The Amazing Spider-Man Too Soon!?

[Dragon]

Spider-Man will be in it

Knowing these folks, I'm not convinced of that yet either

 

[The Joker]

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

And that's the villain. It's easy to turn off a bomb or the reactor. The obstacle is the villain in the way stopping the hero from doing that.

It's why it was too late for Spidey to simply unplug the reactor. Ock delayed him for too long fighting him.

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.

Exactly. And he didn't break his one rule, because he did not kill Ra's. I don't know why you fail to see something so obvious.

Should Spider-Man be blamed for Norman's death because he didn't jump out of the way of the glider and let it hit him? Or should he be blamed for Eddie's death because he threw the pumpkin bomb? No. The villains put themselves in these situations. Just like Ra's did.

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.

No, he wasn't. The main threat was the multi armed bad guy not letting him unplug the reactor, as was shown when Ock's combatting Spidey caused it to be too late to unplug the reactor.

It was only when Ock was subdued did Spidey get a chance to try and stop it.

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.

Yeah, I got that. You keep going on about how you love to see the hero stop the main threat, but then you say you like seeing the villain be the cause of their own defeat.

Like I said, you have a double standard.

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?

He dives into the water to see if Ock was still alive after he gets MJ out of harm's way. But he didn't even try. He didn't even fish his body out of the water.

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.

Of course Spidey is that fast. He's fast enough to react to a car being thrown at him, he's fast enough to out maneuver bullets etc.

Don't even try and sell the idea that he wouldn't have been fast enough to pull Eddie out of there. Eddie being a normal guy with normal speed, too.

 

[spider-neil]

And that's the villain. It's easy to turn off a bomb or the reactor. The obstacle is the villain in the way stopping the hero from doing that.

how on earth do you work out a villian is more of a threat than a bomb? so using your logic after superman takes off his kryptonite necklace he should have taken down luther THEN gone after the two missiles? WHAT?!

Exactly. And he didn't break his one rule, because he did not kill Ra's. I don't know why you fail to see something so obvious.

the difference is in that MOMENT batman choses to let RAG die. we are not talking about spidey in self defense back flipping out of the way of a glider, we are talking about a 'hero' weighing up the options and CHOSING not to save the villian, he could have EASILY have grabbed RAG and taken him to safety, he chose not to, the oppertunity was there and he passed, again, some hero.

Should Spider-Man be blamed for Norman's death because he didn't jump out of the way of the glider and let it hit him? Or should he be blamed for Eddie's death because he threw the pumpkin bomb? No. The villains put themselves in these situations. Just like Ra's did.

again, that's not a choice that's self defense and instinct.

No, he wasn't. The main threat was the multi armed bad guy not letting him unplug the reactor, as was shown when Ock's combatting Spidey caused it to be too late to unplug the reactor.

It was only when Ock was subdued did Spidey get a chance to try and stop it.

the main threat was doc ock the second the reactor was out of control the reactor become the main threat because the reactor if allowed to continue would have destroyed the city.

Yeah, I got that. You keep going on about how you love to see the hero stop the main threat, but then you say you like seeing the villain be the cause of their own defeat.

Like I said, you have a double standard.

how is that double standands? I like the theme of remdemption I also want the hero to take down the main threat. the two are mutually exclusive.

He dives into the water to see if Ock was still alive after he gets MJ out of harm's way. But he didn't even try. He didn't even fish his body out of the water.

he knew he was dead. after all he isn't a literal octopus.

Of course Spidey is that fast. He's fast enough to react to a car being thrown at him, he's fast enough to out maneuver bullets etc.

Don't even try and sell the idea that he wouldn't have been fast enough to pull Eddie out of there. Eddie being a normal guy with normal speed, too.

have you seen the clip more than once? the bomb going off and eddie diving on the bomb is virtually instantaneous

 

[weezerspider]

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.

1. So the Villain, the bad guy, the guy we are suppose to hate, can destroy the main threat over the hero and its ok, but the only good cop in Gotham, who Batman has the upmost respect for, can't help Batman take down the bridge?

2. He could have atleast jumped in the water after the guy and try and save him. You know, atleast bring up his dead body. He did that for Norman. Why not Ock?

3. SO the hero with superhuman agility isn't as fast as normal man Eddie Brock? Spidey's super reflexes should have grabbed Eddie before he even had a chance to truly get away from him. Just another plot hole in a movie that has about as much holes as swiss cheese.

 

[Dangerous]

I aprreciate your concerns, and I also I wish Ziskin and Arad would drop out of the SM movies now- their input is good for nothing, but-

The fact that they're basing it on Ultimate, which I can't stand already gives me problems.

IS THAT A FACT?

Can you provide a link to this as official confirmation from Sony or Marvel?

I also hate USM, but as far as I am aware, one gossip website said that it being used as a basis for SM2012 was a rumor going around, that's all.

What I mostly want to see is PP/SM's personality's portrayed and realized correctly this time with an actor who is up to the task and plays it nothing like Maguire.

Aside from that I want plenty of action, mech webshooters and more faithful costumes. What I don't want is for it to play out like an extended episode of Smallville with way more soap opera than superheroing.

 

[TheSlag]

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.

One aspect does not diminish the entire movie, especially when other aspects of the movies were outstanding (Train fight scene in SM2, etc.). If we use your "analogy" here, then I guess I could point out that SM3 was NOT, and look, it had villains finding out Spider-Man's identity too.

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.

Okay.. "This exchange brought to by Dragon bringing up the same point again" that we have already agreed on. It did not have the impact that you define as significant (Spidey quiting, etc.) BECAUSE it was simply a written device to usher out Gwen and usher in MJ.

And IF it (Gwen's death) had little significance, as you say, why are there so many stories revolving around her character? Why is the Arc held in such high regard by the fans?

I know you're gonign to say it was a mistake with them writing out Gwen (which I agree), but regardless, mistake or not, Spidey quiting or not (due to the writing and intent of the story), IT IS held in high significance by the fans, as any google seach or common sense would tell you.

And I never said Raimi did not show us any aspects of the Goblin Legacy, (i.e. Harry dieing, Harry following in his father's footsteps, etc.), I simply said we did NOT get the Goblin Legacy of him killing the only girl Peter loved.

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

Perhaps I did misread here, although I do recall you defining a "legacy" as covering more than 2 arcs or somesuch. Too lazy to go back and quote it, and really do not care at this point. Guess your definition of 2 arcs was of a "Significant Legacy" then eh?

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

Wait, so IF Peter had been written as quiting being Spider-Man, that would of reflected a "significant" legacy to you. But when stories are written where Peter is impacted by the memory of Gwen and her death is NOT? OK Gotcha down.

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.

Quite an assumption there Sparky. Point out where I have EVER said the films (even SM3) was bad. Go ahead.

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).

Well, your point was in cannot happen twice, but again it has NOT happened in the movies. And if you want more of the damsel in distress (MJ) where Spidey always saves the day, more power to you. Me, I want more realism, hard grittier drama. That would include seeing on the screen the night Gwen Stacy died.

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.

I doubt that, I think as shown by the threads and posts, most have a problem with all the villains to date knowing who Spider-Man is. And have a problem in general with all the mask being taken off so much.

And again, I have never said I did not like the movies. One aspect (villains knowing his idenity) does not Mean the movie will not be successful. This is Spider-Man after all.

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.

Take that up with the writers, obviously I disagree. I think it would be a stupid storyline IF he revealed himself to ALL his loved ones and friends to allow them to choose. Because once a villain discovers his secret, presumably ALL his friends and loved ones could become targets.

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.

This is simply the way it was written. Logically, any friend or loved one of his could logically be the target of the next villain that discovers his secret.

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

OK. Glad were in agreement here then.

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.

All your opinion. My opinion is it should have happened in Raimi's Spider-Man. And as far as you giving a Rat's Patootie about the reboot, seems like your making quite a big assumption there, and as a Spider-Man fan I would of "figured" you WOULD care.

But to each their own.

 

[©KAW]

Neo and Morpheus is fighting...

 

[spider-neil]

1. So the Villain, the bad guy, the guy we are suppose to hate, can destroy the main threat over the hero and its ok, but the only good cop in Gotham, who Batman has the upmost respect for, can't help Batman take down the bridge?

the director/writer can do whatever he wants I'm saying the hero taking down the main threat is going to have more impact than a supporting character taking down the main threat.

impact on the audience on an engaging and interesting level.
1. hero taking down the main threat
2. villian taking down the main threat
3. supporting character taking down the main threat
-
-
17. tramp on the street taking down the main threat
18. stray dog taking down the main threat

and so on

2. He could have atleast jumped in the water after the guy and try and save him. You know, atleast bring up his dead body. He did that for Norman. Why not Ock?

he was dead why bother? besides it leaves it nice and ambiguous if they want to bring back the character.

3. SO the hero with superhuman agility isn't as fast as normal man Eddie Brock? Spidey's super reflexes should have grabbed Eddie before he even had a chance to truly get away from him. Just another plot hole in a movie that has about as much holes as swiss cheese.

eddie was on top of the explosion before spidey even knew what was happening

 

[Dragon]

I aprreciate your concerns, and I also I wish Ziskin and Arad would drop out of the SM movies now- their input is good for nothing, but-



IS THAT A FACT?

Can you provide a link to this as official confirmation from Sony or Marvel?

I also hate USM, but as far as I am aware, one gossip website said that it being used as a basis for SM2012 was a rumor going around, that's all.

What I mostly want to see is PP/SM's personality's portrayed and realized correctly this time with an actor who is up to the task and plays it nothing like Maguire.

Aside from that I want plenty of action, mech webshooters and more faithful costumes. What I don't want is for it to play out like an extended episode of Smallville with way more soap opera than superheroing.

Hype posted this story a few weeks back:


More Spider-Man Reboot Details?
Source:Risky Business January 20, 2010


Yesterday, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios confirmed that (500) Days of Summer helmer Marc Webb is going to direct the Spider-Man reboot. In reporting on the news, the Risky Business blog has some possible more details on the project:

Webb, who has options on two sequels, will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.

The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.

So based on this, we'll be getting even LESS action and villainy. Just alot of High School angst BS ala Twilight. Now, it isn't confirmed, but then neither was the Vultress thing.

I hope to God it's wrong.

 

[spider-neil]

Hype posted this story a few weeks back:


More Spider-Man Reboot Details?
Source:Risky Business January 20, 2010


Yesterday, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios confirmed that (500) Days of Summer helmer Marc Webb is going to direct the Spider-Man reboot. In reporting on the news, the Risky Business blog has some possible more details on the project:

Webb, who has options on two sequels, will now tackle a Jamie Vanderbilt script that sees a “Spider-Man” movie that will look and feel very different from the big movies that went before it.

The plan for the movie is to be in the $80 million range and feature a cast of relative unknowns (so you can quash those Rob Pattinson or Gordon-Levitt rumors at this point). And the story will be pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it.

The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.

So based on this, we'll be getting even LESS action and villainy. Just alot of High School angst BS ala Twilight. Now, it isn't confirmed, but then neither was the Vultress thing.

I hope to God it's wrong.

you can just see the double standands on this board

rumour - less money for the movie therefore less action more high school angst etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously BS'

rumour - spider-baby, vultress, vulture in charge of the bugle etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously true'

 

[©KAW]

Don't worry, I'm expecting a script leak from Jamie Vanderbilt's script any day now.

 

[The Joker]

how on earth do you work out a villian is more of a threat than a bomb?

The villain plants and sets the bomb, and the villain prevents the hero from stopping the bomb. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

No offence, but are you being serious here, or just trying to save face in this farcial argument you've created?

the difference is in that MOMENT batman choses to let RAG die.

No, he chooses not to save him. His blood is not on Batman's hands. That's the glaring difference.

again, that's not a choice that's self defense and instinct.

No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. Spider-Man could have spared Ock's life and drowned the reactor himself. Ock and MJ could have gotten out. He could have dived back into the water to see if Ock survived, or at the very least dragged his body out.

But he didn't.

the main threat was doc ock

Right. And as you said above, Spidey went for the reactor first, not Ock. See, you're contradicting yourself again, and just proving my point about your double standard.

how is that double standands? I like the theme of remdemption I also want the hero to take down the main threat. the two are mutually exclusive.

You're having me on here, aren't you? How in the name of god is the villain having a redemption and the hero defeating them the same thing?

Spider-Man never definitively beat any of his enemies out of sheer heroism. They either killed themselves, or turned good. There is nothing, repeat nothing mutually exclusive about the villain killing themselves or surrendering by choice, and the hero beating them against their own will.

Don't tell me you can't see that.

he knew he was dead. after all he isn't a literal octopus.

Riiiiiight, because people who go into the water never survive, or can be resuscitated

have you seen the clip more than once? the bomb going off and eddie diving on the bomb is virtually instantaneous

Wrong. Eddie took a dive into the symbiote, and then the explosion happened.

 

[weezerspider]

the director/writer can do whatever he wants I'm saying the hero taking down the main threat is going to have more impact than a supporting character taking down the main threat.

impact on the audience on an engaging and interesting level.
1. hero taking down the main threat
2. villian taking down the main threat
3. supporting character taking down the main threat
-
-
17. tramp on the street taking down the main threat
18. stray dog taking down the main threat

and so on


he was dead why bother? besides it leaves it nice and ambiguous if they want to bring back the character.



eddie was on top of the explosion before spidey even knew what was happening

1. I would agree with this statement in most cases, but not BB because Gordon isn't a secondary character who just happens to save the day. Batman figures out the master plan. Batman tells Gordon the master plan. Batman tells Gordon how to stop it. Batman gives Gordon the Batmobile to stop it. Batman gets just as much credit, if more, than Gordon. One could also argue that Batman was getting Ras and Ras's forces attention. Without Batman on the train, perhaps Ras could "know his surrondings" and stop Gordon.

2. So, if their dead, theres no reason to recover the body? I guess its not important to try and retrieve soldiers bodies for their loved ones. Again, Spiderman did this in sm1 with Norman. He should have tried and saved Ock and when he found out he was dead, he could still retrieve the body for a proper burial ex.

3. Can't argue here. I haven't seen that scene in a year or two.

 

[spider-neil]

The villain plants and sets the bomb, and the villain prevents the hero from stopping the bomb. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

No offence, but are you being serious here, or just trying to save face in this farcial argument you've created?

I see you skipped over my superman 1 example. no worries.
okay, RAG is on the train with the mircowave emitter. batman is bored and tired and buggers off to the batcave for some r'n'r, jim gordan takes down the train with RAG on it. the threat of RAG and the train neutralized.

maybe I need to watch BB again but I definately didn't get the impression the mircowave emitter could start a chain reaction from a distance (from the central hub of wayne tower).
we're going round in circles here so I'm going to have to agree to disagree. you think RAG was the main threat, I don't let's leave it at that.

No, he chooses not to save him. His blood is not on Batman's hands. That's the glaring difference.

now were entering the realm of semantics. the bottom is line there was someone who was alive and by batman's direct actions or inaction whatever way you want to look at it that someone is dead.

you could argue the same thing for spidey, his action or inaction caused his uncle to die but;

a) peter didn't KNOW his inaction would get someone killed, batman did.

b) the guilt practically destroyed peter, batman seems just fine.

if you're okay with that, fine, I'm not. again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. Spider-Man could have spared Ock's life and drowned the reactor himself. Ock and MJ could have gotten out. He could have dived back into the water to see if Ock survived, or at the very least dragged his body out.

But he didn't.

again, peter actually moves to stop the reactor but doc ock stops him saying he doesn't want to die a monster. peter defers to the doctor whose need for remdemption was obviously greater than peter need to stop the machine himself.

Right. And as you said above, Spidey went for the reactor first, not Ock. See, you're contradicting yourself again, and just proving my point about your double standard.

I don't see how I'm contridicting myself

BB - bats and RAG are on a train that is going to crash, batman tells RAG he wont kill you but I don't have to save you (knowing full well the crash WILL kill him) and flies off.

SM2 - peter asks the doc how to stop the reactor, the doctor says you have to drown it, peter moves to drown the machine, the doctor says he will do it. totally the doctors OWN choice for self destruction. peter doesn't CHOSE the docs self destruction.

I have no idea why you see the two incidents as the same. put it another way if it were spidey on that train would he CHOOSE to let RAG fall to his death. I think we both know the answer to that one.
again, let's agree to disagree.

You're having me on here, aren't you? How in the name of god is the villain having a redemption and the hero defeating them the same thing?

I never said it was the same thing I said it was more engaging than a supporting hero doing it.

Spider-Man never definitively beat any of his enemies out of sheer heroism. They either killed themselves, or turned good. There is nothing, repeat nothing mutually exclusive about the villain killing themselves or surrendering by choice, and the hero beating them against their own will.

peter's sheer heroism came in 2 came from giving up his personal life to take up the heavy mantle of spider-man, doc ock finding remdemption was just the icing on the cake. very uplifting and satisfying ending, for me at least.

SM1 was a lot more bleak, gobin kills himself, peter gives up mj, not as satisfying an ending for me but still better than a supporting character taking down the main threat.

Riiiiiight, because people who go into the water never survive, or can be resuscitated

to be honest, spidey could have gone back into the water to search for the doc but that still doesn't mean he chose for doc ock to die, and he certainly didn't have time that batman had save a life.

Wrong. Eddie took a dive into the symbiote, and then the explosion happened.

to be honest I don't remmber that scene at the well I seem to remember the bomb and eddie's dive happening very quickly but even then it is a clear moment for spidey to catch his breath, have dialogue and then bugger off leaving eddie to fall to his death.

we are seriously going round and round in circles, I didn't like the way BB ended, that's that. it is after all my opinion, I apprechate that you did and that's what makes the world a wonderful place.

 

[Dangerous]

you can just see the double standands on this board

rumour - less money for the movie therefore less action more high school angst etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously BS'

rumour - spider-baby, vultress, vulture in charge of the bugle etc
SHH - 'oh, its obviously true'

I never said that and neither did Dragon so I don't know how you are coming up with that.
I couldn't give a rats about the Vultress, I'm just glad Raimi SM is over.

But while we're talking about a movie that is two years away and virtually nothing has been confirmed other than it's ETA and tone, I am going to question the validity of it's 'direction' if one guy says it's going to be USM the movie.

Personally, like Dragon, I hope to hell it don't turn out that way.

 

[The Joker]

we are seriously going round and round in circles, I didn't like the way BB ended, that's that. it is after all my opinion, I apprechate that you did and that's what makes the world a wonderful place.

Fair enough. I was going to say lets call it a day on this, too, as we're both starting to repeat ourselves, and that's a sure sign that the debate is going nowhere.

Peace out, spider-neil. And Spider-Man 2 is for my money the second best superhero movie ever, right after The Dark Knight.

 

[spider-neil]

Fair enough. I was going to say lets call it a day on this, too, as we're both starting to repeat ourselves, and that's a sure sign that the debate is going nowhere.

Peace out, spider-neil. And Spider-Man is for my money the second best superhero movie ever, right after The Dark Knight.

TDK is my favorite superhero movie ever with SM2 number 2. even though I didn't like the ending of BB its still in my top ten and miles better than the TB 80's batman. peace out to you too

 

[The Joker]

Whoops, I meant to say Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight, then Spider-Man 2. They're my top two superhero movies.

 

[spider-neil]

Whoops, I meant to say Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight, then Spider-Man 2. They're my top two superhero movies.

I knew what you meant

 

[Dragon]

One aspect does not diminish the entire movie, especially when other aspects of the movies were outstanding (Train fight scene in SM2, etc.). If we use your "analogy" here, then I guess I could point out that SM3 was NOT, and look, it had villains finding out Spider-Man's identity too.

So only one aspect of the films reflect laziness? Then I'd say Raimi has done pretty well for himself.

Okay.. "This exchange brought to by Dragon bringing up the same point again" that we have already agreed on. It did not have the impact that you define as significant (Spidey quiting, etc.) BECAUSE it was simply a written device to usher out Gwen and usher in MJ.

Pretty much. Everything is in the writing. Spider-Man is a great character because of the writing.

And IF it (Gwen's death) had little significance, as you say, why are there so many stories revolving around her character? Why is the Arc held in such high regard by the fans?

Because GWEN is significant. Gwen was a great character. Only her death was handled poorly (Great for Spidey, great for the Goblin, poorly for Gwen). Gwen was badass. And like the Goblin, she was missed.

I know you're gonign to say it was a mistake with them writing out Gwen (which I agree), but regardless, mistake or not, Spidey quiting or not (due to the writing and intent of the story), IT IS held in high significance by the fans, as any google seach or common sense would tell you.

Again, because of the significance of Gwen's character. And as I've said, the story- that is, the handling of Peter's character, was great.

And I never said Raimi did not show us any aspects of the Goblin Legacy, (i.e. Harry dieing, Harry following in his father's footsteps, etc.), I simply said we did NOT get the Goblin Legacy of him killing the only girl Peter loved.

Okay. So you really just need to see Spidey holding Gwen's body atop the Brooklyn Bridge? Well, as you say, more power to ya. I think the most important aspects of the story have been shown. That GweMJ didn't actually stop breathing isn't such a big deal (Well, maybe it is, considering what an annoying character she became).

Perhaps I did misread here, although I do recall you defining a "legacy" as covering more than 2 arcs or somesuch. Too lazy to go back and quote it, and really do not care at this point. Guess your definition of 2 arcs was of a "Significant Legacy" then eh?

Again- I've been saying it isn't MUCH of a legacy. It isn't about one arc or two or ten. It's about what Peter carried away from it. Realistically, I don't think he'd jump from Gwen dying due to his life as Spider-Man to dating MJ and placing her in the same place (And again not revealing his secret to her so she knew what she was getting into). I think he'd have taken a harder edge with villains- or at least those who are indeed killers (Meaning he'd pummel the likes of Carnage and Venom). And when Norman was brought back (Which shouldn't have happened at all) Peter's all-consuming obsession should have been gaining justice for Gwen. But none of that happneed. Thus the meaning of Gwen's death was nill.

Wait, so IF Peter had been written as quiting being Spider-Man, that would of reflected a "significant" legacy to you. But when stories are written where Peter is impacted by the memory of Gwen and her death is NOT? OK Gotcha down.

Again with the quitting, Slag? How many times do I have to say that I DIDN'T Want him to quit. I put that out there as an OPTION for the writers. He could've started sobbing everytime he saw a girl wearing a hair cllip. Just something to show that Gwen's death made a difference in his life.

And his memories of Gwen are really limited to either Goblin stories or stories where he thinks about his love life. Or the instances when a writer likes Gwen enough to do a special like Spider-Man: Blue.

Quite an assumption there Sparky. Point out where I have EVER said the films (even SM3) was bad. Go ahead.

So all of this is how you show you like something?

Well, your point was in cannot happen twice, but again it has NOT happened in the movies. And if you want more of the damsel in distress (MJ) where Spidey always saves the day, more power to you. Me, I want more realism, hard grittier drama. That would include seeing on the screen the night Gwen Stacy died.

If you want hard, gritty realism a movie about a guy who climbs walls isn't the place to find it. And Gwen's death wasn't about realism. Realistically Spidey should have been able to save her. Conway wanted her dead and he moved the cosmos to make sure that happened.

I doubt that, I think as shown by the threads and posts, most have a problem with all the villains to date knowing who Spider-Man is. And have a problem in general with all the mask being taken off so much.

You don't really think the denizens of this site, let alone the albeit vocal Raimi Hate Squad reflect a majority do you? I'm talking about the millions worldwide that have loved and supported these films and don't give a hoot what we're discussing here.

And again, I have never said I did not like the movies. One aspect (villains knowing his idenity) does not Mean the movie will not be successful. This is Spider-Man after all.

Geez, one aspect? I even dislike more than one aspect of these films.

Take that up with the writers, obviously I disagree. I think it would be a stupid storyline IF he revealed himself to ALL his loved ones and friends to allow them to choose. Because once a villain discovers his secret, presumably ALL his friends and loved ones could become targets.

Okay- are you simply viewing my posts via SLAG-VISION? Because I keep saying that I don't think he should reveal his secret to all of his family and friends. I said GWEN- JUST GWEN. She would face constant danger by walking on his arm- sleeping in his bed- having his child.

This is simply the way it was written. Logically, any friend or loved one of his could logically be the target of the next villain that discovers his secret.

So can any person on the street. Spidey would fight just as hard to save them. But a woman sharing his life is a much bigger and more likely target.

OK. Glad were in agreement here then.

Shall we break into "We are the world"?

All your opinion. My opinion is it should have happened in Raimi's Spider-Man. And as far as you giving a Rat's Patootie about the reboot, seems like your making quite a big assumption there, and as a Spider-Man fan I would of "figured" you WOULD care.

But to each their own.

I've had to learn to let go of alot of Spidey because those handling it didn't know what they were doing. The comics died for me a long time ago. I haven't liked any of the animated stuff since I was a little kid watching the '67 cartoons. And now I'm not happy with anything I've heard about the reboot. Of course if it does turn out to look good, then happy days. But I'm not counting on it. And you guys who are assuming that a reboot means all your Spidey fan-boy fantasies will now be real are setting yourselves up for a fall, I think.

 

[TheSlag]

So only one aspect of the films reflect laziness? Then I'd say Raimi has done pretty well for himself.

One aspect was what this discussion was about. You know, ALL the villains knowing his identity.

While I think there were other aspects that were done poorly, I also think Raimi did a good job overall, and have never said otherwise.

Pretty much. Everything is in the writing. Spider-Man is a great character because of the writing.

Yes, but it (writing) was simply explaining "why" the death of Gwen did NOT have the impact to make it significant according to you.

Because GWEN is significant. Gwen was a great character. Only her death was handled poorly (Great for Spidey, great for the Goblin, poorly for Gwen). Gwen was badass. And like the Goblin, she was missed.

Not sure I would call Gwen "badass", but I too loved the character of Gwen. And I think the device that the story was written for (ushering out Gwen and ushering in MJ) was a mistake, and because it was only a device was poorly written, I do think it was significant, and turned out to be highly regarded storyline in the Spider-Man verse.

As various websites show, as the ASM 121 and 122 always rank near, or at the top of most fan polls.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-ten-spider-man-stories.php

Again, because of the significance of Gwen's character. And as I've said, the story- that is, the handling of Peter's character, was great.

So if it was "great", and if fans hold it in high regards, why would you not want it to be portrayed in the movies?

Okay. So you really just need to see Spidey holding Gwen's body atop the Brooklyn Bridge? Well, as you say, more power to ya. I think the most important aspects of the story have been shown. That GweMJ didn't actually stop breathing isn't such a big deal (Well, maybe it is, considering what an annoying character she became).

I can agree with you on the annoying character of GweMJ.

There are many aspects to the Goblin Legacy:

- Norman Osborn being a father figure to Peter (Raimi did ok on this aspect)
- Harry being like a brother to Peter (Raimi did a good job)
- mind games once Goblin discovers Peter's secret (Raimi failed on this with Norman, and kinda made up some of that with Harry. One of my favorite scenes in SM3 was the "Sooo Good" scene at the cafe between Peter and Harry)

The death/killing of the only girl Peter loves is a key aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Again- I've been saying it isn't MUCH of a legacy. It isn't about one arc or two or ten. It's about what Peter carried away from it. Realistically, I don't think he'd jump from Gwen dying due to his life as Spider-Man to dating MJ and placing her in the same place (And again not revealing his secret to her so she knew what she was getting into). I think he'd have taken a harder edge with villains- or at least those who are indeed killers (Meaning he'd pummel the likes of Carnage and Venom). And when Norman was brought back (Which shouldn't have happened at all) Peter's all-consuming obsession should have been gaining justice for Gwen. But none of that happneed. Thus the meaning of Gwen's death was nill.

And AGAIN, that was due to the writing, which was written only (at first, they later basically admitted they had made a mistake in writing out Gwen in such a fashion) as a device to usher out Gwen and usher in Gwen. So they purposely did not write it where it had such an impact on Peter's life, because they wanted to establish MJ, and diminish Gwen.

How many times are we going to go over the same point?

Again with the quitting, Slag? How many times do I have to say that I DIDN'T Want him to quit. I put that out there as an OPTION for the writers. He could've started sobbing everytime he saw a girl wearing a hair cllip. Just something to show that Gwen's death made a difference in his life.

And his memories of Gwen are really limited to either Goblin stories or stories where he thinks about his love life. Or the instances when a writer likes Gwen enough to do a special like Spider-Man: Blue.

I used the quiting example becasue "you" used that example. Feel free to substitute any other means of mourning by Peter you want, it still comes down to the writers chose NOT to show him mourning Gwen (at first) as a means to an end.

So all of this is how you show you like something?

It's rather simple really, it's called being a fan, and wanting the "best" for what you're a fan of (Spider-Man), and refusing to settle for anything but.

But yes, I have always said I enjoy all the Spider-Man movies, and own all 3 on DVD.

If you want hard, gritty realism a movie about a guy who climbs walls isn't the place to find it. And Gwen's death wasn't about realism. Realistically Spidey should have been able to save her. Conway wanted her dead and he moved the cosmos to make sure that happened.

So if it's a movie about superheros you think we cannot, or should not, expect realism? Think not. It's a given that the subject requires belief that a man can have superpowers, climb walls, etc to have a Spider-Man movie, but it does NOT mean that we cannot have realistic storylines.

You don't really think the denizens of this site, let alone the albeit vocal Raimi Hate Squad reflect a majority do you? I'm talking about the millions worldwide that have loved and supported these films and don't give a hoot what we're discussing here.

Yes I do, guess I give the "dinizens" more credit than you. And again, one aspect, given that it is Spider-Man, will not stop the "denizens" or the hard-core fans like those on this site from loving Spider-Man, or these movies.

And it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to aspects that should be imporved.

Geez, one aspect? I even dislike more than one aspect of these films.

As do I, but the "one aspect" was the subject of discussion here.

Okay- are you simply viewing my posts via SLAG-VISION? Because I keep saying that I don't think he should reveal his secret to all of his family and friends. I said GWEN- JUST GWEN. She would face constant danger by walking on his arm- sleeping in his bed- having his child.

Please explain why a villain would NOT be apt to go afer ANY of those he loves, as opposed to ONLY going after his main squeeze? That would NOT be logical. So by reason, he should TELL ALL so they can make their choice... again, by YOUR reasoning. NOT mine.

So can any person on the street. Spidey would fight just as hard to save them. But a woman sharing his life is a much bigger and more likely target.

Any person on the street is not a loved one to Peter.

So now your saying he should only tell those he would fight the hardest to save his secret so they can make their chocie? Sounds extra cowardly/selfish to me.

Shall we break into "We are the world"?

Not sure, hum me a couple of bars and I will probably know the words.

I've had to learn to let go of alot of Spidey because those handling it didn't know what they were doing. The comics died for me a long time ago. I haven't liked any of the animated stuff since I was a little kid watching the '67 cartoons. And now I'm not happy with anything I've heard about the reboot. Of course if it does turn out to look good, then happy days. But I'm not counting on it. And you guys who are assuming that a reboot means all your Spidey fan-boy fantasies will now be real are setting yourselves up for a fall, I think.

I basically agree with your views on the comics and the animation, it feels the same for me.

And we (at least I) are not assuming, we are hoping that the reboot will fulfill our wants. Big difference, it's called being a fan and hoping for the best.

I have my concerns about things I have heard about the reboot as well, but I figure the best place to make our wants known is here on this site.

 

[Blue Gun]

I could wait a year or 2 for a new one.

 

[TheSlag]

I could wait a year or 2 for a new one.

Umm.. 2010 now, 2012 when reboot is schedule to come out.. *kicks off shoes to do complex math* t:

Ummm.. think that is 2 years.. *BEAMS with pride... and Mama Slag said that fine 6th grade edumucation (first in the family to graduate grammar school) would not pay off.

 

[Dragon]

One aspect was what this discussion was about. You know, ALL the villains knowing his identity.

While I think there were other aspects that were done poorly, I also think Raimi did a good job overall, and have never said otherwise.

So, to sum up- even though these films are in the overall good, villains learning his identity- even though they each learned them under different circumstances, for different reasons and with different results is problematic. Why? Because they can threaten his loved ones. And this is a problem because....? I mean the villains are going too threaten someone- that's why they're villains.
So what if they're his loved ones? I mean I agree that it always being MJ got tiresome, but....

Yes, but it (writing) was simply explaining "why" the death of Gwen did NOT have the impact to make it significant according to you.

Exactly. Otherwise all you have is her death, which renders it a gimmick.

Not sure I would call Gwen "badass", but I too loved the character of Gwen. And I think the device that the story was written for (ushering out Gwen and ushering in MJ) was a mistake, and because it was only a device was poorly written, I do think it was significant, and turned out to be highly regarded storyline in the Spider-Man verse.

As various websites show, as the ASM 121 and 122 always rank near, or at the top of most fan polls.

Gwen was badass. She was tough, brave and a scrapper. She WANTED to face the dangers with Peter (Which is why he comes off as cowardly for not being honest.) Again, you don't have to sell me on the power of ASM !21 & 122. I own them, and I love them.

So if it was "great", and if fans hold it in high regards, why would you not want it to be portrayed in the movies?

Because its a pointless event. Gwen's character would have to be introduced for no reason other than to be killed and so Peter can move onto his relationship with MJ. It's anti-climactic. There are many great moments in Spidey history that the filmmakers would do well in presenting. Defeating the Sinister Six. The Master Planner arc. Peter merely being sad because he couldn't save Gwen adds little to the movie franchise. And since we aren't going to see the Goblin implaed on his glider twice, the poetic ending is lost.

In the comics her death hit so hard because it was unexpected. She wasn't supposed to die. It wouldn't be the same in the films.

I can agree with you on the annoying character of GweMJ.

There are many aspects to the Goblin Legacy:

- Norman Osborn being a father figure to Peter (Raimi did ok on this aspect)
- Harry being like a brother to Peter (Raimi did a good job)
- mind games once Goblin discovers Peter's secret (Raimi failed on this with Norman, and kinda made up some of that with Harry. One of my favorite scenes in SM3 was the "Sooo Good" scene at the cafe between Peter and Harry)

The death/killing of the only girl Peter loves is a key aspect of the Goblin legacy.

Not key. Just big. All of the other aspects can exist independently of Gwen dying.

And AGAIN, that was due to the writing, which was written only (at first, they later basically admitted they had made a mistake in writing out Gwen in such a fashion) as a device to usher out Gwen and usher in Gwen. So they purposely did not write it where it had such an impact on Peter's life, because they wanted to establish MJ, and diminish Gwen.

How many times are we going to go over the same point?

None. I've made my point.

I used the quiting example becasue "you" used that example. Feel free to substitute any other means of mourning by Peter you want, it still comes down to the writers chose NOT to show him mourning Gwen (at first) as a means to an end.

And it would be the same in the movies. So what's the point?

It's rather simple really, it's called being a fan, and wanting the "best" for what you're a fan of (Spider-Man), and refusing to settle for anything but.

Well, you obviously have been settling for less and will contniue to until you yourself can make a Spidey movie. That's why I've been making my own.

But yes, I have always said I enjoy all the Spider-Man movies, and own all 3 on DVD.

Then you are a man of fine taste.t:

So if it's a movie about superheros you think we cannot, or should not, expect realism? Think not. It's a given that the subject requires belief that a man can have superpowers, climb walls, etc to have a Spider-Man movie, but it does NOT mean that we cannot have realistic storylines.

So who says that realism means something bad happening? It was in fact, unrealistic that Gwen died under the circumstances. That bullet dodging Spidey couldn't move her out of the way of the Goblin's attack. That she would suffer a fatal whiplash from being snagged by a flexible webline.

Yes I do, guess I give the "dinizens" more credit than you. And again, one aspect, given that it is Spider-Man, will not stop the "denizens" or the hard-core fans like those on this site from loving Spider-Man, or these movies.

And it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to aspects that should be imporved.

It has nothing to do with how much credit you give anyone. It's simple numbers. The people here, and especially those griping, would scarcely fill a theater, let alone the tens of thousands that Spidey played to. So those griping are not the majority by a long shot.

As do I, but the "one aspect" was the subject of discussion here.

Actually there's been two aspects discussed. Goblin legacy & villains knowing Peter's ID.

Please explain why a villain would NOT be apt to go afer ANY of those he loves, as opposed to ONLY going after his main squeeze? That would NOT be logical. So by reason, he should TELL ALL so they can make their choice... again, by YOUR reasoning. NOT mine.

Well.. In nearly 50 years of Spidey comics it has only rarely happened so I guess you'd have to ask the villains. or the writers. Maybe it's not draamatic enough.. But from a reasoning stand point, villains have other goals in mind aside from just hurting Spidey. Spidey has beaten them repeatedly, so I suppose they'd go for the girlfriend first to do the most damage in one place. She's the best target.

And Peter wouldn't tell everyone, because he can't be sure how much he can trust them. friend or not. Several of his friends have at various times themselves become villains. But he has to trust the woman that shares his life, as she must be able to trust him.

Any person on the street is not a loved one to Peter.

But he'd still risk his neck to save them.

So now your saying he should only tell those he would fight the hardest to save his secret so they can make their chocie? Sounds extra cowardly/selfish to me.

I didn't say that, you did. I said he should have told Gwen. It has nothing to do with who he'd fight hardest for.

And do you really think Peter could maintain an intimate relationship, let alone a marriage and keep his secret? Just from a practicality stand point he needed to be honest with Gwen to avoid the many silly fights they had just because he wanted to hide his identity.

Not sure, hum me a couple of bars and I will probably know the words.

The Michael Jackson thing: "We are the world.. We are the children..."t:

I basically agree with your views on the comics and the animation, it feels the same for me.

And we (at least I) are not assuming, we are hoping that the reboot will fulfill our wants. Big difference, it's called being a fan and hoping for the best.

I have my concerns about things I have heard about the reboot as well, but I figure the best place to make our wants known is here on this site.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying I've chosen to be realistic. I gave up on expecting to see what I want in a Spidey movie with Organics and the power ranger Goblin suit. Sony will toss at us whatever they think will stick without going against their own likes and dislikes (Thus no Lizard and why we would've gotten the Vultress if 4 had happened). I'm going to see what happens, but I'm not expecting to be on the ticket line in 2012 at this point.

 

[chaseter]

This has become the Slag and Dragon thread.