The Amazing Spider-Man Who else feels sick?

[LightningFlash]

peter is a serious dork. for a dork, who ALWAYS sees hope for tomorrow to give into a dark side, means that his darkness within....isn't very dark.

so, add a to you

Serious dork or not, a darkness within from a very evil entity such as the symbiote would make the goofiest dork a force to be reckoned with. Not someone to laugh at.

Spectacular Spider-Man did it right, imo.

I think Sandman was changed for the better. Comic Sandman isn't much of a character, just good visually.

How was he changed for the better? By having a storyline involving his family that didn't even get a coherent ending as with the novel? And don't say Sandy's ending was to show forgiveness, because it didn't, it showed that a HERO let a VILLAIN escape.

Or do you mean with him being the real killer, and thus creating a useless retcon?

Better or not, I see no reason how one can be fine with a retcon that didn't need to be there. And surprised that so many fans just overlook that and still think that Raimi is to Spider-Man as Obama is to Nobel Peace Prize.

Listen to commentaries/read the Making of Book and you'll understand why. Harry was trying to kill Peter, not make a name for himself.

Though, I wish the mask could have been a bit more Goblin like.

I as well would've wanted Harry to have more of a Goblin-like look. But, that doesn't make sense at all really. If Harry is just out to kill Peter, then, okay, why even BOTHER to change up his father's gear? Why take time out to make him look like the Rocket Racer? If he just wants vengeance, why not just use the same suit as his father's? If it's no biggie, then why not just grab a pair of whitey-tighties and go after Peter? Hell, just get on a board naked if he didn't care and just wanted to kill.

As far as I know, Sam didn't write Venom, Alvin Sergeant did. I thought he was handled almost just like the comic books. Venom just needed more development and screentime.

"As far as I know".

No merit. So, as far as I know, Raimi did write Venom.

John Connor in Terminator 2, Peter Patrelli in Heroes season 1.

Ohhh they have swished hair...EMO!

It's an idiotic hair cut, yes. It's the new trend. And idiotic.

And emo.

Oh, and idiotic.

Although, for John and Peter, they aren't wearing all black as Emo!Parker was.

Peter was just a jerk. He reminded me of an old school (like in the 50's-70's era) jerk. "I'm gonna put some dirt in your eye", "find us some shade. Thanks hotlegs" "Keep the door open pops".

No emo or prep talks like that.

He was emo for the way he acted with swishing his hair back.

He just acted like a jackass with those lines. Obviously Raimi wrote those lines in. Perhaps he's stuck in the 50s.

70s, really? Wow. Good job on not knowing your times.

So the symbiote makes Peter a tool. Again, as I've stated above, I see no reason why the symbiote made Peter a tool. And a senseless one. Even alcohol doesn't make someone sound like Sinatra.

Agreed. The montage was hilarious, but wasn't needed. If they were going to use it (the dancing anyway) they could have had more of Peter being evil. They had quite a bit but not as much as I'd have liked.

They should've shown him throw a man through a car window instead of showing pictures. And stopped with him acting like a Jew to Dr. Connors. Surprised, with so many rights groups, that Raimi didn't get hate for that.

Well...it is a movie. Have you ever seen a man swing on webs that shoot out of his wrists then land on a wall and stick to it?

Hahahaha.

Thought of a great joke.

Emo is partially looks but mainly the attitude. Emo hair also typically covers the eyes or one side of the face. They do everything opposite of being cocky, especially dancing. They don't want to be noticed. Peter was jazzy, dark, and way cocky. I assume Peter did the hair thing to make it look more messy, as a sign of rebellion maybe. Some scenes it was hardly actually parted to a side, it was just down. Should they have done the parted hair thing? No. Why? Because fans will cry "EMO" because they have no idea what an emo is.

And yes, I TOTALLY have hair like that.

No, I have alot of hair, but it's out of my face. If anything, I had a bloated Eric Forman hair. It's grown out, someone told me Jim Morrison. And I'd agree.

Dude....emo *****ebags are always trying to be cocky!

Look for Alternative Press(a magazine) and you will fine all of those tweenie emo bands trying to look cool and cocky. Hence why I say, Peter reminds me of an emo kid with his hair. He looks like he should be a member of Escape the Fate.

And...cool?

 

[Jick]

Sandman was horrible indeed.
The little I know him from the comics is better then what they did to him in the movie.
I don't blame Hayden, though.

 

[LightningFlash]

I would never blame THC either. The acting was fine, it was just the story.

Besides Grace, Raimi did one good thing right in picking great actors to portray the villains.

 

[Chris Wallace]

peter is a serious dork. for a dork, who ALWAYS sees hope for tomorrow to give into a dark side, means that his darkness within....isn't very dark.

An argument I've raised for 3 years.

 

[Sony23]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

 

[Vile]

I'm not just sick, I'm ****ing ANGRY. It would be different if Sam had not wanted to come back and they continued the story with a new director with a new approach that would benefit the franchise. The fact that Sam DID want to come back with the original cast but won't because of creative interference and not being able to meet the deadline (one that won't be met with the reboot anyway!!!!) is UNACCEPTABLE. Then rather than choose the option of continuing the story without him they reboot the franchise!? So in other words, the reboots will totally remove any relevance as the Raimi trilogy as being the "true" Spidey films? Which one is the "real" Spider-Man movie? That's BS. Did Raimi's version have problems? Of course they did. No one says they were perfect, but they were great Spider-Man films. Say what you want, but Sam Raimi has PROVEN he can make a great Spider-Man film. If not 1, he sure has hell made a great movie in the sequel. The fact that Sony would rather risk this proven success with another director that could be much worse with a story that we saw 9 years ago instead of allowing Sam to make another great movie speaks volumes to their stupidity and insatiable need to interfere in the creative process.

I personally hate the idea of a Spider-Man film without Sam Raimi and the fact that Sony Pictures have decided to screw the fans in this way is something I can't accept. I won't be seeing the film in protest. I really hope they read the comments and outrage they've caused and change their minds. Something tells me they're too stubborn and stupid for that.

Sony realized that Raimi had stalled the franchise. Vulture in 4? Okay...then who? Electro? Kangaroo? Kraven? What next for Peter and MJ? They get back together! No, wait, they break up! NO wait! a kid! Nope, it's a gold fish!

The series just couldnt go ANYWHERE. Raimi adapted both the Goblin Legacy and Symbiote Saga in THREE FILMS. He also killed 4 A-lister villains in THREE FILMS...letting friggin' Sandman walk away.

Oh I know! Spidey 5: Return of Sandman

 

[Dangerous]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

 

[El Payaso]

Doesn't make him an "emo" though.

That's true, it makes him an idiot.

And it's not only the notion of an emo hairdo - even if he's not an emo himself - as symbol of evil/dark side but the scene where he looks in the mirror and feels like he has to comb his hair like that. WTF.

 

[NinjaCarm]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

Nicely said. Raimi's vision of Spider-Man if, anything, is simply infuriating to a true Spider-Man fan.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Nicely said. Raimi's vision of Spider-Man if, anything, is simply infuriating to a true Spider-Man fan.

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

 

[webhead731]

Finally someone had the time to put that guy in his place.

 

[LightningFlash]

Dang, I was hoping for a "I love Sam Raimi" reply from one of you fanboys.

Now I gotta go back to the game and watch the Cards lose.

 

[Dr.Dude]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

Great post, great post.

Also, the other thing that sickens me is the treatment of the Spider-Man character in general these days, not just with this reboot idea but also in every media form.

One of the things that made Spider-Man great, that went right along with the "everyman" quality that made him popular, was the fact that he evolved. He wasn't stuck in place, like most other superheroes. In contrast, he was the superhero who started in high school but graduated, went into college, experienced loss and got past it, got married, got a job as a teacher at his old high school, etc. It was real.

Now, it seems like all anyone wants to do is devolve the character. First there was this ridiculous "One More Day"/"Brand New Day" event in the comics, which threw the character back several decades; they could've easily brought back the old, more fun tone without rebooting everything. Ultimate Spider-Man, though it started out great, is still stuck in the high school years and has turned into something that only remotely resembles how Spider-Man should be. Now, even the movies are doing the same thing and resetting Peter back to being a teenager and I've got a feeling that this time, they're not going to let him get out of high school. Even if they do, though, they're just going to reboot it again in five years, so what's the point of caring anymore?

Pretty soon, Spider-Man in every media form is just going to just be like Archie Comics, which I think I remember Joe Quesada even mentioning in an interview. Spidey's going to end up being stuck in the same place forever, a franchise property instead of a fictional character, dying not out of terrible events but instead out of stagnation. I've loved Spider-Man more than any other superhero since I was four-years-old and I hope I'm wrong but right now, the forecast looks dark to me.

 

[El Payaso]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality.

So.

You're just not getting the joke behind the avatar, right?

 

[Venom'sDad]

I hated the Raimi Spidey films, everything about them especially the cast who all sucked.

Can't wait to see Spider-man done properly on the big screen, here's hoping.

So I'm really happy about the reboot.

It sounded terrible, Vultress? Yuck!

My personal opinion of the People who are ticked off is that for the most part they are comprised of Spidey fans who came to know the character through the movies. So it's understandable that they are annoyed. 'Their' version of Spidey is over. Being a real fan myself, from decades before 2002 I understood the Raimi films were a poor imitation.

I'm not going to say I hate everything about the Raimi Spidey films... but there is certainly alot to be desired. Neitherless, great post overall.

However, a reboot does not guarantee a properly done Spiderman adaption.... just guarantee the potential.

I'm still somewhat suspicious given Sony plans to use Vanderbilt's script that was intended for Sam Raimi. So I suspect we will still get some of Raimi's handprint/influence with it; even thought Raimi himself didn't like parts of it. Also, the script has to be tweak(heavily I imagine) to fit the "high school" years. It certainly was not originally written that way... obviously.

Here's wishing for the best... certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Spider Jerusalem]

I am not sure what to think about the reboot.

My initial thought is that it will turn out badly. Raimi reportedly could not meet a deadline due to creative differences. If the reports about the 3rd movie plot being forced on Raimi are true, I can understand why he would have creative differences. This leads me to believe that whatever these issues are, will manifest themselves in this reboot since Sony no longer has someone to challenge the script.

I am not saying that Raimi's Spiderman was THE Spiderman. Raimi, IMO, did an excellent job with 1 and 2. While there could have been more wise cracks, I did feel he captured the essence of the character as a whole. Sure, I dont agree with all of the choices made. I would not have introduced MJ in the first movie, etc, but fans also need to realize that a movie is much different than a comic book and the average, non comic reading movie goer does not know who Gwen Stacy was, so the logical choice in MJ. Most movie goers do not know Peter is a genius, so it makes more sense in the movie realm to have his webbing a product of his new powers rather than spend a half hour explaining his genius. I too am a huge spiderfan but its important to understand that to make it work, some liberties must be taken.

Anyway, From the sounds of the 4th movie, it seems they may stray a little bit too far from what makes Spiderman and his villians great and maybe Raimi had a problem with that. Whether you liked Raimi or not, now Sony has no one as of yet to challenge the script.

I will wait until there is more solid news of the story before really making judgment I suppose. My opinion is that they should keep the first two movies as the established origin, scrap the 3rd as just a day in the life of Spidey, and make movies based on story lines from now on... Say the Kraven story line, etc.

 

[Dangerous]

Says the guy with a pic of Hammond in his avatar. Now that was infuriating. Cheesy costume-complete with utility belt, outborne web-shooters, vinyl boots & stand-alone gloves,, lame villains, boring plots, horrible FX, no Uncle Ben, no real motivation for Peter to become Spidey, and he had no personality. Ugh. And while fans complain about things like Tobey being frequently unmasked, Hammond was seen on a wall, sans costume or mask by a crowd of people. The clone episode had JJJ attend a party dressed as Spider-Man. His spider-sense told him about things happening in the next room but never alerted him to direct threats. It tool him a half hour to subdue ordinary thugs. His webbing was Halloween decoration & couldn't hold a toddler. It was just ridiculous. Give me a "Ranger Goblin" over that crap any day.
I am sick of seeing all these posts that claim that if you like the Raimi films, you're not a "true" Spidey fan. Nobody says that if you like the Superman films-be it DOnner, Lester or Singer, then you're not a true Superman fan. Nobody says that if you like the Burton or Nolan films, you're not a "true" Batman fan. It's so damn hypocritical. Did Raimi make some changes that I didn't agree with? Sure he did. I could have done with more wisecracks, more consistent spider-sense warnings, fewer shirt-rip sequences and less repetition. But none of this made the movies unenjoyable. I was able to enjoy both Burton's first Batman as well as Nolan's, despite the NUMEROUS things done wrong there. I didn't like ANYTHING about Donner's Superman except Reeve, but it's still on my DVD shelf. So Raimi's vision was different from yours. That doesn't make it a "bad" interpretation. But to pass judgment on everyone who disagrees with you is plain absurd.

Chris Wallace- I know this might sound a bit crazy, but what d'you reckon that Hammond-Spidey avatar might be in place out of humor?

As for me using the term 'real fan' I was using it to distinguish myself from the section of fans who came to know the character through the movies.

Those people will have only became fans because they loved the films, which in essence were a poor imitation of the source material.

As such in most cases they will have an affinity for the crap adaptations that were SM1-3 over the original comic series and in most cases not know the characters/stories as well as the hardcore geeks who have been buying Spidey comics for decades prior to 2002.

 

[webhead731]

I was a Spider-Man fan before I saw the movies, and the movies made me love it more. I think they told the story wonderfully.

Were there changes? Yeah. But tell me what comic book movie didn't change stuff and was still successful?

 

[spidermanfreak]

What will the reboot succeed in

 

[Chris Wallace]

What will the reboot succeed in

It will succeed in creating division amongst fans that will last for generations.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I was a Spider-Man fan before I saw the movies, and the movies made me love it more. I think they told the story wonderfully.

Were there changes? Yeah. But tell me what comic book movie didn't change stuff and was still successful?

Exactly! EVERY comic book movie has changes. Every single comic book film.

 

[david icke]

Just like to give a to CW for his 'true Spider-man fans' rebuttal back there. I've been getting a little tired of folk accusing fans of the Raimi series of not being 'true' SM fans as well, that totally needed to be said.
Doesn't matter about the Hammond avi being a joke or not, that was the important part of the post.

As for the OP's 'feeling sick' point...I empathise with this feeling but I have to be honest, I am starting to get the feeling that the next Raimi Spdier-man would've been like that Marx Bros movie 'The MB in Casablanca', the one they made a bit later on to clear up Chico's gambling debts. ie They look a bit past it and it's an inferior echo of past glories.
The Vulture feels like he would have been a Goblin-lite figure, in action as well as in character; a baby plot could've been awful; I always thought Dunst looked fine in all 3 movies, but she just does not look right nowadays for the role, has put on the years; the plot sounded like Superman IV.
So, I don't like the thought of them spoiling what we already got, it's more of an ongoing story than the Superman movies, if 4 had been an awful tacked on domestic bliss ending that felt forced I wouldn't have been happy. I like it being a little up in the air with PP and Mj's future at the end of 3, like they now know they will have to fight for happiness.
Also, I kind of like the fact it ended with Harry's death, it's like Han, Leia and Luke going through the trilogy together, it being their story, not just Pete's.

So, they made a pretty tight trilogy, with some flaws here and there sure, but this reboot will be lucky to score as many hits over misses that this trilogy did.
That said, I am willing to be open minded and hopeful about the re-boot. As I am sure most fans are.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Exactly! EVERY comic book movie has changes. Every single comic book film.

And while some of those changes are eagerly embraced, others are met with flammable rage. Sometimes, however, fan response is downright hypocritical. It's ok to change this, but how dare you change that! In all likelihood, the best case scenario for the reboot will be a trade-off; closer to the comics than Raimi's films in some ways, radically different in others. Whether it will be a worthwhile trade-off remains to be seen. If it's as far removed as TDK & met with equal praise-particularly by the same people who have been acting like Raimi's just the Anti-Christ, I can't say I won't be a little annoyed by this.