What Raimi's Trilogy did better than the comics...

[DACrowe]

Yeah, I said it.

I've been here for I don't know how many years about the spidey movies. And there has ALWAYS been a lot of fair constructive criticism of these movies and even more mindless *****ing. And it is clear now some things just do not stack up to the comics that Raimi delivered. Such as Green Goblin's costume, organic webbing, Mary Jane being so introverted, Sandman being the triggerman on Uncle Ben's death (although it has become clear to me anyway, that the thief is still responsible it does dent the near flawless origin first act of the first movie).

But this thread is not about that. This thread is about things you felt the movies did better. And yes, I think Raimi improved some of the source material with his changes. I'm not saying I'd like to see these incoporated in the comics (albeit some wouldn't hurt) and dread "One More Day" with great passion, but adaptation is good for the screen and some times I think Raimi improved on it. I'll go first:

-Peter and Harry's friendship. To be close friends from the beginning really made their falling out all the more important and powerful. Their almost "brotherhood" is a strong thorughline in the movies. In the comics Harry was a prick who liked how Peter treated his dad and offered him a pad spot and they became friends in the golden age and kind of drifted apart after Stan left with a few NOTABLE storylines before the '80s where he was brought back in full form as a supporting player who was likeable and eventually his inner-goblin from the '70s was reawakened. The movie just played it better.

-MJ's career. Let's just say a struggling actress in New York City is not hard to find. In theses movies her being one who comes close to fame but can't achieve it is far more interesting than the supermodel. I'm sorry MJ becoming a supermodel sucked and was a little too wish fullfillment depressing for lonely fanboys. Avoiding that other than a single poster worked well.

-Sandman's backstory. Sandman has a very moving backstory about his daughter. In the comics he's just some schmuck. 'Nuff said.

-Uncle Ben dying ina carjacking as opposed to a house burglary. Look i know ASF #15 is unbeatable....but Ben dying the same night and outside the arena/studio (depending on which version of the origin you're talking about) instead of the burglar showing up a few days/weeks later to rob Uncle Ben's house is far more streamlined and generally good storytelling which avoids such a large coincidence (something the third movie did not).

-Harry's death. Let me be specific. I prefer Harry dying from goblin formula over Venom being a *****e, but I thought Peter and MJ being there at sunrise instead of an ambulance car worked better.

Now for ones that will annoy people.

-Eddie Brock. Yeah I prefer Edward Brock Jr. as the reflection of what Peter might have been with a bad childhood to that steroid abusing, iron pumping meathead of boredom called Eddie Brock in the comics. Venom is supposed to be the evil Spider-Man. Yet, in the comics all he does is whine and self-pity and turn good every other story to sell action figures. I much prefer the Peter Parker dooplenganger saying "I enjoy being bad...It makes me HAPPY!"


There are others but I think that is most of them and the last one may step on a few toes, so enjoy.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Yeah, I said it.

Such as Green Goblin's costume,

You know I thought that at the time, but in a lot of ways I think it set up for major potential for the long term of the franchise. First take into consideration the age group that goes to see movies. Nevermind fans buying tickets, just movie goers. Most of them are teenagers, who will no longer be teenagers by the time part 4 comes out or even part 2 or 3. His mask allowed Spider-Man to hit the kid market, family market, without preventing the teenage, young adult markets. It helped establish a long lasting huge movie fan base.

An important part of sequels being good is being better than the previous one. If they aren't better, than they almost always suck. Green Goblins mask did not change the fact that Spider-Man was an awesome movie. Huge Box Office and huge praise and satisfaction. GG's kiddish mask, left major room for improvement. Dock Ock.

And a lot of people feel that part 2 didn't have enough action, but it really had the perfect amount. It was an awesome movie and better than the predecessor. And the action we got, while not plenty, was mindblowing, suspenseful, advanced, real looking, violent, not graphic, and visuallly cool as hell. The fact that it wasn't plenty, made you leave wanting more, increasing how bad movie goers want to see part 3.

This is why I believe the Green Goblin mask helped the franchise. Plus it just makes Harry Goblin all the cooler, because he doesn't have a kiddish mask. It made it easier for Dock Ock to look cooler than the green goblin, thus helping believe and feel that part 2 had a better villain than part 1.

organic webbing,

Way better than the comic book. Despite the sci-fi freak of nature aspect of spider-man's existence, organic webbing is still a 1000x more propable than the mechanical ones.

Mary Jane being so introverted,

Got the wrong actress. That's really it if you ask me. She's not horrible, but she's not great for MJ.

Sandman being the triggerman on Uncle Ben's death (although it has become clear to me anyway, that the thief is still responsible it does dent the near flawless origin first act of the first movie).

Loved the first origin. Moving, sad, and perfect. Loyal to the comic book, but without the 1 in 10,000,000 million chance that out of all the New Yorker's, the thief picks Pete's place to rob a week later. It speeds things along too.

Hated the Sandman killing Uncle Ben thing. I really thought it sucked.

-Peter and Harry's friendship. To be close friends from the beginning really made their falling out all the more important and powerful. Their almost "brotherhood" is a strong thorughline in the movies. In the comics Harry was a prick who liked how Peter treated his dad and offered him a pad spot and they became friends in the golden age and kind of drifted apart after Stan left with a few NOTABLE storylines before the '80s where he was brought back in full form as a supporting player who was likeable and eventually his inner-goblin from the '70s was reawakened. The movie just played it better.

Liked that way better than the comics.

-MJ's career. Let's just say a struggling actress in New York City is not hard to find. In theses movies her being one who comes close to fame but can't achieve it is far more interesting than the supermodel. I'm sorry MJ becoming a supermodel sucked and was a little too wish fullfillment depressing for lonely fanboys. Avoiding that other than a single poster worked well.

I like the movie approach better for now, but had they gone with a better looking actress, I would say that in part 4, maybe the end of part 3, she moves up in the world and becomes a supermodel. We can't have the same thing 10 years later in his life, living in a roach motel. And with his situation there is really no other way he would be able to move out of that place.

-Sandman's backstory. Sandman has a very moving backstory about his daughter.

I really didn't feel moved. It's like the most predictable way to make you feel as sorry as possible for the villain. Has there ever been a bigger sob story for a villain than the Sandman story in part 3?

In the comics he's just some schmuck. 'Nuff said

That's true. In the comics they need a ton of schmucks to fill up 40 years worth of stories.

-Eddie Brock. Yeah I prefer Edward Brock Jr. as the reflection of what Peter might have been with a bad childhood to that steroid abusing, iron pumping meathead of boredom called Eddie Brock in the comics. Venom is supposed to be the evil Spider-Man. Yet, in the comics all he does is whine and self-pity and turn good every other story to sell action figures. I much prefer the Peter Parker dooplenganger saying "I enjoy being bad...It makes me HAPPY!"

I liked Topher as Brock, and I liked the way the character was portrayed and looked. But his presence in 3 forced the story to be rushed, and Venom's screen time to be short. And he shouldn't have died.

I think that had he went to prison, while in prison he should have lifted weights while in prison, or had the actor lifted weights during his entire time in his two movies, that would be good. It's good to see change in the people in later movies.

 

[Alexia Dark]

Mmmm.... nah. I disagree.

 

[blind_fury]

Yeah, I said it.

I've been here for I don't know how many years about the spidey movies. And there has ALWAYS been a lot of fair constructive criticism of these movies and even more mindless *****ing. And it is clear now some things just do not stack up to the comics that Raimi delivered. Such as Green Goblin's costume, organic webbing, Mary Jane being so introverted, Sandman being the triggerman on Uncle Ben's death (although it has become clear to me anyway, that the thief is still responsible it does dent the near flawless origin first act of the first movie).

But this thread is not about that. This thread is about things you felt the movies did better. And yes, I think Raimi improved some of the source material with his changes. I'm not saying I'd like to see these incoporated in the comics (albeit some wouldn't hurt) and dread "One More Day" with great passion, but adaptation is good for the screen and some times I think Raimi improved on it. I'll go first:

-Peter and Harry's friendship. To be close friends from the beginning really made their falling out all the more important and powerful. Their almost "brotherhood" is a strong thorughline in the movies. In the comics Harry was a prick who liked how Peter treated his dad and offered him a pad spot and they became friends in the golden age and kind of drifted apart after Stan left with a few NOTABLE storylines before the '80s where he was brought back in full form as a supporting player who was likeable and eventually his inner-goblin from the '70s was reawakened. The movie just played it better.

-MJ's career. Let's just say a struggling actress in New York City is not hard to find. In theses movies her being one who comes close to fame but can't achieve it is far more interesting than the supermodel. I'm sorry MJ becoming a supermodel sucked and was a little too wish fullfillment depressing for lonely fanboys. Avoiding that other than a single poster worked well.

-Sandman's backstory. Sandman has a very moving backstory about his daughter. In the comics he's just some schmuck. 'Nuff said.

-Uncle Ben dying ina carjacking as opposed to a house burglary. Look i know ASF #15 is unbeatable....but Ben dying the same night and outside the arena/studio (depending on which version of the origin you're talking about) instead of the burglar showing up a few days/weeks later to rob Uncle Ben's house is far more streamlined and generally good storytelling which avoids such a large coincidence (something the third movie did not).

-Harry's death. Let me be specific. I prefer Harry dying from goblin formula over Venom being a *****e, but I thought Peter and MJ being there at sunrise instead of an ambulance car worked better.

Now for ones that will annoy people.

-Eddie Brock. Yeah I prefer Edward Brock Jr. as the reflection of what Peter might have been with a bad childhood to that steroid abusing, iron pumping meathead of boredom called Eddie Brock in the comics. Venom is supposed to be the evil Spider-Man. Yet, in the comics all he does is whine and self-pity and turn good every other story to sell action figures. I much prefer the Peter Parker dooplenganger saying "I enjoy being bad...It makes me HAPPY!"


There are others but I think that is most of them and the last one may step on a few toes, so enjoy.

Many of those so-called improvements were lame soap opera gimmicks.

The Sam Raimi worship has to stop. He contributed nothing to the Spider-man mythos. The best parts of the movies came directly from the comic books.

Assuming half of those changes are improvements, which they're not, there's still the fact that for every change that could be considered an improvement there were 5 changes that made things worse or wasted an opportunity.

 

[November Rain]

you'd be hard pushed to find many members of this site that would say that anything raimi touched is superior to the original...

however, i do love ock's tentacle flower design, it made sense and allowed him to do heavy work as well as also being very delicate without the need to change tentacle.

that is probably the only thing i would introduce into the comics. well, maybe one of the early designs not used for the goblin, that was amazing.

the rest is very sub par....

 

[Spider-Bite]

The Sam Raimi worship has to stop. He contributed nothing to the Spider-man mythos. The best parts of the movies came directly from the comic books.
.

That's not easy for a director to do. Most comic book movies suck. A comic book movie is hard to do for two reasons.

1. It can't be too farfetched
2. Were talking about grown up adult men running around with their underwear outside their pants. It's extremely difficult for it not to be corny and laughable and ridiculous. In real life if you saw somebody running around dressed up like that, you'd probably just think they were a big dork who needed to grow up.

 

[pjspider1C]

What everyone has to remember is that Raimi isn't making the movie strictly for the fans of the comic. So a lot of the changes that were made throughout the trilogy were made so the general public would relate to the characters better.

Film is an entirely different medium than comics, so yes, changes have to be made. Whether they are for better or for worse - well, that's up to your own personal opinion. As for me, as far as Super-Hero trilogies go, Spider-Man is still by far #1.

 

[blind_fury]

Way better than the comic book. Despite the sci-fi freak of nature aspect of spider-man's existence, organic webbing is still a 1000x more probable than the mechanical ones.

A human who can produce and shoot organic webbing in his forearms is not more probable than a teenage prodigy who is able to invent synthetic web formula in his basement. Synthetic webbing is in fact the most probable sci-fi concept in the Spider-man universe.

And probability doesn't improve a fictional movie. People love to see the Death Star explode. Who cares if explosions don't really occur in outer space?

 

[jakinj]

Doctor Octopus in general was a vast improvement.. arguably the best laid out villain in comic-movie history

 

[blind_fury]

That's not easy for a director to do. Most comic book movies suck. A comic book movie is hard to do for two reasons.

1. It can't be too farfetched
2. Were talking about grown up adult men running around with their underwear outside their pants. It's extremely difficult for it not to be corny and laughable and ridiculous. In real life if you saw somebody running around dressed up like that, you'd probably just think they were a big dork who needed to grow up.

It's easy to stick to the source material. But most Hollywood directors/writers don't bother trying.

Richard Donner didn't change Superman's costume much and the movie was a huge success. Superman has one of the silliest costumes in history and the movie was a box office hit. This was almost 30 years ago before the advancements in costume design so today's directors have no excuse.

 

[pjspider1C]

It's easy to stick to the source material. But most Hollywood directors/writers don't bother trying.

Richard Donner didn't change Superman's costume much and the movie was a huge success. Superman has one of the silliest costumes in history and the movie was a box office hit. This was almost 30 years ago before the advancements in costume design so today's directors have no excuse.

... yeah, and Spider-man's costume wasn't changed all that much either, aside from the spider on the back. that's not the point.

 

[Skyrissian]

DACrowe, everything you say is spot on and I totally agree. Goblin's costume, Sandman's connectoin to the murder of Uncle ben, Mary Jane's character, Spidey's webbing... all done much better in the comics. Not that organics ruin the movies for me, but I'll never understand why it's so unrealistic for a genius kid to come up with mechanical webshooters in a fictional, comic book universe where people can turn into sand or get bitten by a spider and become a superhero. That was just lazy storytelling if you ask me, and maybe an attempt to put their own stamp on the character.

I find it more unbelievable that a kid can come up with a kick ass, perfectly form-fitting costume made with futuristic materials. Not that I have any problem at all with the costume, but there was zero explanation for it and if you're going to complain about one thing being unrealistic in a comic book movie, you've got to complain about them all, right?

To add to your list of things Raimi did better than the comics, I'd say the handling and portrayal of Aunt May and Uncle Ben's characters. Especially Aunt May. Throughout most of the comics, she's portrayed as a feeble old lady who always seems to be sick in bed. It makes you wonder when she's going to die already! The movie version adds more dimension and humanity to the character, much easier to sympathize with. Same with Ben, the movie made me care about him much more than the comic story ever did.

 

[blind_fury]

Dr. Ock turning good was pretty lame. That's ok for Harry Osborn but most of Spider-man's rogue gallery are just plain evil. Not every evil person has a nice guy underneath. Some people are just plain evil.

I will admit the vertebrae shape of the tentacles were an inspired design change.

 

[Spider-Bite]

It's easy to stick to the source material. But most Hollywood directors/writers don't bother trying.

No it's not. The source material is a ton of short 10 minute stories that are stand alone enjoyable. Movies are one long story. they don't deal with one villain, today, and some other villain tomorrow. Look how many villains spidey fought with the symbiote in the comic book. Could they do that in a movie? Of course not. When you change on ething in the story, you end up having to change everything else so it still makes sense, and so the events contrast each other correctly.

do you think movie makers just say to themselves "let's purposely make a sucky movie, even though it's supposedly "really easy" to make a good movie"

Richard Donner didn't change Superman's costume much and the movie was a huge success.

so was Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. They made a ton of money off of those pieces of crap.

Superman has one of the silliest costumes in history and the movie was a box office hit.

So did Batman with with is bat niples.

This was almost 30 years ago before the advancements in costume design so today's directors have no excuse.

Aside from the Catwoman movie, super heroe costumes in movies have been done really well, yet the movies still suck.

 

[blind_fury]

... yeah, and Spider-man's costume wasn't changed all that much either, aside from the spider on the back. that's not the point.

I addressed his second point claiming people won't watch a superhero movie where underwear is on the outside.

His other argument was that many comic books are too far fetched to be accepted by general audiences and that's just plain false. It's never explained how superman can fly without wings but people just don't care. They just go along with the ride. This isn't a movie about global warming where people dispute the scientific merits. It's a superhero fantasy and people are fine with that.

You don't replace Silver Surfer's surfboard with a huge hovercraft because it's "more realistic".

 

[pjspider1C]

And it's not like the changes are exclusive to the movie either. In recent comics, they've made changes to old story arcs as well.

For example, Norman Osborn having an affair with Gwen Stacy and getting her pregnant with twins. Also, Spider-Man has gotten a bunch of new powers right before the civil war started - one of them being organic webbing.

Yes, some people are upset about the changes in the movie... but comics make changes as well, so I think the movies deserve more slack than people are giving it. Also, we need to remember that comics are ongoing. With Spider-Man 3, Raimi was trying to complete an arc - to end a story. Yeah, he didn't get every single little detail right, but if you ask me, he was very successful in staying true to the spirit of the Spider-Man comics and characters.

 

[TheVileOne]

I honestly feel that the current movies are better than the current comics.

Why? I feel the current comics have lost their way and they do a lot of stupid ****. They do a lot more stupid **** and retconning than the movies did IMHO.

What else? What is blind fury upset about? Cosmetic changes? Most of the characters depicted in the Spidey movies looked virtually identical to their comic counterparts.

Spidey's costume was basically the same.

Sandman looked EXACTLY the same as he does in the comics.

Doctor Octopus, the same. They just got rid of that ugly looking green jumpsuit. What he wore worked perfectly.

Venom? Again. The same. They simply added a twisted webbing pattern on him to push the anti-Spidey look.

So the biggest costmetic changes were to the Goblin and Harry's outfits.

I didn't think they were perfect, but I didn't find them terrible. I'm still not sold that the traditional goblin costumes could've worked in the movies and worked well.

I think DACrowe makes some good points, but they are just his opinion and at least he strongly supports why he likes the changes.

 

[blind_fury]

No it's not. The source material is a ton of short 10 minute stories that are stand alone enjoyable. Movies are one long story. they don't deal with one villain, today, and some other villain tomorrow. Look how many villains spidey fought with the symbiote in the comic book. Could they do that in a movie? Of course not. When you change on ething in the story, you end up having to change everything else so it still makes sense, and so the events contrast each other correctly.

The Death of Gwen Stacy is not a ten minute story. Nor is the Phoenix saga. If writers and directors can condense 300 page novels into a hour and half movies they can do the same with any major comic book arc.

do you think movie makers just say to themselves "let's purposely make a sucky movie, even though it's supposedly "really easy" to make a good movie"

Most comic book movies don't stay true to the source material which hides what made the source material popular in the first place.

so was Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. They made a ton of money off of those pieces of crap.

So did Batman with with is bat niples.

Those movie costumes are bad examples. They weren't true to the source material.

btw - Batman and Robin bombed at the box office.

Aside from the Catwoman movie, super heroe costumes in movies have been done really well, yet the movies still suck.

Ok, name 5 "sucky" comic book movies that stayed true to the source material.

 

[DACrowe]

blind_fury you have hated every one of these movies for years. Why do you troll still?

And does anyone worship Sam Raimi? I have noticed more of a hateful backlash in the whiney fanboy world over not enough Venom and dancing (nevermind the actual flaws of the movie like an uneven pace, a poorly structured narrative and one too many plot devices).

I personally think the first one was flawed but good and the third is even more flawed than SM1. I love the trilogy as a whole, but think it could have been better, mistakes were made and Avi Arad kept holding potential back (he was the one who cut Gwen out of the first movie to die and then had her and Eddie/Venom shoved into SM3). I also think SM2 is the highest mark a superhero movie has reached. With that said, it can be bettered and it can be topped.

This isn't Raimi worshipping. This is actually looking at the franchise differently and examining some of the changes. But when you dod that one has to expect one or more trolls like yourself.

Anyway, another change, I meant to say, and to me is the biggest improvement Raimi made was....

AUNT MAY.

He took a character who was basically the grandma from the Loony Tunes and until JMS (who has since lost all credibility) was always written as a one note boring cliche. Her death in #400 was great (again retconned though), but as a whole she has always been a boring character.

Raimi took the basic idea of a kind old lady who is Peter's moral conscience and will tell him the right thing when he needs to hear it, but made her a strong character. She may have hated Spidey at first but she grew reasonable after he saved her life. Spidey saved her life a few dozen time s in the comics and she still hated him. She is played by the incredibly wonderful Rosemary Harris who makes htis a strong woman who doesn't have a heart attack at seeing a messy room and can move out of her house with some dignity and strength. She can be angry at Peter and judge him. But in the end she is a character of dignity.

Not of weakness.

For the record I think the movies could have been better and didn't like quite a few changes but I think we have about 2 million threads on that, so I wanted to create this for a different discussion.

 

[DACrowe]

BTW the things I listed at the top of the thread were things I thought we all agreed were steps down from the source material (GG costume, organic webbing, MJ being written as very introverted, etc.).

 

[TheVileOne]

Great points DACrowe.

The other thing I like about Aunt May in the movies. In the second film I thought the scene with May and Peter talking about her house, and then Peter's confession to her were two of the most powerful and heartbreaking moments in all of the movies. And they weren't big or over-played at all. It's more in what you can see in Maguire and Harris's reactions.

For years the comics played with this notion that if Peter simply told her the truth it would destroy her or whatever. The movie played it better than I ever could've imagined. I don't like that the comics played it out like they were both responsible and how they both felt guilty for years.

The movie played it where Aunt May put the blame and guilt on herself for years while this realization tears Peter apart emotionally and internally. So when he confesses to her, you get that knee-jerk devastation, horror, and subtle anger from Aunt May. There's none of this, "Oh it was my fault too so let's forgive each other already." To me it made May's forgiving of Peter later a lot more powerful. That she didn't try to absolve him of guilt or say it wasn't his fault, or that it was partly his fault. She simply forgave him for finally telling the truth. And I think telling the truth can sometimes be the greatest gift you can give to a person, no matter how late it is.

 

[3dman27]

That's not easy for a director to do. Most comic book movies suck. A comic book movie is hard to do for two reasons.

1. It can't be too farfetched
2. Were talking about grown up adult men running around with their underwear outside their pants. It's extremely difficult for it not to be corny and laughable and ridiculous. In real life if you saw somebody running around dressed up like that, you'd probably just think they were a big dork who needed to grow up.

or you'd wonder what company's advertising mascot[ala HYPER] he was

 

[blind_fury]

I honestly feel that the current movies are better than the current comics.

Why? I feel the current comics have lost their way and they do a lot of stupid ****. They do a lot more stupid **** and retconning than the movies did IMHO.

What else? What is blind fury upset about? Cosmetic changes? Most of the characters depicted in the Spidey movies looked virtually identical to their comic counterparts.

Spidey's costume was basically the same.

Sandman looked EXACTLY the same as he does in the comics.

Doctor Octopus, the same. They just got rid of that ugly looking green jumpsuit. What he wore worked perfectly.

Venom? Again. The same. They simply added a twisted webbing pattern on him to push the anti-Spidey look.

So the biggest costmetic changes were to the Goblin and Harry's outfits.

I didn't think they were perfect, but I didn't find them terrible. I'm still not sold that the traditional goblin costumes could've worked in the movies and worked well.

I think DACrowe makes some good points, but they are just his opinion and at least he strongly supports why he likes the changes.

Cosmetic changes?

Taking away Spider-man's greatest scientific achievement (synthetic web formula) which ingrains Peter Parker's nerdy intelligence into his identity as Spider-man and replacing them with a organic body fluid is cosmetic?

Changing Parker/Spider-man's personality is cosmetic?

Changing Dr. Ock into a nice guy is cosmetic?

Reducing Gwen Stacy's significance to a contrived cameo is cosmetic?

Ignoring the Spidey sense for most of the trilogy is a cosmetic change?

Changing how Peter Parker is affected by the symbiote into clownish behavior is cosmetic?

Permanently killing off villain after villain is cosmetic?

Instead of Spider-man disarming villains with mockery Peter Parker becomes a mockery of himself? This is cosmetic?

Oh and so-called cosmetic changes also change the characters and relationships themselves. Replace Indiana Jones' hat with a backwards baseball cap and it changes/distorts/ruins the character.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The Death of Gwen Stacy is not a ten minute story. Nor is the Phoenix saga. If writers and directors can condense 300 page novels into a hour and half movies they can do the same with any major comic book arc.

the life story of Gwen Stacy spanned over a time period in which spider-man fought several villains, and many other events happened to help keep up the pace while we all get to know Gwen Stacy and grow attached to her.

They could never do that in a movie. comics are like episodes where as movies in a franchise are like chapters. It completely changes everything. If you have to keep readers interest every month for 20 years you have to drag out and mix storylines together to keep it just right.

with movies you need everything to come together in ONE movie, with a beginning, middle, and climax. you can't just string together a bunch of short stories.

Short stories are written differently than longer stories.

Most comic book movies don't stay true to the source material which hides what made the source material popular in the first place.

a movies is either good or bad. Crying source material just sounds ridiculous. Source material, source material. It's just a really weak argument. It doesn't matter how "true" they are. The movies are supposed to be stand alone and judged alone. yes it's easy to look at a movie and say "hey it could have been better if they had done this more like the comic book or that less like the comic book.

But they absolutely can not copy the comic book word for word. If they did it would suck horriblly.

and you did not answer the question. you changed the subject instead.

Those movie costumes are bad examples. They weren't true to the source material.

Really?

What's truer to the source material? This or what we got in Batman Begins? Are you saying Batman Begins sucked? Did Christopher Nolan make a mistake in not choosing this?

See what I mean. It can be better and different from the source material at the same time.

btw - Batman and Robin bombed at the box office.

the other one didn't and it sucked. Box office success doesn't automatically mean it's a great movie. Here you are bashing the spider-man movies which have been widly successful, while you simultaneously point to box office dollars as evidence of a good movie. You used it for the piece of crap Superman movie. That movie sucked.

and look at spider-man 3. Clearly the worst movie in the franchise, and internationally it's on his way to becoming the biggest box office draw. Huge dollar sales is not the same thing as good movie. Look at King Kong. It had disapointing sales, and that movie was better than any comic book movie ever made.

Ok, name 5 "sucky" comic book movies that stayed true to the source material.

your changing the subject. I said most comic book costumes in most movies have been done really well, but the movie still sucks. I didn't say the movie followed the comic book word for word.

Look at INcredible Hulk. He looked like his comic book counterpart, and that movie sucked. Look at DareDevil. He looked like his comic book counterpart and that movie sucked.

I'm merely saying that comic book adaptions are the most difficult movie to make, because it involves so much sci-fi and fantasty. And you never see normal people dressed like that. that's why it's hard to make the movie and characters relatable and larger than life at the same time, without making it corny. Avoiding the cheese limits options. And you can't fit 5 million comic book storylines into one movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

Cosmetic changes?

Taking away Spider-man's greatest scientific achievement (synthetic web formula) which ingrains Peter Parker's nerdy intelligence into his identity as Spider-man and replacing them with a organic body fluid is cosmetic?

You kept going on about costumes and how they look. And outside of the goblin costumes, every character in the movies look pretty much exactly the same as their comic counterparts.

I don't want to argue about organic webbing anymore.

Changing Parker/Spider-man's personality is cosmetic?

His personality was faithful IMHO. I'm not going to nitpick he didn't talk enough while he fights. I honestly feel if there was more talking and wisecracking during the fights people here would complain about it and say it was too silly and/or cheesy.

Changing Dr. Ock into a nice guy is cosmetic?

Alfred Molina's performance was fantastic. He made everything convincing and chilling as well. He made material that could've looked very silly, stupid, overblown very grounded and natural.

Doctor Octopus a nice guy? Eh whatever. I don't see why it's wrong to portray a SCIENTIST that's creating something to originally want to do something to benefit mankind.

What kind of person was Otto Octavius before his accident in the comics? Was he PURE EVIL like all the comic purists claim he should be?

At the end of the day. Do I think Doctor Octopus is better in the movies? No. Different, but I still like it all the same.

Reducing Gwen Stacy's significance to a contrived cameo is cosmetic?

The filmmakers and no one else were misleading about Gwen's role in the movies. It was an introduction to her character in the franchise.

In the end she served her purpose as a potential rival to Mary Jane but also as a passionate and kind person in her own way.

Gwen in the movies > Gwen being Norman Osborn's ****e in the comics.

Ignoring the Spidey sense for most of the trilogy is a cosmetic change?

I don't see this at all.

Changing how Peter Parker is affected by the symbiote into clownish behavior is cosmetic?

I don't find trying to murder Sandman as well as his violent behavior toward Mary Jane clownish.

Permanently killing off villain after villain is cosmetic?

Ugh whatever. The movies didn't do anything the comics haven't done. God forbid someone dies and STAYS DEAD.

You purists are spoiled by the facts that death means nothing in comics and characters can die and come back to life with a snap of fingers.

Everyone and their mother has died PERMANENTLY in the spider-man comics. Yet they always come back or their deaths are ******EDLY re-written as never happening. Venom, DOCTOR OCTOPUS, Green Goblin, Aunt May, Spider-man it's all the ****ing same.

Sandman lived, yet you don't take note of that.

Venom? Doctor Connors STILL HAS A PIECE OF THE SYMBIOTE! Venom's death in the movie can just as easily be retconned or re-written just as thousands of deaths have in the comics. To me this is one of the stupidest complaints I ever heard.

Instead of Spider-man disarming villains with mockery Peter Parker becomes a mockery of himself? This is cosmetic?

This is hilarious. You complain of Peter Parker acting CLOWNISH yet you complain he doesn't act clownish to stop his enemies. There was no mockery in how Peter stopped his enemies I felt.

And when he fought Harry the second time. He did indeed mock him. He hit him where it hurt. He said that his father despised and then called him Goblin Jr. So there's mocking his enemies.

Oh and so-called cosmetic changes also change the characters and relationships themselves. Replace Indiana Jones' hat with a backwards baseball cap and it changes/distorts/ruins the character.

Blah blah blah. Ultimately this is pretty pointless because nothing I say will change your mind. So we disagree. That's all there is.