.

I happen to think the original black suit looks a hell of a lot better and cooler, than just dipping Spidey in black paint and calling it the alien costume (most of the time with no mask). Again, a quality director could have easily made the suit work--as Tim Burton did for Catwoman, The Wachowski Brothers did for Trinity and George Lucas did for Darth Vader. I'm just tired as hell of hearing excuses for Sam Raimi's short-comings as a director.

If you noticed, the Spider-Man films were so children-oriented that they couldn't even do the symbiote story right. Instead of telling a story that's naturally going to have dark elements, what's the one thing that people remember from Spider-Man 3...Peter Parker dancing like a buffoon in a jazz club. The way the Spider-Man films were set up, you couldn't tell a full story without cheesy ass moments that take you right out of the film. Why would a director constantly remove the mask of the hero, when he has a secret identity? This is what ruined the train sequence for me, I'm thinking why did these fools write Spidey bouncing around yet again, with his mask off. Raimi should have directed the Fantastic Four film, they don't wear mask, he would have loved that.

Did you just go Parallel Universe Hopping in another Dimension, seriously, WTF?

 

[david icke]

No, you totally missed the point, what I liked most about the David Fincher's idea, is that it starts off with Gwen Stacy as Peter's first love interest, they way it was in the comics. Just because you start the series off with a story that has dark elements, doesn't mean part 2 and 3 have to be the same. There can even be light moments within the 'Gwen Stacy' story, as well, her death wouldn't have came until the end of the flick. Although, I would love for someone to give me a darker, complex and scary ass Norman/Green Goblin. No, what I want is QUALITY, when you watch a film like SE7EN, what sticks out is the director knowing how to tell a great story and bring the best out of his actors. There's nothing inconsistent with what I want, I want a great quality Spider-Man film. And I don't think that it's impossible to make, as I didn't think that about Batman after seeing Batman & Robin.

No, I think you missed the point, Fincher has said he wanted to do darker films when it came to Spidey, he has actually said this. The whole series would have been like Batman if you made it that 'Seven' way he had in mind.
Are you really trying to say Raimi has not made any quality films? The first two Evil Dead movies are very well known for a reason.

I happen to think the original black suit looks a hell of a lot better and cooler, than just dipping Spidey in black paint and calling it the alien costume (most of the time with no mask). Again, a quality director could have easily made the suit work--as Tim Burton did for Catwoman, The Wachowski Brothers did for Trinity and George Lucas did for Darth Vader. I'm just tired as hell of hearing excuses for Sam Raimi's short-comings as a director.

I said this before, go find me an outfit that could look good onscreen that is like the one in the books, find me that magic alien material. You are very naive when it comes to costume making/comic to film adaptation a lot of the time kaw.
you say that the one in the test photo was the one they should have used, and then when i said it looked boring, you started saying they should have used some kind of 'shiny' material, examples of whoich you cited where really not suitable for that type of outfit.
So what is it? You were happy with that costume they made up for tests, or that you wanted that improved with some magic material that does not exist/you have yet to find to illustrate your point.

If you noticed, the Spider-Man films were so children-oriented that they couldn't even do the symbiote story right. Instead of telling a story that's naturally going to have dark elements, what's the one thing that people remember from Spider-Man 3...Peter Parker dancing like a buffoon in a jazz club. The way the Spider-Man films were set up, you couldn't tell a full story without cheesy ass moments that take you right out of the film. Why would a director constantly remove the mask of the hero, when he has a secret identity? This is what ruined the train sequence for me, I'm thinking why did these fools write Spidey bouncing around yet again, with his mask off. Raimi should have directed the Fantastic Four film, they don't wear mask, he would have loved that.

dude, if the mask being removed during the train scene ruined it for you, you have a somewhat childish and picky nature in regrds to these movies imo.
You have to remember that Spider-man is for kids as well, that is the audience he was created for. Yes, these movies could be done in such a way as to be more serious all the way through, but they had ample amounts of serious drama, all you do is highlight the worst moments and blow them up in your arguments, as if that is all they consist of.
edit: In fact, the movies are just about always full of seriously played drama, you act like they were drawn like the Adam West Batman show, the cheesey scenes were exceptions to the rule, and sometimes they actually worked and were funny.
But, when it comes to someone having the most hailed action sequence of any superhero movie ruined for him because the hero's mask is removed near the end of it, I just have to say to myself that the person is on another planet from myself when it comes to being reasonable about creative decisions, and that their picky nature will always get in the way of them having a good time.

Did you just go Parallel Universe Hopping in another Dimension, seriously, WTF?

Yeah, that guy over there was not satisfied with the Fincher movies, i wonder what things he would have hated about the Raimi movies, I don't think he will be ever be satisfied with any Spider-man movie released in his lifetime, or anyones.

anyway, apart from the Fincher thing, we are way off topic here, and are dancing around the same points we always do, so let's give it a rest. Reply if you want, but we've been here before.

 

[©KAW]

I would have killed to see David Fincher's Spider-Man films, if he actually said that. Although I don't think it's possible to turn Spider-Man into a 'Se7en' like film, there are characters (Aunt May, MJ, Gwen Stacy, Peter Parker, etc.) that are just not the dark type. Although, I would love to see someone put a complex, mature and even dark within his VILLAINS on screen.

What are you taking about, Tim Burton's Catwoman's outfit material is very close to the symbiote costume's look and material. Hell, I loved the material that the Spidey designer came up with for the original costume. Spidey is mostly CGI any way, Sony doesn't even allow stuntmen to stay on screen more than a minute, unfortunately.

I can't help it, Spider-Man's mask should not be off in public, especially when there's absolutely no reason for it. Every scene could have been executed just as well with his mask on. People are not expecting to see emotion on the face of a man who has a complete mask over his face. Hell, they could at least use the half ripped mask, or something. Yes, it took me out of the scene, as it would if Batman was going around without his mask. So did the New Yorkers standing up for Spidey and just how did that little boy get hold of Spider-Man's mask, was he hanging outside of the train waiting for a mask to fly by, lol???

Okay, let's just leave it at, you think Raimi films are of quality and I don't. Perhaps it's his juvenile and overly cheesy style, it's just not for me.

 

[TheSlag]

I also find it interesting that folk would prefer Spider-man to be mis-represented as a generally dark character by David Fincher, just because they feel that would be taken more seriously by the public.

I find it "interesting" that "folk" will not be able to distinguish between dark character and dark/serious storylines.

I also find it "interesting" that a lot of "folk" do not know, or do not care to have the "dark" storylines represented in the storylines.

I do not remember a lot of the comics "catering to the kiddos" like the movies have gone overboard doing. In fact, I found it just the opposite, the comic (storylines) were well written.. mature... serious ... dealing with dark/mature/realistic storylines and characters for the most part.

AND.. I want the movies to do the same.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

The inclusion of humour and that nursery rhyme you people harp on is not 'going overboard.'

 

[©KAW]

I suppose Peter dancing like Jim Carrey in THE MASK isn't going overboard either, eh?

 

[TheSlag]

The inclusion of humour and that nursery rhyme you people harp on is not 'going overboard.'

The "humour" should come from Spider-Man quips, NOT from Raimi's Relatives.

And as for the "nursery ryhmes"... there are BETTER ways to get the dark/demented nature of the Green Goblin or whatever villain across than that approach.

Look and compare GG to the Joker.. Night and Day, and most came from how the character was written/developed.

We (Spider-Man fans) deserve better.

 

[david icke]

I find it "interesting" that "folk" will not be able to distinguish between dark character and dark/serious storylines.

I also find it "interesting" that a lot of "folk" do not know, or do not care to have the "dark" storylines represented in the storylines.

I do not remember a lot of the comics "catering to the kiddos" like the movies have gone overboard doing. In fact, I found it just the opposite, the comic (storylines) were well written.. mature... serious ... dealing with dark/mature/realistic storylines and characters for the most part.

AND.. I want the movies to do the same.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[david icke]

I suppose Peter dancing like Jim Carrey in THE MASK isn't going overboard either, eh?

Yeah, just as overboard as someone making out the entire series consisted of Adam West Batman CHEESE(I know how much you love that word so have capitalised it so you can take a big mousey bite), has one of the best superhero action sequences commited to film 'ruined' for him because his mask is removed at the end of it, lol, and focuses on a inconsequebtial moment with the Green Goblin spouting a nursery rhyme for all of 10secs, as if it represented the entire perfromance.

 

[david icke]

The "humour" should come from Spider-Man quips, NOT from Raimi's Relatives.

And as for the "nursery ryhmes"... there are BETTER ways to get the dark/demented nature of the Green Goblin or whatever villain across than that approach.

Look and compare GG to the Joker.. Night and Day, and most came from how the character was written/developed.

We (Spider-Man fans) deserve better.

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.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

 

[Ajendo]

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.

 

[david icke]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

Ok, I could go for that kind of set up as long as it was not a very grim take throughout the movies like Fincher envisioned. I would leave the death until movie 3 though, just have Spidey give the Goblin one hell of a beating in 2, but the Goblin escapes and the cliffhanger is that the Goblin finds out his secret identity.
edit: So, the audience knows something major is going to happen next movie, not a surprise for cb fans, but GS's death could be for GA.
also, this way we get two 'normal' type Spidey movies established before we go into such dark territory, and we get the same sense of this universe being upturned with an unexpected plotline, as they got in the books, well, hopefully anyway.

Of course this really only leaves it open to one other super-villan in movie 1, if you want to do this story right though, other villans in movies 2 and 3 would be a necesary sacrifice, but worth it to get it done right.

edit: I might even leave the Goblin stuff for movies 3 and 4, with two other supervillans appearing in 1 and 2, to further the relationship between PP, NO and GS beforehand, and to further establish a working Spider-man universe before upsetting the balance with such a story as Gwen's death.

 

[Ajendo]

The first film should focus on Pete trying to win Gwen's affections and all that. Norman is just Harry's dad, no Goblin yet.

Norman becomes the Goblin in the second film. Then at the end of the second film is her death.

Then the third film is all about Spidey vs Green Goblin.

I'd prefer it if we didn't get any Goblins at least for the first 2 movies and I don't even want Norman to have that much of a focal role. There's more to spidey than Goblins. I think Webb should focus on why there's a reboot in the first place and take the movies in a different direction by exploring other areas of spidey's vast mythology. You know, something different.