The Amazing Spider-Man Too Soon!?

[Doc Ock]

I don't understand why everyone is so hostile with each other, it seems that having a different opinion is considered a crime or something.

 

[chaseter]

to be fair LOTR came out every year and was excellent

They were all filmed at once and someone who is passionate about it did those movies. Is Marc Webb a huge Spider-Man nerd? No. That is a great example and those were great movies but that is one example. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed at once like LOTR and those movies were pretty bad, Revolutions was terrible. Most movies that are produced quickly and released quickly are terrible. Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End is another example. I don't want a Spidey every year or two years. If this franchise is going to be good or great, you need time to do everything right.

Great point. Be ready to get called a troll.

Please Dacman...you have called people trolls or Raimi lovers as a derogatory term so quit whining about it.

You wanna see the report, check the Press Release of Sam Raimi, Tobey and Kirsten not coming back. If the movies were so great, like The Dark Knight is, why doesn't Sony allow Raimi 100% control over the movies like Chris Nolan. Sam Raimi was always a cheesy film maker, watch 'Evil Dead' or "Dark Man' simply too much cheese in his action films. The man can't control his cheese.

Yeah, so the problem is mostly Sam Raimi followed by his two stooges...Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin. Combined they don't know squat about Spider-Man...the films are proof of that.

I just lol'd that you think Sam Raimi knows nothing about Spider-Man or doesn't care about the character.

 

[chaseter]

dbl

 

[chaseter]

Which also points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea for the "Vulturess"

I thought Raimi was a champion for Black Cat? There was whispers of her being in both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 back in the days.

Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony then wanted Vulturess. Dacman doesn't know what he is talking about and continues to say that Raimi wanted Vulturess when he absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[bunk]

I agree completely on the Spider-Man part, but again, I like others, are completely biased on that I am sure, as we are all Spider-Man fans here.

Also, I think the fans cannot wait for Batman's next installment, as the BB and especially TDK has fueled the fires again on that front.

Bond.. *meh*.. just my opinion.

Yes, now Batman is a hot commodity. Rebooting a year after Batman & Robin would have been a poor decision. This is not the case with Spider-Man, they can reboot now and the studio can be in a good position to make money.

 

[DACMAN]

Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony then wanted Vulturess. Dacman doesn't know what he is talking about and continues to say that Raimi wanted Vulturess when he absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.

Give me a link then. You talk like this is a fact so I want to see a link that says that Raimi wanted the Black Cat but the people at Sony forced him to change Black Cat into the Vulturess. I'm calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. You talk like you know for sure what happend behind closed doors so I want to see a link.


And for the record I said that it "points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea" which means it was still speculation on my part. You talk like you know for a fact. Give me a link sparky.

 

[Dragon]

No, the point is we have had 5 villains (GG1, GG2(surfer Dood), Ock, Venom, Sandman in the movies so far (3) and Sam is 5 for 5 on who has known Spidey's identify. As well as MJ, Various NY'ers, and Aunt May (it appears) all know as well. THAT is not a good track record.

Okay.. To be clear I don't think the Raimi films have been perfect or even great. I think they've been fun, enjoyable romps. Good films about a great character. I don't think the definitive Spider-Man film has been made (Or will be anytime soon, given the people whose hands he remains in).

However, playing Devil's advocate, in terms of the Raimi-Spideyverse, what's the problem with these characters knowing his identity? Especially since 4 of them are dead anyway?

Yes, Peter has quit over MANY comic arcs, this is the movies which is only 3 to this point. There is a big difference in the implied time spans in both, as well as differences in the mediums (for example why in novels you can go into so much further character development that movies cannot afford the time, nor the patience of the viewing audience).

The movies have had a seperation time of several years. 2 was 2 years later. I dunno about 3. But time had clearly past. So, Peter suffering from battle fatigue and loneliness enough to quit is a legitmate idea.

And I am not going to take away from the greatness that is Gwen Stacy's death arc, simply because at the time the writers wanted Gwen out, and MJ in, and thus chose to write it without the mourning or Spidey quiting.

Nor am I taking away from the greatness of those TWO ISSUES. But you're talking about a Legacy, which would involve more than one story arc.

The writing was simply a plot device to write out Gwen and introduce MJ more to the forefront. Yes, it was poor writing, but just because it was poor writing to not have a more significant impact on Peter's (written) life at the time (as a means to intro MJ more as the MAIN love interest), does not diminish the impact of the story, as it HAS PROVEN to be as the arc is a classic that is revered now.

Yes, full circle was probably a poor choice of words, but it still furthered the story that even with his powers, he cannot save all. Just as powerful, if not more than the Uncle Ben storyline.

I'm not denying that it's a classic storyline. I think killing Gwen was a major mistake, but still think those are two of the best issues in Spidey's history.

I can agree with that, but regardless, we did not get that storyline in Raimi's version either, along with the additional story of Gwen, the love of his life blaming Spider-Man for the death of her father. Pity.

You are taking this all way too literal, with the SNAP. The point was simply, even with powers, he could not save the girl he loved, whether you think Gwen died from the snagging of the webbing or not, the storyline is still greatness. She paid the ultimate price for him being Spider-Man.

But here's the problem. So, Peter can't save the woman he loves. What then?There's no where to go after this. Conway and Thomas hoped to spark sales by creating an atmosphere with Gwen's death, that "anything can happen" thus riveting fans. Kind of like Quesada's current day cheeseball attempts with events.

The thing is, we know that anything can't happen. We know that ultimately, Spidey will never die, the only truly startling thing that could follow. And killing another love interest will just be a retread. Gwen's death was only a gimmick. A great gimmick story-wise, but a gimmick nonetheless. Kind of like that Bugs Bunny/ Daffy Duck cartoon, where Daffy, frustrated by not being able to get the applause Bugs does, causes himself to explode. Then as his ghosty form flies off to thunderous applause and Bugs asks him for an encore Daffy says: "I can only do it once". That's Gwen's death.

And as I'd said, because Peter remains essentially the same after Gwen's death- He doesn't take a harder line with villains or refuse to get involved again for fear that another person will die- There's no real impact past those two issues.

And actually, Sam Raimi did take a stronger position after Spidey 1 by having him decide not to be with MJ for fear for her safety. The only problem is that in Spidey 2 he chose to have Peter continue to pal around with her, which still placed her in his proximity.

So I guess you're saying movie Peter was a coward for not telling MJ too then? And for not telling Aunt May, and not telling JJ (since heck, he would be at risk too). Heck EVERYONE who he had any contact with would be at risk in this scenerio then.

No, that's not what I'm saying. May will always be Peter's Aunt. And friends will be friends. In Gwen's case, by Peter intending to have her be with him, live with him, build a life with him, he was placing her directly in the cross-hairs. If she knew his secret, she could decide to walk away or face the danger as MJ did. But Gwen had no choice in the matter since she thought she was with a news photographer.

 

[chaseter]

Give me a link then. You talk like this is a fact so I want to see a link that says that Raimi wanted the Black Cat but the people at Sony forced him to change Black Cat into the Vulturess. I'm calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. You talk like you know for sure what happend behind closed doors so I want to see a link.


And for the record I said that it "points us in the direction that it was Raimi's idea" which means it was still speculation on my part. You talk like you know for a fact. Give me a link sparky.

You talk like it is fact. Give me a link then so I can see. I am calling you out on this because I think you're full of it. So, when you say Raimi wanted Vulturess, post a link so we can see it Dac. You were the one making the claim in the first place. Lets see you back that claim up there Dac

For the record, Raimi wanted Black Cat. Sony said that she is too much like Catwoman and opted for Vulturess. That is where the conflict came in. Here is a link:
http://www.moviehole.net/201022855-caffeinated-clint-my-spider-senses

Now lets see some of your links Dac!

But, I am willing to make a bet with you. If I am right (Raimi wanted Black Cat and Sony wanted Vulturess), whenever we find out from a credible source, you must put in your signature in big black bold letters: "Chaseter Was Right." If you are right (Raimi wanted Vulturess) then I will put in big black bold letters: "Dacman Was Right." You must wear the signature until Spider-Man Reboot comes out in theatres. Deal?

That link also says that the reboot is more dark/Dark Knight-ish and that they are cutting out all the fluff and by fluff he goes on to say, less laughs. So Spider-Man will have less quips unlike what you wanted...awwww

 

[TheSlag]

Okay.. To be clear I don't think the Raimi films have been perfect or even great. I think they've been fun, enjoyable romps. Good films about a great character. I don't think the definitive Spider-Man film has been made (Or will be anytime soon, given the people whose hands he remains in).

However, playing Devil's advocate, in terms of the Raimi-Spideyverse, what's the problem with these characters knowing his identity? Especially since 4 of them are dead anyway?

Because it takes away from the storyline when a villain does discover his secret and can attack those he loves.

The movies have had a seperation time of several years. 2 was 2 years later. I dunno about 3. But time had clearly past. So, Peter suffering from battle fatigue and loneliness enough to quit is a legitmate idea.

I am not following the point you're trying to make. You will have to explain.

Nor am I taking away from the greatness of those TWO ISSUES. But you're talking about a Legacy, which would involve more than one story arc.

I have never seen a legacy defined as limited to more than one story arc. A legacy is being the villain that killed (or lead to the killing of) the only girl he loved after discovering his secret.

I'm not denying that it's a classic storyline. I think killing Gwen was a major mistake, but still think those are two of the best issues in Spidey's history.

So do I, so again, not sure why you're arguing about it here? You seem to only be taking exception that I call it the Goblin Legacy.

But here's the problem. So, Peter can't save the woman he loves. What then?There's no where to go after this. Conway and Thomas hoped to spark sales by creating an atmosphere with Gwen's death, that "anything can happen" thus riveting fans. Kind of like Quesada's current day cheeseball attempts with events.

The thing is, we know that anything can't happen. We know that ultimately, Spidey will never die, the only truly startling thing that could follow. And killing another love interest will just be a retread. Gwen's death was only a gimmick. A great gimmick story-wise, but a gimmick nonetheless. Kind of like that Bugs Bunny/ Daffy Duck cartoon, where Daffy, frustrated by not being able to get the applause Bugs does, causes himself to explode. Then as his ghosty form flies off to thunderous applause and Bugs asks him for an encore Daffy says: "I can only do it once". That's Gwen's death.

What the Hell?? You're actually comparing this to a Looney Tunes episode. LOL. You think it can only be done "once", as in Uncle Ben's death (I assume, kinda got laughing too hard to read with the Daffy Duck stuff), but I think it can (and should) be done more than once. Even though I disagree with the once, since Uncle Ben's death was about Spdiey NOT using his power's responsibly and his Uncle paying the price. Where Gwen's death is despite, or because he chose to use his great powers. Big difference in my book. And a very moving storyline that shoudl be told, as TDK has shown.

And as I'd said, because Peter remains essentially the same after Gwen's death- He doesn't take a harder line with villains or refuse to get involved again for fear that another person will die- There's no real impact past those two issues.

Again, ONLY due to the writing, and the purpose to write out Gwen to make MJ his main love interest. You're going in circles, we have already agreed on that.

And actually, Sam Raimi did take a stronger position after Spidey 1 by having him decide not to be with MJ for fear for her safety. The only problem is that in Spidey 2 he chose to have Peter continue to pal around with her, which still placed her in his proximity.

Neither here nor there in regards to the Goblin Legacy, and a whole nother discussion regarding the telling of the Spidey No More storyline by Raimi vs. the comic version.

No, that's not what I'm saying. May will always be Peter's Aunt. And friends will be friends. In Gwen's case, by Peter intending to have her be with him, live with him, build a life with him, he was placing her directly in the cross-hairs. If she knew his secret, she could decide to walk away or face the danger as MJ did. But Gwen had no choice in the matter since she thought she was with a news photographer.

And his friends "do" have a choice? Nope.

And as for his Aunt, he could move to another town to be Spider-Man, thus reducing the risk to his Aunt May. But agian, I do not understan why this has anything to do with a Goblin Legacy, and would be a very stupid (IMO) approach to take in the movies, where Peter either distances himself from every friend or loved one, or tellls EVERYONE he loves/likes his secret so as to NOT be cowardly (according to you), and let them make the decision on whether to continue being close to Peter.

Guess they could call the movie the Amazing Peter Parker then, no mask required. I know Raimi would LOVE it. t:

 

[Ajendo]

To say casino royale is a reboot is kinda stretching things. I guess you can argue that every bond sequel is a reboot since aside from quantum they never actually reference the past movie.

FRWL referenced Dr.No.
OHMSS referenced every other Bond film that came before it.
TMWTGG referenced LALD.
FYEO and TSWLM referenced OHMSS
DAD referenced FRWL and TB.

t:

 

[Dragon]

Because it takes away from the storyline when a villain does discover his secret and can attack those he loves.

It takes away from the story, and yet you're arguing in favor of a story where that very thing happens.

I am not following the point you're trying to make. You will have to explain.

You mentioned the passage of time between Peter quitting in comics stories. I'm pointing out that there was a passage of time in the movies as well.

I have never seen a legacy defined as limited to more than one story arc. A legacy is being the villain that killed (or lead to the killing of) the only girl he loved after discovering his secret.

But you said above that such a thing takes away from the story.

And a Legacy is something that is left behind and impacts current events. Thus it would have to go beyond a single story.

So do I, so again, not sure why you're arguing about it here? You seem to only be taking exception that I call it the Goblin Legacy.

I take exception with its importance. You're saying its something that Raimi tobbed us of.

What the Hell?? You're actually comparing this to a Looney Tunes episode. LOL. You think it can only be done "once", as in Uncle Ben's death (I assume, kinda got laughing too hard to read with the Daffy Duck stuff), but I think it can (and should) be done more than once. Even though I disagree with the once, since Uncle Ben's death was about Spdiey NOT using his power's responsibly and his Uncle paying the price. Where Gwen's death is despite, or because he chose to use his great powers. Big difference in my book. And a very moving storyline that shoudl be told, as TDK has shown.

The cartoon reference was a simile. Just like Daffy's gimmick could only work once, so too could a gimmicky death like Gwen's. Got it?

So again- you argue above that villains shouldn't learn Peter's identity because it takes away from the story if his loved ones are placed in danger. But here you're arguing that it should be done not once- but MORE THAN ONCE

And Gwen didn't die because of Peter using his power responsibly. She died because he was irresponsible and selfish. Not the same as TDK where Rachel died to show Batman and Law-enforcement's powerlessness.

And okay.. Name the events in the FOUR DECADES since Gwen's death that have matched its impact.

Neither here nor there in regards to the Goblin Legacy, and a whole nother discussion regarding the telling of the Spidey No More storyline by Raimi vs. the comic version.

No, it actually shows a real impact of the Goblin Legacy. The Goblin endangered MJ, so Peter chose to distance himself from her. Hurting himself to protect her.

And his friends "do" have a choice? Nope.

And how many of his friends have died do to his being Spider-Man? None. MJ, Aunt May and Flash were injured and all quickly healed up, because they could only do it once.

And as for his Aunt, he could move to another town to be Spider-Man, thus reducing the risk to his Aunt May. But agian, I do not understan why this has anything to do with a Goblin Legacy, and would be a very stupid (IMO) approach to take in the movies, where Peter either distances himself from every friend or loved one, or tellls EVERYONE he loves/likes his secret so as to NOT be cowardly (according to you), and let them make the decision on whether to continue being close to Peter.

And...How many friends have been hurt in the movies due to his being Spider-Man? Harry chose to place himself in danger. And its still not the same as a woman sharing her life with Peter.

Guess they could call the movie the Amazing Peter Parker then, no mask required. I know Raimi would LOVE it. t:

Okay..

 

[Dangerous]

1. TDK
2. SM2
3. STM
4. SM1
5. IM

the 80's batman doesn't even figure or me, I thought they were rubbish and BB is a riduclously overrated movie with poor pacing, weak action and an absolutely RUBBISH 3rd act. just my opinion as you are entitiled to your opinion of raimi's spidey movies.

… weird.

Batman & Batman Returns were amazing moody art rich takes on Bats..

And you can’t be serious about BB?!

Bale made Batman believable for the first time. In Bale you had a guy who you could accept as Batman/Bruce Wayne; - a guy who for the first time actually had the physique to be Batman and in the fight scenes you got an idea of the force behind Batman’s fighting style.

Scarecrow’s fear gas was amazing, as was the tumbler and the rest of the cast save Holmes. On the subject of the fight scenes which many fans seemed to miss the point of in terms of the way they were shot (so you could barely make out Batman as if you were one of the thugs getting a beat down, or a witness who is not quite sure what they are seeing in the dark) the best one was Batman’s first app against the drug dealers on the dock.

THAT WAS AMAZING, ONE OF THE BEST SCENES IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA. That sequence was perfect, you can’t see Bat’s and he picks off these guys one by one. It’s like a horror movie, Nolan totally nailed it there. Then the guy from the car catch’s a glimpse of this huge black mass kicking the crap out of them all. That shot is awesome. BB is by far the best Superhero film compared to anything that went before and I had to watch TDK a couple of times before I thought it was better.

 

[spider-neil]

… weird.

Batman & Batman Returns were amazing moody art rich takes on Bats..

And you can’t be serious about BB?!

Bale made Batman believable for the first time. In Bale you had a guy who you could actually believe to be Batman/Bruce Wayne; - a guy who for the first time actually had the physique to be Batman and in the fight scenes you got an idea of the force behind Batman’s fighting style.

Scarecrow’s fear gas was amazing, as was the tumbler and the rest of the cast save Holmes. On the subject of the fight scenes which many fans seemed to miss the point of in terms of the way they were shot (so you could barely make out Batman as if you were one of the thugs getting a beat down, or a witness who is not quite sure what they are seeing in the dark) the best one was Batman’s first app against the drug dealers on the dock.

THAT WAS AMAZING, ONE OF THE BEST SCENES IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA. That sequence was perfect, you can’t see Bat’s and he picks off these guys one by one. It’s like a horror movie, Nolan totally nailed it there. Then the guy from the car catch’s a glimpse of this huge black mass kicking the crap out of them all. That shot is awesome. BB is by far the best Superhero film compared to anything that went before and I had to watch TDK a couple of times before I thought it was better.

thread is going off at a tangent but I'll play along.

okay thought the TB 80's batman movies were plain boring and the s***maker batman movies were just plain ridiculous. batcard? bum cheek shot? seriously, wtf?

then we movie to BB, a solid movie but not a great movie.
you can't make out any of the action scenes, this first fight was fair enough as it was from the criminals POV but poor camera angles for the rest of the fights were unforgivable. nolan is great with characterization but I think he is a poor action director. and then 3rd act where the hero ISN'T the one to take down the major threat (the train) UNFORGIVABLE, that's like jimmy olsen disarming the bomb, robin taking down the penguin. POOR!

SM2 absolutely destroys BB both in terms of characterization, pacing and action. BB the best superhero movie up to that point? were going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I thought nolan pretty much fixed all the problems with TDK, he could have course followed the blue print of BB and have gordan take down the joker or 2 face that would have been aces.

 

[Dangerous]

okay thought the TB 80's batman movies were plain boring and the s***maker batman movies were just plain ridiculous. batcard? bum cheek shot? seriously, wtf?

I wasn’t talking about the Joel Schumacher films, I agree they are crap.

then we movie to BB, a solid movie but not a great movie.
you can't make out any of the action scenes, this first fight was fair enough as it was from the criminals POV but poor camera angles for the rest of the fights were unforgivable.

You missed the point.
This was done so as to make Batman fighting more like a panther attack, more bestial. You can’t quite make it out in the film as if you were witnessing it in real life. It was a deliberate move to play up the mysterious angle of Bats in that you can’t quite see him to make him more scary. Like how you couldn’t quite see the Alien in 1979.

nolan is great with characterization but I think he is a poor action director. and then 3rd act where the hero ISN'T the one to take down the major threat (the train) UNFORGIVABLE, that's like jimmy olsen disarming the bomb, robin taking down the penguin. POOR!

Why does everything have to be wrapped up into neat little parcels that fit the context of traditional hero roles such as him saving the day? Real life is not like that, heh. If you are dealing with terrorists in real life it is not going to end like a Hollywood movie with ‘the Mountie always getting his man’. Heh.

SM2 absolutely destroys BB both in terms of characterization, pacing and action.

Disagree it’s the other way round.
BB destroys SM2.
SM2 is a horrible chick flick with 5 minutes of cool Spidey action tacked on the end.
BB is a badass superhero movie that gives gravitas and believability to the idea of a vigilante.

 

[mothy]

i think it's too soon to reboot, but nevertheless, i am behind it as a fan of the character.

 

[spider-neil]

I wasn’t talking about the Joel Schumacher films, I agree they are crap.



You missed the point.
This was done so as to make Batman fighting more like a panther attack, more bestial. You can’t quite make it out in the film as if you were witnessing it in real life. It was a deliberate move to play up the mysterious angle of Bats in that you can’t quite see him to make him more scary. Like how you couldn’t quite see the Alien in 1979.



Why does everything have to be wrapped up into neat little parcels that fit the context of traditional hero roles such as him saving the day? Real life is not like that, heh. If you are dealing with terrorists in real life it is not going to end like a Hollywood movie with ‘the Mountie always getting his man’. Heh.



Disagree it’s the other way round.
BB destroys SM2.
SM2 is a horrible chick flick with 5 minutes of cool Spidey action tacked on the end.
BB is a badass superhero movie that gives gravitas and believability to the idea of a vigilante.

having batman take down the main threat would have been cliche but it would certainly have had more of an impact than JG taking down the train. I thought JG taking down the train and the lame arse batman RAG fight was a piss poor finish to an otherwise solid superhero movie but each to their own.

in regards to SM2 you saw a chick flick I saw the deconstruction of a superhero that was more more interesting and engaging that the origin of a masked vigilante, again each to their own. I thought peter's telling his aunt not to feel guilty for ben's death carried far more power than any line in BB and TDK for that matter but again each to their own.

I will conceed I think TDK is better than SM2 but BB? no chance. I can name name several superhero movies that are better than that totally average flick.

 

[Dangerous]

I thought it was really cool the way JG and Bats worked together as a team to stop the train.

I guess you would have preferred it to have been all Bats, but that would have been less realistic and more in the realm of- seen it all before/ cliched movie territory.

 

[spider-neil]

I thought it was really cool the way JG and Bats worked together as a team to stop the train.

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.

 

[The Joker]

I have no problem with supporting cast members helping the hero at the climax but the hero should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!) stop the main threat.

He did. It was Batman who gave Gordon the Batmobile and told him what to do. It was Batman who neutralised Ra's on the train. All Gordon did was do just as you said, he helped. Just like how Harry helped save MJ, and take down Sandman and Venom in SM-3.

Arguably, it can even be said that the villains in the Spider-Man movies are the instruments of their own defeat. Goblin killed himself with his own glider, Ock willingly drowned himself destroying his reactor, Harry jumped in the way of Venom's attack and killed himself, Sandman willingly gave up fighting, and Brock jumped into the pumpkin bomb.

 

[TheSlag]

It takes away from the story, and yet you're arguing in favor of a story where that very thing happens.

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.

You mentioned the passage of time between Peter quitting in comics stories. I'm pointing out that there was a passage of time in the movies as well.

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)

But you said above that such a thing takes away from the story.

And a Legacy is something that is left behind and impacts current events. Thus it would have to go beyond a single story.

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.

I take exception with its importance. You're saying its something that Raimi tobbed us of.

That's your right to do.

The cartoon reference was a simile. Just like Daffy's gimmick could only work once, so too could a gimmicky death like Gwen's. Got it?

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"?

So again- you argue above that villains shouldn't learn Peter's identity because it takes away from the story if his loved ones are placed in danger. But here you're arguing that it should be done not once- but MORE THAN ONCE :huh

And Gwen didn't die because of Peter using his power responsibly. She died because he was irresponsible and selfish. Not the same as TDK where Rachel died to show Batman and Law-enforcement's powerlessness.

And okay.. Name the events in the FOUR DECADES since Gwen's death that have matched its impact.

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

No, it actually shows a real impact of the Goblin Legacy. The Goblin endangered MJ, so Peter chose to distance himself from her. Hurting himself to protect her.

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

And how many of his friends have died do to his being Spider-Man? None. MJ, Aunt May and Flash were injured and all quickly healed up, because they could only do it once.



And...How many friends have been hurt in the movies due to his being Spider-Man? Harry chose to place himself in danger. And its still not the same as a woman sharing her life with Peter.

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.

Okay..

I'm good.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't understand why everyone is so hostile with each other, it seems that having a different opinion is considered a crime or something.

Welcome to the Hype.

 

[Reikowolf]

I would like the studio to take all the time they need to make a good and well produced movie.

Unfortunately, I'm sure it stipulates somewhere in their contract with Marvel that they must produce a movie after a certain amount of time or the rights revert.

I bet they also have a 'strike while the iron is hot' mentality and feel that if they don't make it now, interest will wain after 2yrs.

bleh, I'm just hoping it will be good.

 

[spider-neil]

He did. It was Batman who gave Gordon the Batmobile and told him what to do. It was Batman who neutralised Ra's on the train. All Gordon did was do just as you said, he helped. Just like how Harry helped save MJ, and take down Sandman and Venom in SM-3.

Arguably, it can even be said that the villains in the Spider-Man movies are the instruments of their own defeat. Goblin killed himself with his own glider, Ock willingly drowned himself destroying his reactor, Harry jumped in the way of Venom's attack and killed himself, Sandman willingly gave up fighting, and Brock jumped into the pumpkin bomb.

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.

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

 

[TheSlag]

Welcome to the Hype.

LOL, so true, sadly so.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Welcome to the Hype.