The Amazing Spider-Man Too Soon!?

[Doc Ock]

Welcome to the Hype.

Oh, its always like this. I'll survive.....I hope......

 

[david icke]

I definitely agree with wanting to see that scene in the reboot, not so sure about it being at the ending, but maybe... hmmm...

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.
Like Superman III, taking a break from Lois Lane and giving us Lana Lang for a movie. I know that came about because Kidder fell out with the producers, but it was good to have a break from that dynamic for a movie.

If she just showed up in person for one scene, I suppose it would be much like Sam Jackson showing up in Iron-Man, with a promise of a bigger role in further movies, and a well known actress would agree to it.

 

[TheSlag]

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.
Like Superman III, taking a break from Lois Lane and giving us Lana Lang for a movie. I know that came about because Kidder fell out with the producers, but it was good to have a break from that dynamic for a movie.

If she just showed up in person for one scene, I suppose it would be much like Sam Jackson showing up in Iron-Man, with a promise of a bigger role in further movies, and a well known actress would agree to it.

I agree, I am just wondering if it's best to wait to introduce MJ at the end of the first movie, or about half way through the first movie.

I like the idea of her and Gwen both being in Peter's life at some point in the first movie. Obviously with Gwen as the main love interest, but with MJ around and starting to show interest in Peter.

Either way I would be happy with. Heck, it just makes me happy to think about them getting it right. I Hope.

 

[Dragon]

It takes away from it BECAUSE All the Villains KNOW his identity. So when ANOTHER finds it out, you say SO WHAT. Same Story, second (HELL 5th) verse in Raimi's case.

So what? Villains also always attack Spider-Man. Commit crimes, threaten lives. That's the pattern of a superhero story. And the circumstances were all different. Osborn guessed Peter's identity. Peter revealed his identity to Ock in order to SAVE LIVES (Since everyone he loved would've been killed by the reactor). Harry unmasked Spidey. Brock saw Peter wrestling himself loose from the symbiote. Peter was simply unmasked in front of Sandman. And each situation resulted in different conclusions.

And I am pointing out that in the comics you have more time to go into things like more in depth character exploraton, becasue you have more of them than movies. (comics one every month or more, movies not)

Again, so what? In Spidey 2 Peter had had a sufficient and believable period of time in which to grow frustrated with his life as Spider-Man and want to quit. What's your point?

See above. I agree about the left behind, as the legacy of being the only villain to kill someone Peter loves is. As far as impacting current (or future), we have both stated that it was WRITTEN THAT WAY so as to usher Gwen out and usher in MJ as seamlessly as possibly. Your repeating yourself again.

You're the one who brought up the Goblin's legacy. I'm pointing out that it isn't much of a legacy if it doesn't alter Peter's life.

A simile that made me smile, at it's stupidity. Yes, I had it the first time Sparky. And I explained why I think it would NOT be the same, and why it WOULD work. You "Got It"?

Obviously you didn't get it, since you're comparing Gwen's death to Ben's which isn't the same thing (No simile there). Ben's death was meant to be a lesson learned and the driving force behind Peter's mission. There's nothing to be learned from Gwen's death. And it hasn't been repeated, so your point is moot.

I NEVER argued that, I said it took away from the impact of that story WHEN EVERY villain finds out his identity.

But again, since every villain didn't learn his identity in the same way, nor did they have the same reaction to learning it, it doesn't take away from the story.
By your logic they shouldn't all throw punches at each other either,

So why didn't Peter distance himself from MJ when Harry knew?

Because at that point MJ had made her decision to stay with him and face the dangers.

Says who that they can only "Do" it once. You? You're the great authority here? And as I have explained, there are big differences between Uncle Ben's death and Gwen Stacy's death which you conviently ignore.

Ummm... I know the differences between Gwen and Ben's death which I stated above. That's why I haven't addressed them. They don't connect.

And yeah. I'm saying it can only be done once, because it HAS only been done once. You have yet to back up your assertion with any fact. Again- point to another death like Gwen's that stuck. Gwen's death was for shock value. There'd be no shock value if it happened coninually, not to mention no supporting cast for the audience to give a damn about.

 

[Dangerous]

I have no problem with supporting cast members helping the hero at the climax but the hero should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!) stop the main threat. it's cliche but its cliche for a reason. a good example would be lois taking taking down the bombs with a romote switch while superman takes down luther, the main threat is the bombs even though luther is the villian who launched them.

look at blade 3 (RUBBISH!) bow and arrow girl takes down dracula which makes blade completely redundant, piss poor directing.

Your references to other films are irrelevant because we are talking about the train scene in BB. NOT any other film.

You think the hero should always be the beginning and end of all when it comes to saving the day in superhero movies and should not be helped by anyone else.

Me, I thought Bats and Gordon working together to stop the train worked great and reminded me of their relationship in TDKR.

 

[Dangerous]

I think it's a good idea as it would mean we would have at least one spider-man movie that did not follow the formula of it being all about Pete and MJ, or having Mj as a major player at all.

Agree.

I'd prefer if MJ was introduced later on in the film and was not the most important gal in Pete's eyes. That should be Betty Brant or gorgeous Gwendoline.

 

[TheSlag]

So what? Villains also always attack Spider-Man. Commit crimes, threaten lives. That's the pattern of a superhero story. And the circumstances were all different. Osborn guessed Peter's identity. Peter revealed his identity to Ock in order to SAVE LIVES (Since everyone he loved would've been killed by the reactor). Harry unmasked Spidey. Brock saw Peter wrestling himself loose from the symbiote. Peter was simply unmasked in front of Sandman. And each situation resulted in different conclusions.

And each villain knowing his identity lessens the value of discovering his identity, and the threat to his loved ones. Raimi's approach of having 5 out of 5 villains know his idenity, for whatever reason is lazy writing and film making. Period.

Again, so what? In Spidey 2 Peter had had a sufficient and believable period of time in which to grow frustrated with his life as Spider-Man and want to quit. What's your point?

I do not understand your point as to how this is involved with a Goblin Legacy of the Goblin killing Gwen, since it did not happen in Raimi's Spider-Man. YOU brought up the point that it WAS NOT a Legacy and WAS NOT significant since Peter DID NOT QUIT being Spidey due to Gwen's death. Which we both know was NOT the intent of the writers. So blame the writers for wanting Gwen out and MJ in if you want. I was simply saying that the two mediums (film vs. comic) allow for more stories, more in depth exploration of subplots and charactes.. simply based on the fact that there are MANY more comic arcs than movies.

You're the one who brought up the Goblin's legacy. I'm pointing out that it isn't much of a legacy if it doesn't alter Peter's life.

A) so you DO admit it is a Legacy t: (Glad you finally saw the light there at least)

B) And AGAIN, we have both agreed that it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spidey, etc. due to it was a device to simply write out Gwen and bring MJ to the front. I think with ALL the stories remembering Gwen and her death, and devices to bring her back proves it's significance.

C) it's your opinion that it isn't much of a legacy, that is your right to your opinion. You seem to be up in arms that I "dare" *gasp* to think it is significant.

Obviously you didn't get it, since you're comparing Gwen's death to Ben's which isn't the same thing (No simile there). Ben's death was meant to be a lesson learned and the driving force behind Peter's mission. There's nothing to be learned from Gwen's death. And it hasn't been repeated, so your point is moot.

Obviously you do not get it. I said Gwen's death is NOT like Uncle Ben's, other than the fact that two people died that he loved. YOU said it would not work MORE THAN ONCE, which I took to imply you're saying in Raimi's verse Uncle Ben died, so they DO NOT need to show Gwen dieing. IF that is NOW not what you are saying, please explain your "it won't work again". I now assume you're going to say it won't work in the movies, since they did it in the comics? SO, if that is the case, ANY good story that worked (or heck, not worked .. not sure with you any more) will NOT work in the movies then?

Like Spidey No More in SM2.. Yeah, that DID NOT work. You're right. NOT!

But again, since every villain didn't learn his identity in the same way, nor did they have the same reaction to learning it, it doesn't take away from the story.
By your logic they shouldn't all throw punches at each other either,

How in the Hell do you make the jump that they should NOT throw punches at each other? If you think each and every villain finding out his identity is a good thing, more power to you, but I believe you ARE in the minority when it comes to that.

Because at that point MJ had made her decision to stay with him and face the dangers.

Your complaint is that the significance of the Goblin killing Gwen Stacy is reduced because Peter did the Cowardly thing by NOT telling Gwen he was Spider-Man. That is the way it was written in the comics arc. If you think it would of been a better story to have him reveal to Gwen his identity, that is your opinion, I do not agree. And I think it would be silly to reveal himself to all his friends/loved ones so they could make the choice to be in his life so he can be Spider-Man. And I do not think it lessens the impact of the Goblin legacy of killing Gwen.

Ummm... I know the differences between Gwen and Ben's death which I stated above. That's why I haven't addressed them. They don't connect.

Already adressed above. I think they do connect, but are definitely differenent and both moving in their own right.

And yeah. I'm saying it can only be done once, because it HAS only been done once. You have yet to back up your assertion with any fact. Again- point to another death like Gwen's that stuck. Gwen's death was for shock value. There'd be no shock value if it happened coninually, not to mention no supporting cast for the audience to give a damn about.

It has NOT happended in Raimi's Spider-Man. Period. It should happen in the Reboot.

 

[The Joker]

batman could (and should) have been the one in the car taking down the train, this would have rendered whatever RAG was doing on the train totally irrelavent. it was a sloppy and frankly anti climatic ending.
seriously remove batman from the climax with RAG doing what he was doing and JG taking down the train, what difference does it make to the ending? none, JG stops the main threat AND RAG. what RAG was doing on the train was irrelavent once they train was blown off the tracks so batman and RAG are a subplot in the climax. RAG he could have opperated the microwave machine remotely such was his irrelavence in the scene.

What the heck are you talking about? Did you miss the part where Batman messed with the controls of the train so it wouldn't stop?

If Batman had been in the car taking out the tracks, Ra's could have simply stopped the train before it crashed.

a villian taking themselves down in the attempt of trying to take down the hero is fine and in many ways poetic.

That's ridiculous. Spider-Man has not actively and definitively defeated one villain for good by sheer heroism in the Spider-Man movies. They've all either killed themselves, surrendered, or turned good.

You find that poetic, but you criticize Jim Gordon aiding Batman in stopping the train in Begins, even though without Batman, Gordon wouldn't have been able to help, and that train would not have been destroyed. It was Batman's plan, Batman's equipment, and Batman who made sure the train was destroyed while keeping Ra's subdued.

You've got a double standard about this, spider-neil. Especially when you call every villain in the three Spidey movies actively defeating themselves poetic. I sincerely hope that in the reboot, we see Spidey take down some of his villains by sheer heroism at the end. No turning good, no killing themselves etc. Lets see Spidey walk away after having beaten a villain who's still alive and in custody.

 

[spider-neil]

What the heck are you talking about? Did you miss the part where Batman messed with the controls of the train so it wouldn't stop?

If Batman had been in the car taking out the tracks, Ra's could have simply stopped the train before it crashed.

the train had to get as close to the wayne hub as possible to cause a chain reaction, RAG stopping the train would have served no purpose.

That's ridiculous. Spider-Man has not actively and definitively defeated one villain for good by sheer heroism in the Spider-Man movies. They've all either killed themselves, surrendered, or turned good.

You find that poetic, but you criticize Jim Gordon aiding Batman in stopping the train in Begins, even though without Batman, Gordon wouldn't have been able to help, and that train would not have been destroyed. It was Batman's plan, Batman's equipment, and Batman who made sure the train was destroyed while keeping Ra's subdued.

batman may set it all up but it was gordan who pulled the trigger. if you like that then fine but I always want the big pay off from the hero after all I am paying to see that hero.

as for spidey' villians killing themselves I see no problem with that whatsoever just like I don't have a problem with villians dying as I want to see a new villian in each movie. people talk about there being a 'sinester 6', I think you couldn't even do 'tyrannical 3' without it being a mess on screen.

You've got a double standard about this, spider-neil. Especially when you call every villain in the three Spidey movies actively defeating themselves poetic. I sincerely hope that in the reboot, we see Spidey take down some of his villains by sheer heroism at the end. No turning good, no killing themselves etc. Lets see Spidey walk away after having beaten a villain who's still alive and in custody.

I have no expectation as to how the villians get taken down in the redboot as I didn't really have a problem with how they got taken down in the original trilogy.
I did have a problem with how RAG was taken down in BB

a) batman didn't take down the main threat
we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, that's how I saw it.

b) batman didn't attempt to save him
'I wont kill you but I don't have to save you'. what the HELL is 'THAT' all about?
some hero.

anyway I've said my piece on BB, this thread has been well and truly hijacked

 

[The Joker]

the train had to get as close to the wayne hub as possible to cause a chain reaction, RAG stopping the train would have served no purpose.

Yeah, you're right. The villain and the microwave emitter surviving would have served no purpose at all.

batman may set it all up but it was gordan who pulled the trigger. if you like that then fine but I always want the big pay off from the hero after all I am paying to see that hero.

Oh you do, do you? Ok, if you want to go down that road, then we're REALLY going to have some fun. Lets start with how Spidey has had his ass saved by someone else in all THREE movies:

Spider-Man 1: The people on the bridge saved his ass from Goblin impaling him while he was holding the tram and MJ. So they deserve the credit for saving those kids, too. Not just Spidey. Wow, who does that sound like? Gordon helping Batman, maybe? t:

Spider-Man 2: Aunt May clobbering Ock with her umbrella saved Spidey from being impaled on Ock's tentacle spike.

Spider-Man 3: Harry saved Peter's ass TWICE in the final battle.

And as we've already discussed, he never even truly defeated his villains at the end either. They brought about their own downfall. Yeah mate, I can really see how love to see the hero excel solo in their own heroics

as for spidey' villians killing themselves I see no problem with that whatsoever just like I don't have a problem with villians dying as I want to see a new villian in each movie. people talk about there being a 'sinester 6', I think you couldn't even do 'tyrannical 3' without it being a mess on screen.

I'm not talking about the villains being killed off. But they can survive and have a new villain in the next movie, you know.

I'm talking about how they bring about their own defeat. Not Spidey.

I have no expectation as to how the villians get taken down in the redboot as I didn't really have a problem with how they got taken down in the original trilogy.
I did have a problem with how RAG was taken down in BB

a) batman didn't take down the main threat
we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, that's how I saw it.

Your logic for that opinion is very flawed, IMO.

b) batman didn't attempt to save him
'I wont kill you but I don't have to save you'. what the HELL is 'THAT' all about?
some hero.

So? He didn't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either.

You can apply that to Spidey, too. Did you see him dive back into the water to try and find Ock? Did you see him make any attempt to save Brock, like web him back or anything?

No. The villains put themselves in these situations.

 

[spider-neil]

Yeah, you're right. The villain and the microwave emitter surviving would have served no purpose at all.

the real question is what RAG was doing on the train in the first place. the train had to hit the wayne tower to cause a chain reaction so RAG was on the train knowing that for his plan to be a success he would have to crash. RAG stopping the train before it hit thereby surviving the crash would have meant the microway e wouldn't have had maximum effect.

Oh you do, do you? Ok, if you want to go down that road, then we're REALLY going to have some fun. Lets start with how Spidey has had his ass saved by someone else in all THREE movies:

Spider-Man 1: The people on the bridge saved his ass from Goblin impaling him while he was holding the tram and MJ. So they deserve the credit for saving those kids, too. Not just Spidey. Wow, who does that sound like? Gordon helping Batman, maybe? t:

Spider-Man 2: Aunt May clobbering Ock with her umbrella saved Spidey from being impaled on Ock's tentacle spike.

Spider-Man 3: Harry saved Peter's ass TWICE in the final battle.

And as we've already discussed, he never even truly defeated his villains at the end either. They brought about their own downfall. Yeah mate, I can really see how love to see the hero excel solo in their own heroics

you seem to be missing my point entirely, I don't have an issue with the hero being saved, I don't have an issue with the hero being helped, I don't have an issue with villians killing themselves in an attempt to kill the hero. what I DO have a problem with is the hero not taking down the main threat (or what I percieve as the main threat)

i.e. STM - superman ISN'T the one to stop the bombs

I'm not talking about the villains being killed off.

I can see why it would piss people off the villian being killed but personally it doesn't bother me. batman and spidey have the biggest rogues gallery in comics (along with flash) so I couldn't care LESS of the villian is killed I want to see more villians.

So? He didn't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either.

You can apply that to Spidey, too. Did you see him dive back into the water to try and find Ock? Did you see him make any attempt to save Brock, like web him back or anything?

No. The villains put themselves in these situations.

the difference is in each case spidey wasn't in a position to save the villian or you can bet he would have.

SM1 - villian kills himself, nothing pete could have done

SM2 - villian kills himself, pete is saving MJ can't be in two places at once

SM3 - spidey pulls brock clear, brock is determined to reunite with venom nothing pete could have done.

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.

 

[weezerspider]

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.

You don't know Batman then. Thats very Batman. Bob Kane would have had a ***** from that scene.

And you really are just showing your biased towards Spiderman over Batman. Jim Gordon blowing the bridge is just like Harry helping Spiderman and Ock helping Spiderman.

You want your hero to defeat the MAIN threat? Spiderman didn't do that in Spiderman 2. Ock did. The main threat was that the city was going to blow up. Ock stopped it from blowing up. Spiderman knocked Ock in his senses to lead him to doing it. Hmm..... Sounds JUST like BB. Jim Gordon SAVES the city, like OCK. LIKE Spiderman gave Ock the sense to save the city, Batman gave Gordon the tools to save the city.

I think Spiderman 2 is better than Batman Begins, but Batman not taking out the bridge is the worst excuse I've ever heard for BB's 3rd act being weak. Personally, I love the fact that Jim Gordon helped him. Nolan once again shows Batman's humanity. He's not superman. He needs hlep. Also Nolan said the underlining theme of BB is Bruce trying to find a father figure, whether its through Ras, Alfred or Gordon. Its very "poetic" if you will, that his father-figure helped him save Gotham.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Batman saving Joker in TDK shows that him letting Ras die is out of character.

Personally, I think the only reason they killed Ras off is because there was no other way to dispose of him. He knew Bruce's identity. You can't just throw him in jail and forget about him.

 

[El Payaso]

I can live with Gordon helping Batman in BB (better than having Robin doing it), but Scarecroiw being defeated by a girl ruined everything for me. And yes, Batman could (and should) have saved Ras but he didn't. Now that could be true to a certain take on the character - hey, I love Batman killing in the Burton's movies - but after all the speeches about him not killing in the very same movie that came off weird to say the least.

 

[The Joker]

the real question is what RAG was doing on the train in the first place. the train had to hit the wayne tower to cause a chain reaction so RAG was on the train knowing that for his plan to be a success he would have to crash.

What in the blue hell are you talking about, man? What on earth makes you think the train had to crash into the building? If it did that, it would be destroyed along with the microwave emitter. It just had to reach Wayne Tower, because that's where the central hub was for the water pressure.

And even if he had to crash into Wayne Tower, he would have stopped the train when he saw the tracks being blasted. But Batman messed with the controls, and he subdued Ra's, too. Batman was just as responsible as Gordon for stopping it. Batman even moreso, because it was his plan and his equipment that allowed Gordon to help.

you seem to be missing my point entirely, I don't have an issue with the hero being saved, I don't have an issue with the hero being helped, I don't have an issue with villians killing themselves in an attempt to kill the hero. what I DO have a problem with is the hero not taking down the main threat (or what I percieve as the main threat)

The villains ARE the main threat.

LOL! No offence, but this arguement is getting ridiculous. The villain was always the main threat in the Spidey movies. And they always ended up defeating themselves, not Spidey. Spidey didn't beat Goblin. Goblin killed himself. Spidey didn't drown the reactor, Ock did. Sandman surrendered. Harry turned good. Venom killed himself.

These were all the main threats, and Spidey is not the one who stopped them. You see why I'm calling BS on this double standard you have here regarding Begins?

I can see why it would piss people off the villian being killed but personally it doesn't bother me. batman and spidey have the biggest rogues gallery in comics (along with flash) so I couldn't care LESS of the villian is killed I want to see more villians.

I don't mind one or two villains getting killed. Harry and Norman had to die, IMO. Nolan let Joker and Scarecrow live, which is great. Shame Heath has passed away though. Magneto, Mystique, Juggernaut etc all survived in the X-Men movies. Even in the old Batman franchise, the villain survival rate was good, as Catwoman, Riddler, Ivy and Freeze all survived.

the difference is in each case spidey wasn't in a position to save the villian or you can bet he would have.

No, the difference in at least two of the cases is that he didn't even try. He could have tried to save Ock after he saved MJ. But he didn't even try. He didn't make any attempt to save Brock. He just shouted "EDDIE".

batman CHOSE to let RAG die. I can understand if you can't admit it me but at least admit it to yourself, that was TOTALLY out of character.

You obviously don't know the Batman character if you think that was out of character. Batman did not break his "one rule". He did not kill Ra's.

Batman saving Joker in TDK shows that him letting Ras die is out of character.

Not at all. Batman threw Joker over the side of the building. He deliberately put his life in jeopardy. So it was his responsibility to save him, otherwise he'd be a murderer if he tossed him over the side and just let him die.

Personally, I think the only reason they killed Ras off is because there was no other way to dispose of him. He knew Bruce's identity. You can't just throw him in jail and forget about him.

Ra's Al Ghul knows Batman's identity in the comics, too. They could easily have had Ra's disappear and return in a future sequel. Not to mention all his members of the Society of Shadows didn't die, and they know Bruce is Batman, too.

They could easily bring Ra's back using the Lazarus Pit angle if they wanted.

 

[weezerspider]

I can live with Gordon helping Batman in BB (better than having Robin doing it), but Scarecroiw being defeated by a girl ruined everything for me. And yes, Batman could (and should) have saved Ras but he didn't. Now that could be true to a certain take on the character - hey, I love Batman killing in the Burton's movies - but after all the speeches about him not killing in the very same movie that came off weird to say the least.

Eh, not really. The character is developing. He becomes Batman and realizes how sick the world really is and, while he doesn't deliberately kill Ras, he lets him die. With Nolan, its all about escalation. In TDK, this escalation for Batman continues. The Joker again shows Batman the world is much sicker than he originally thought. Batman realizes what he has to do to stop Joker and its to break his one rule. Its to kill him. Batman doesn't plan on killing Ras(or letting him die). Its a heat of the moment kinda thing. Not really breaking that rule, but yes, its quite toeing the line. He throws Joker over the edge because he knows how to end the Jokers madness, but the escalation stops. Batman realizes his mistakes. He realizes what he's done wrong. He's realized allowing Ras to die was much to close to breaking his one rule than he ever originally intended to go. He saves Joker. We need to remember this is still a young Batman, and as I recall, in the original comics Batman killed. He developed into a character who did not kill. We've actually seen this transformation in Nolan's films. Could I be looking too much into this? Yes. In fact, I know I am.

 

[El Payaso]

Eh, not really. The character is developing. He becomes Batman and realizes how sick the world really is and, while he doesn't deliberately kill Ras, he lets him die. With Nolan, its all about escalation. In TDK, this escalation for Batman continues. The Joker again shows Batman the world is much sicker than he originally thought. Batman realizes what he has to do to stop Joker and its to break his one rule. Its to kill him. Batman doesn't plan on killing Ras(or letting him die). Its a heat of the moment kinda thing. Not really breaking that rule, but yes, its quite toeing the line. He throws Joker over the edge because he knows how to end the Jokers madness, but the escalation stops. Batman realizes his mistakes. He realizes what he's done wrong. He's realized allowing Ras to die was much to close to breaking his one rule than he ever originally intended to go. He saves Joker. We need to remember this is still a young Batman, and as I recall, in the original comics Batman killed. He developed into a character who did not kill. We've actually seen this transformation in Nolan's films. Could I be looking too much into this? Yes. In fact, I know I am.

Escalation goes like this:

I will NOT kill, I am not an executioner - Ahem, well, I'll let this one guy die even when I can save him - ahem again! I will NOT kill! Seriously. From now on. Well, except if someone's pointing a gun against a child. But that's it!

More than an escalation, it sounds like a pendulum.

 

[weezerspider]

Escalation goes like this:

I will NOT kill, I am not an executioner - Ahem, well, I'll let this one guy die even when I can save him - ahem again! I will NOT kill! Seriously. From now on. Well, except if someone's pointing a gun against a child. But that's it!

More than an escalation, it sounds like a pendulum.

well Joker could be right. Bats could be just as crazy as him.

 

[spider-neil]

The villains ARE the main threat.

the main threat is the thing that will cause most damage in that moment

bomb or luther - bomb
bizarro or luther - bizarro

even though luther is undeniably superman's main/arch nemesis

You obviously don't know the Batman character if you think that was out of character. Batman did not break his "one rule". He did not kill Ra's.

I've read batman for years but never read silver age batman or bob kane batman (where the character carried a gun) but what I HAVE seen is the NOLAN universe and IN the nolan universe joker establishes that batman isn't a killer 'you're going to have to break your one rule (not to kill' not only that the mob boss also establishes batman is no killer, after batman breaks his ankle the killer STILL refuses to spill the beans saying the criminals know he wont break his one rule so they are more scare of joker.

so with all due respect, to HELL with bob kane's batman in NOLAN'S batman universe its establisehd that batman doesn't kill and in that same universe batman CHOSES to let the villian die KNOWING if he doesn't save him he will plunge to his death. if not out and out murder its manslaughter.
in the NOLAN universe it is out of character.

 

[spider-neil]

also

SM2 -
two things

1. peter moved to take down the reactor and doc ock stopped him, spidey WAS going to be the one to take down the main threat. besides which I don't have a problem with a villian finding redemtion destroying their own creation, that would have been like RAG turning off the reactor which for me works better than a supporting creator taking down the main threat.

2. how exactly could spidey have saved doc ock?
peter turns to see MJ about to be crushed, saves her and then swings away with MJ in his arms as the doc dies. where was the oppertunity for spidey to save doc ock?


SM3

spidey makes the venom cage, pulls eddie clear knowing he was going to blow up the venom creature, throws the bomb and eddie and the creature die in the explosin, where was the oppertunity to save eddie. spidey is fast but he isn't THAT fast.

spidey is no way shape or form responsible for any of the villians deaths and he certainly doesn't CHOSE for them to die.

 

[Dragon]

And each villain knowing his identity lessens the value of discovering his identity, and the threat to his loved ones. Raimi's approach of having 5 out of 5 villains know his idenity, for whatever reason is lazy writing and film making. Period.

And yet somehow Spidey 1 & 2 are seen as classics of the genre and the trilogy is one of the highest grossing franchises of all time. Maybe Raimi should give classes on "lazy writing and flim making". ....Oh yeah.. Period.

I do not understand your point as to how this is involved with a Goblin Legacy of the Goblin killing Gwen, since it did not happen in Raimi's Spider-Man. YOU brought up the point that it WAS NOT a Legacy and WAS NOT significant since Peter DID NOT QUIT being Spidey due to Gwen's death. Which we both know was NOT the intent of the writers. So blame the writers for wanting Gwen out and MJ in if you want. I was simply saying that the two mediums (film vs. comic) allow for more stories, more in depth exploration of subplots and charactes.. simply based on the fact that there are MANY more comic arcs than movies.

Okay. "This exchange brought to you by Slag misreading my post". I said I WAS NOT suggesting that Peter should have quit. WAS NOT. NOT. I merely pointed out that he had quit for lesser reasons than Gwen's death. I said the Legacy WASN'T MUCH OF A LEGACY (I didn't say it wasn't a legacy)
because it did little to change Peter's life. YOU brought up the point that this legacy was something that Raimi robbed us of, simply by not showing Gwen being killed. If anything, Raimi, in having Peter refuse to link up with MJ, in dealing with Harry's hatred of Spider-Man and ultimately suffering and dying because of it, in the span of three films dealt with the Goblin legacy even more than the comics did.

A) so you DO admit it is a Legacy t: (Glad you finally saw the light there at least)

Another misread Slag. I've been calling it a legacy all along.

B) And AGAIN, we have both agreed that it was written that way, where Peter did not quit being Spidey, etc. due to it was a device to simply write out Gwen and bring MJ to the front. I think with ALL the stories remembering Gwen and her death, and devices to bring her back proves it's significance.

No, those devices just reflect that alot of people like Gwen and think her death was Conway being a dumbass.

C) it's your opinion that it isn't much of a legacy, that is your right to your opinion. You seem to be up in arms that I "dare" *gasp* to think it is significant.

No. I'm up-in-arms in that you're making it like Raimi made a bad series of films because he didn't give us one where Peter is really sad about Gwen's death. Because the films feature pretty much every other aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Obviously you do not get it. I said Gwen's death is NOT like Uncle Ben's, other than the fact that two people died that he loved. YOU said it would not work MORE THAN ONCE, which I took to imply you're saying in Raimi's verse Uncle Ben died, so they DO NOT need to show Gwen dieing. IF that is NOW not what you are saying, please explain your "it won't work again". I now assume you're going to say it won't work in the movies, since they did it in the comics? SO, if that is the case, ANY good story that worked (or heck, not worked .. not sure with you any more) will NOT work in the movies then?

Like Spidey No More in SM2.. Yeah, that DID NOT work. You're right. NOT!

No.. Obviously.. ONCE AGAIN... You misread what I was saying. I wasn't comparing Gwen's death to Ben's in my initial post on the subject. And I wasn't even talking about the films. I was talking about the comics. I said that THOMAS and CONWAY (Comic book producers) via Gwen's death were trying to spark sales by creating an atmosphere where "anything can happen". I said further that this was a false premise, since it could only be done once. This had nothing to do with Ben's death.

Again- I'm saying- that Gwen's death was merely a gimmick. And not necessary in the films since they had no true life-altering impact on Peter. All we'd get on film is again- a few scenes of Peter being really sad (As if we need more) and kicking the Goblin's ass, and the Goblin killing himself (Which we got anyway).

How in the Hell do you make the jump that they should NOT throw punches at each other? If you think each and every villain finding out his identity is a good thing, more power to you, but I believe you ARE in the minority when it comes to that.

Based on how popular these films have been, no, I'd have to say you're in the minority. While, no, I don't think the villain needs to learn Peter's ID, nor should they always have a connection to him, the Spidey films have nonetheless been enjoyable movies, even with some sparks of greatness.

Your complaint is that the significance of the Goblin killing Gwen Stacy is reduced because Peter did the Cowardly thing by NOT telling Gwen he was Spider-Man. That is the way it was written in the comics arc. If you think it would of been a better story to have him reveal to Gwen his identity, that is your opinion, I do not agree.

No. That isn't my complaint. I said that people in analysing Peter's guilt in Gwen's death make the mistake of focusing on her neck breaking due to a webline that Peter fired, rather than looking at his true mistake, which was not revealing his secret to her and letting her know that she would be in constant danger by sharing her life with him. i say it was cowardice on Peter's part because, honestly, he had no good reason for not telling her.

And I think it would be silly to reveal himself to all his friends/loved ones so they could make the choice to be in his life so he can be Spider-Man.

So do I. I never suggested this, you did. Again, Peter's freinds have only rarely suffered for Peter's life as Spider-Man. If anything, Peter has suffered more for their problems than vice-versa. But, as Gwen's death shows, a woman in a love relationship with Spider-Man is a definite target of his enemies.

And I do not think it lessens the impact of the Goblin legacy of killing Gwen.

I never said Peter not revealing himself lessened the impact of her death.

It has NOT happended in Raimi's Spider-Man. Period. It should happen in the Reboot.

It didn't need to happen in the Raimi films, which stand-up pretty well without it. And looking at the direction the reboot seems to be going in: "Ultimate Spidey in the Twilght of The Dark Knight" I could give a rat's patootie what they do.

 

[Dangerous]

And looking at the direction the reboot seems to be going in: "Ultimate Spidey in the Twilght of The Dark Knight" I could give a rat's patootie what they do.

That's all just speculation right now, you can't tell me you aren't just a little excited at seeing brand spanking new Spidey on the big screen?

 

[Dragon]

That's all just speculation right now, you can't tell me you aren't just a little excited at seeing brand spanking new Spidey on the big screen?

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems. The fact that they're doing it on the cheap causes new concerns. The fact that they're placing him back in high school, suggests they're appealing to the Twilight crowd. The fact that Ziskin and Arad are still on the films, and IMO they were a much bigger part of the trilogy's problems than Raimi, gives me the shakes. And finally, hiring a director that has a track record dealing with angst stories and not with dealing with action-adventure seals the deal.

I have yet to hear something good about the reboot.

 

[Dragon]

Oh and let's not forget that Sony, the ones who wanted to give us "The Vultress", are running this asylum.

 

[Eggyman]

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems. The fact that they're doing it on the cheap causes new concerns. The fact that they're placing him back in high school, suggests they're appealing to the Twilight crowd. The fact that Ziskin and Arad are still on the films, and IMO they were a much bigger part of the trilogy's problems than Raimi, gives me the shakes. And finally, hiring a director that has a track record dealing with angst stories and not with dealing with action-adventure seals the deal.

I have yet to hear something good about the reboot.

Spider-Man will be in it