The Amazing Spider-Man Who else feels sick?

[Spider-ManHero12]

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!

Very true, my friend.

 

[RustyCage]

Sometimes, however, fan response is downright hypocritical. It's ok to change this, but how dare you change that!

I don't quite see how that's 'hypocritical'. If someone finds something satisfactory, they think it should stay, if they find something unsatisfactory, they want it changed. That's simply productive/constructive thinking. They want a better movie by eliminating the bad things and encouraging good things. Insulting them for not being as extremist as to say 'change it all or don't change anything!' is silly. Why scrap something good just for the sake of scrapping it?

There's nothing hypocritical about that behavior because they're still following the train of thought of improving Spider-man films via what they feel works and doesn't work. They haven't betrayed that point of pursuit one bit, and thus they cannot, by definition, be labeled as hypocrites.

No offense intended, but it seems like this is just a case of misusing a word when another might have been more appropriate.

Although, you may be referring to something more specific that poses a more valid point.. If so, citing that would make better sense of things.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

 

[topdog1]

I've never been that type of fan. I've always given the studios large latitude to change what they feel is necessary. When they announced no web shooters, not a peep out of me. When they cast a 6' 4" Wolverine, not a grumble. Even after the fact, some fanboys have trouble differentiating between the books, their own expectations and the films. I judge the movies on their own merit.

That being said, I'm dismayed at this reboot idea. I have tremendously low expectations for this film. Ultimate Line geared at tweeners + LOW budget can't equal anything worth a damn. I'm sorry but I have to vent just a little. There was NO need to do this at this point. With everyone in place, SM4 would've been a break even project for the studio at a worst case scenario. More than likely, it would've made huge cash again. Now, the genie is out of the bottle and can never go back. A cheap tweener reboot could have always happened in the future.

The last time I heard a studio come up with an idea like this it was a Lionsgate exec who said, "Hey, let's release The Punisher on the same day as Kill Bill. That'll be a great move!"

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

Once again, very well said.

 

[Sony23]

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

Um..no. This is just speculation on your part and is just plain WRONG. Yes, there was creative differences, but it had nothing to do with Raimi stalling the franchise:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060521p1.html

Raimi had said from the beginning, that he would do a fourth depending on the script. You can see from that article, that he found disagreement with the studio on what the next film should be. What then does that tell you?

Sam Raimi simply had found that the studio was once again trying to control his direction. We've seen the result of that already - in SM3! Who cares if he wanted the Vulture? (I personally think he should've gone with the Lizard since he's been building it up for 3 films), if he was given the chance to make SM4 with the Vulture with a great story why should the studio care? We all know that Raimi favors the old Spider-Man villains and we've already seen the result when he is in full control. The result is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. So who's argument is valid on who should have control? Raimi or the Studio?

Put simply, this is really about Columbia Pictures wanting full control. This cluster**** of a film they're making now is anything but a decision made with the fans in mind. They wouldn't let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (one that DID have the fans in mind) so they let him walk. . Having the same cast and crew returning to a series for this long is rare enough as it is. The majority of people wanted a Spider-Man 4 NOT a reboot. Why we're not getting it after the original cast and crew were already involved is unforgivable. In fact, the only reboot there should be is at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios...starting with Avi Arad.

 

[spider-neil]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

*applaudes*

 

[Dangerous]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy.

What BB/TDK did for the first time was capture the physical intensity of Batman in Christian Bale, made Batman believable, captured the bleak and brutal feeling of some of the greatest Batman stories such as TDKR & TKJ & perfectly captured the core essence/character of The Joker on screen and made him scary- as he is supposed to be.

Sure some stuff was altered, Joker was not hopping around like an idiot like Cesar Romero, but they totally nailed the essence of who the Joker is and what he stands for in an actor who fully realized him physically. The same can be said for Batman. And as for other key characters like Two Face- he may have been portrayed different in personality to how he is in the comics, but as a mentally stable smart guy going through a breakdown Aaron Eckhart was brilliant and convincing.

Stuff was altered in BB/TDK because they wanted to make these films more realistic and some of the characters were altered too, but the reason they are great films is because all the alterations WORK. The cast in TDK is amazing- Eckhart/Ledger/Oldman all provide incredible performances and are all totally believable.

By contrast when you watch SM3 it's like watching a kiddie’s toy commercial. The only character I thought was portrayed well was Sandman, he was great, the rest were terrible. The reason reworking Green Goblin (his costume) was blasphemy was because he looked idiotic! Not menacing at all but rather he looked like a power ranger!

The reason reworking Venom was blasphemy was because he looked lame as hell. Venom is a huge brute twice the size of Spider-Man (not just an inch or two both ways) who for a while Spider-Man thinks he’s not going to be able to stop. Venom is a main villain who should be the sole threat of a SM film, not treated as a chump like Bane was in B&R.

The Batman villains in question were treated w/ the respect they deserve in terms of visual likeness to their comic counterparts, screen time and the threat they presented, not only that they were enthralling to watch. The Spidey villains in question were not. Tho I will say Dafoe was great as Norman Osborn. BB/TDK were great films/ SM3 was crap.

See the difference?

I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever.

So since Dawes was a newly invented character on screen what difference does she matter? Little. But if you are portraying a huge comicbook character such as MJ, there’s a big responsibility/expectation hanging over that and you better get it right!

Kirsten Dunst was crap as MJ for numerous reasons the two main being her not looking like MJ and the scriptwriters not understanding MJ’s character and writing her as someone else.

 

[henzINNIT]

This argument on comic-purity makes me feel sicker about this whole thing, just because I'm saddened by how Spidey became "cool" to hate on because of some mis-steps in the 3rd film. It was a great series, one of the best trilogies I've seen; and it's a shame we couldn't see another entry before this reboot comes.

It seems that the only people hopeful for this reboot are those purists who didn't like some of the changes the previous films made. That's fair enough, yet I can't help but feel this vocal group are the ones who won't be satisfied anyway. Come 2012, there will be another interpretation that inevitably won't fulfill the exact vision. That's pretty much the best case scenario; there's a chance that it will suck beyond belief as well.

 

[Dangerous]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Some of those reasons are just plain stupid, might I add, but to each his own. I love all 3 films with a BIIIG passion. They are just incredible.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

A Jazzy spider-man score?

 

[Sony23]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

 

[Chris Wallace]

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

He would never admit to such a thing.

 

[spider-neil]

Um..no. This is just speculation on your part and is just plain WRONG. Yes, there was creative differences, but it had nothing to do with Raimi stalling the franchise:

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/106/1060521p1.html

Raimi had said from the beginning, that he would do a fourth depending on the script. You can see from that article, that he found disagreement with the studio on what the next film should be. What then does that tell you?

Sam Raimi simply had found that the studio was once again trying to control his direction. We've seen the result of that already - in SM3! Who cares if he wanted the Vulture? (I personally think he should've gone with the Lizard since he's been building it up for 3 films), if he was given the chance to make SM4 with the Vulture with a great story why should the studio care? We all know that Raimi favors the old Spider-Man villains and we've already seen the result when he is in full control. The result is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. So who's argument is valid on who should have control? Raimi or the Studio?

Put simply, this is really about Columbia Pictures wanting full control. This cluster**** of a film they're making now is anything but a decision made with the fans in mind. They wouldn't let Raimi make the film he wanted to make (one that DID have the fans in mind) so they let him walk. . Having the same cast and crew returning to a series for this long is rare enough as it is. The majority of people wanted a Spider-Man 4 NOT a reboot. Why we're not getting it after the original cast and crew were already involved is unforgivable. In fact, the only reboot there should be is at Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios...starting with Avi Arad.

the people that wanted the reboot were the vocal minority. even on SHH most people wanted SM4 to move fowards. yeah, so SM3 wasn't so great (its darn sight better than a whole host of 3rd movies I could ist) you dust yourself down and move forwards with the next installment. I'm pissed that I wont see the dylan baker lizard realised.

I've watched SM2 this week and that movie absolutely ****s on BB and iron man (and not far off TDK imho) sony should have left him to get on with SM4, let him redeem himself after the direct himself admitted SM3 wasn't as good as it could have been.

 

[spider-neil]

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

can you please explain how his last two points are hyrocrital?

 

[david icke]

I dislike all the Raimi Spidey films.
As a purist I'll be happy if-

1-PP/SM is portrayed by an actor who embodies the magnetism and strength that PP has in panel, meaning we don't get another drip w/ no personality like Maguire.
2-Spidey is full of quips
3-Gwen and or MJ are portrayed correctly in character and looks
4-Villain costumes are faithful
5-We get mech webshooters, no organics
6-Spidey's origin is fixed to radioactive Spider and Ben getting shot at home
7-The score is more uptempo and jazzy thus reflecting Spidey's personality
8-We see Spidey do some amazing stuff- how about the scene from ASM#33 where he presses that great weight above his head, iconic scenes like that.

You have just said that BB/TDK changes are fine because they 'work', whereas you want to change some things that were absolutely fine for the films, some minor changes that more than 'worked'.

In what way would changing the Spider to a 'radioactive' one make the movies better? At least with changing it to genetically altered, there is a science there that folk can understand, it makes the movie feel more realistic, and you get the cool graphics with the DNA strands linking up.

Ben gets shot at home is a change you want? Why, when the change worked for the movie? Imo it was far more dramatic to have to happen outside in public where Spidey could give chase to the robber's car, combining it with the first web swing, something not featured in AF15, and we also get the showdown with the killer in the abandoned building, which is the dramatic moment represented in AF15, we don't even see Ben shot in AF15.

and the last thing we need is whacky comedic music overstating Spider-man's lighthearted moments, it wouldd end up sounding like an ep of Ugly Betty.

A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits.

As for the villans costumes/looks being faithful, they all were, apart from the Goblins, and even then, their method of operation, weapons, fighting style, strategy, was spot on.

 

[RustyCage]

Basically, I'm talking about movies like "The Dark Knight", which is DRASTICALLY far removed from the comics in almost every way but it's heralded as the greatest comic book movie ever by fandom in general, while everything that's NOT Batman gets nitpicked to death. And I've got plenty of examples: Joker can not joke, Scarecrow can be a glorified drug dealer, Ducard & Ra's can be the same person, Zzazz can be a hired hitman, Two-Face can have NONE of the personality traits he has in the comics, but reworking Green Goblin, Ock or Venom is just blasphemy. Fox can be the brains behind Batman, but it's lunacy to take away Peter Parker's gadgets. I've seen countless complaints against Dunst's Mary Jane, but Rachel Dawes (a completely made-up character, BTW) is arguably the most unlikeable love interest ever. I could go on & on with the years of "That's not how it was in the comics!", "Man-Spider" & all that other nonsense.

Ahhh now that's more sensible! I thought we were just talking about Spider-man here.

You're right, there's a different attitude toward how Spider-man on film should be handled compared to the Batman fandom. But I think that it's pretty understandable. For instance, in Venom's case he was just completely and utterly butchered and not merely 'different'. They also killed him off, so there's no potential chance for him to do things we wanted to see him do, like there is for characters like Zsasz, Joker (who was intended to appear again and may still in some form), and Scarecrow (who has reappeared and may again). And Two-Face was just bloody well written.

An advantage the Batman films have in the matter of killed off enemies is that they can still 'come back from the dead' in comic book fashion, while with Raimi's Spider-man films the continuity is now closed, the series' run is over.

And yes, Rachel being the most unlikeable love interest ever IS very arguable. We could have Dunst's MJ VS Rachel conversations for days, I guarantee it. I will say that Maggie wrecked Rachel for me, so as far as TDK goes, you win by default. Begins' Rachel would be my only argument.

 

[Dangerous]

delete.

 

[Dangerous]

^^ Some of those reasons are just plain stupid, might I add, but to each his own. I love all 3 films with a BIIIG passion. They are just incredible.

Like you said each to his own.
I think the Raimi films suck big time.
I’m really happy it’s over now.
As for the hopes I listed they are all based on bringing the film closer to the source.

A Jazzy spider-man score?

Up tempo and jazzy, more like Spider-Man’s personality.

Like Spider-Man 67- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o4-YtEd6Tk
And Spectacular- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoeOBDSgWBA

Not another generic Danny Elfman score that sounds like everything else he has
ever done, and conveys nothing that is Spider-Man.

You do realize with your last two posts, you've just proven Chris Wallace's point on hypocrisy don't you?

If you'd like to explain how, I'd be happy to show you how you have mis-interpreted what I said.

He would never admit to such a thing.

You're welcome to explain too.

???

But I think my next paragraphs will clear up the misunderstandings-

You have just said that BB/TDK changes are fine because they 'work', whereas you want to change some things that were absolutely fine for the films, some minor changes that more than 'worked'.

Some of the minor changes you speak of, may have ‘worked’ to some degree in the context of a blockbuster movie, or in your opinion, but were in fact symptomatic of a less faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than could have been and as such lessened my enjoyment of the films and for me did not work.

In what way would changing the Spider to a 'radioactive' one make the movies better? At least with changing it to genetically altered, there is a science there that folk can understand, it makes the movie feel more realistic, and you get the cool graphics with the DNA strands linking up.

Altering the origin to be a radioactive spider rather than a gm spider is a minor issue and would not make the film any better but would make it more comic faithful and pleasing to long term fans. Not all the issues I wanted to see altered are deal breakers. I merely listed all the stuff I would like to see changed this time. Some of them really important- PP being cast well, characters being written correctly, the quips being in place, others like the spider bite being not so crucial.

Ben gets shot at home is a change you want? Why, when the change worked for the movie? Imo it was far more dramatic to have to happen outside in public where Spidey could give chase to the robber's car, combining it with the first web swing, something not featured in AF15, and we also get the showdown with the killer in the abandoned building, which is the dramatic moment represented in AF15, we don't even see Ben shot in AF15.

I’d like to see the origin altered so that Ben was shot at home yes. Primarily because it would help differentiate this film as a new beginning and separate entity to the Noughties films, but also because it works much better in it’s original context- Ben getting shot while protecting his home from an invader.

In the original origin Spidey still tracks the killer down to the old warehouse and we still get the crucial showdown and moment of realization. It just makes more sense how it was originally presented, and gives Ben more dignity.

and the last thing we need is whacky comedic music overstating Spider-man's lighthearted moments, it wouldd end up sounding like an ep of Ugly Betty.

I never said anything about ‘whacky comedic’ music.

I’d like to see a score that better captures who Spider-Man is rather than another generic score that that sounds like it could have been lifted from any interchangeable Tim Burton movie and is boring and unoriginal.

Take the aforementioned Spectacular Spider-man theme music.
Is that whacky or comedic? Nope.
But it does capture who Spider-man is really well.

I’m not saying the new films theme music should have vocals over the top, but it would do well to take it’s inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes.

A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits.

Not exact same scenario.

In Spidey vs. train, Spidey was in a fight and then presented with a difficult challenge that he just about overcame. He was not practically dead on his feet to start with. The train scene did not recall his motivations and frustrations and tie them all together via his internal monologue to create a stirring momentum to his actions which resulted in victory from a starting point of being practically beaten.

I’d like to see stuff on screen similar to the greatest scenes from the comics; - for the scriptwriters to take their inspiration from those scenes and cook up something as awesome.

How about in ASM #230 when Spidey drove a gasoline tanker right into the Juggernaut and then Juggy just shrugged it off and kept going! Spidey’s eyes were popping out of his head and reading it is the most exciting thing ever!

I want to see stuff like that in the new film, stuff that really captures the intensity and awe inspiring spectacle of Spidey’s most memorable fights and struggles.

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.

As for the villans costumes/looks being faithful, they all were, apart from the Goblins

I dunno which one was worse, but both the Goblin costumes were terrible.
And Venom was horrible as well. Not big enough, didn’t talk through his alien mouth, the raised webbing effect was lame.

So yea, faithful costumes on all the villains is something I’d like to see in the new films.

 

[david icke]

Some of the minor changes you speak of, may have ‘worked’ to some degree in the context of a blockbuster movie, or in your opinion, but were in fact symptomatic of a less faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than could have been and as such lessened my enjoyment of the films and for me did not work.

So, howcome the changes to BB/TDK did not lessen your enjoyment of those movies, despite those changes working in both franchises?
I mean, in the following statements, you do not explain how these changes did not work at all, so you are not explaining anything in as much as how your stance on the Nolan Batmans makes your stance on the Raimi Spider-man hypocritical.

Altering the origin to be a radioactive spider rather than a gm spider is a minor issue and would not make the film any better but would make it more comic faithful and pleasing to long term fans. Not all the issues I wanted to see altered are deal breakers. I merely listed all the stuff I would like to see changed this time. Some of them really important- PP being cast well, characters being written correctly, the quips being in place, others like the spider bite being not so crucial.

I only challenged your opinion on the changes made to the stories, not you ropinion on different actors, or more quips being used.
So, I'm a long term reader, from 77-93 I read SM comics constantly, all titles, ASM, MTU, PPTSSM, WoS, and the change did not bother me at all. In fact i wouldn't even go so far to describe it as a change, it did not affect the story one bit, in fact all it did was make the story more paltable and feel more real.
Radioactiveity was all the rage in the world back in the 50s and 60s, talk of atomic bombs etc, so stan used that. who's to say he would not have used genetics if he wrote AF15 today?

Again, it changed nothing.

I’d like to see the origin altered so that Ben was shot at home yes. Primarily because it would help differentiate this film as a new beginning and separate entity to the Noughties films, but also because it works much better in it’s original context- Ben getting shot while protecting his home from an invader.

In the original origin Spidey still tracks the killer down to the old warehouse and we still get the crucial showdown and moment of realization. It just makes more sense how it was originally presented, and gives Ben more dignity.

I don't see how it gives Ben more 'dignity'? The guy is just as honorable, but i can see what you mean, you like the idea that he went out like a hero, defending his home.
But, you could also say he was just as heroic or daft, if you want, about the movie Ben, getting in the way of a guy with a gun over some property and getting himself killed.

No-ones saying it would not be good to have some changes for the next movie, but that's not to say the change made for the 1st film was a bad one, that in some way lessened teh character of Ben, which is what you imply, by saying he would have more 'dignity'.
Ok, maybe a little, if you think about the fact he could have been defending May's presence in the house, but he could also have been doing something daft, putting May at more risk by trying to tackle a burglar instead of letting him get on his way.
Because he's always been refered to as the burglar, not the guy who was going to murder Aunt May until Ben intervened, it's the same scenario essentially, murder over property.

I never said anything about ‘whacky comedic’ music.

I’d like to see a score that better captures who Spider-Man is rather than another generic score that that sounds like it could have been lifted from any interchangeable Tim Burton movie and is boring and unoriginal.

Take the aforementioned Spectacular Spider-man theme music.
Is that whacky or comedic? Nope.
But it does capture who Spider-man is really well.

I’m not saying the new films theme music should have vocals over the top, but it would do well to take it’s inspirations from previous Spider-Man TV theme tunes.

The music used for cartoons is very different from those used for movies, and for good reason. Try playing some cartoon Spidey music along with the movies and I bet you get a whacky comedic effect akin to an ep of Ugly Betty.
'whacky and comedic' may not be the effect you were looking for, but it will probably be the effect you get.

why not just get in another composer using an orchestra for a new Spidey movie, because i can understand your complaints about Elfman scores sounding similar, although i thought he did a great job with the main themes for Spider-man.

Not exact same scenario.

In Spidey vs. train, Spidey was in a fight and then presented with a difficult challenge that he just about overcame. He was not practically dead on his feet to start with. The scene to did not recall his motivations and frustrations and tie them all together via his internal monologue to create a stirring momentum to his actions which resulted in victory from a starting point of being practically beaten.

I’d like to see stuff on screen similar to the greatest scenes from the comics; - for the scriptwriters to take their inspiration from those scenes and cook up something as awesome.

How about in ASM #230 when Spidey drove a gasoline tanker right into the Juggernaut and then Juggy just shrugged it off and kept going! Spidey’s eyes were popping out of his head and reading it is the most exciting thing ever!

I want to see stuff like that in the new film, stuff that really captures the intensity and awe inspiring spectacle of Spidey’s most memorable fights and struggles.

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.

In you opinion, but in mine and many others, the train scene was one of those type of classic moments, what does it matter if he was dead on his feet beforehand in some, does he have to be in order for it to be a classic moment, what's wrong with the actual scenario causing him to pass out dead on his feet? the point is he was pushing himself beyond his limits and against the odds.

and you seem to be wanting something you will probably never get from a Spider-man movie, an internal monlogue.

I was talking about this on one of the threads on the top board last week. More than quips, more than anything else, this is a main ingredient of a Spider-man comic, and one of the main appeals of the books imo, that we will probably never get in the movies, his internal monologues.
They have only only used in superhero/comicbook movies for detective type stories like Rorschach, and Sin City, because they are traditionally used for detective stories in movies, it's not an idea too far out of the box. Whereas, if you were relying on an interior monlogue to carry a lot of scenes in your Spider-man movies, and then they came off as cheesey when it came time for the actor to overdub his lines(like they can do in a lot of movies), your Spider-man movie would be up crap creek.
No-one is going to risk the internal monologue for a Spider-man movie.
edit: Sony certainly won't anyway.

I dunno which one was worse, but both the Goblin costumes were terrible.
And Venom was horrible as well. Not big enough, didn’t talk through his alien mouth, the raised webbing effect was lame.

So yea, faithful costumes on all the villains is something I’d like to see in the new films.

Venom looked great to my eyes, in fact if he had looked any bigger he would have looked ridiculous, he looked just the right size, somewhat bigger than Spider-man and muscular, for it to look cool and tasteful in a live action setting. The raised webbing looked great as well, and was necesarry so there was texture on the black form so it could be seen in front of black backgrounds.
You did see him talk out of his alien mouth sometimes, there was a mixture, but Raimi likes to see the actor's face now and again, and I thought Grace looked good with the little sharp teeth he had. Venom's look was very faithful, with changes done to benefit the live action representation.

Honestly, if they were to implement the exact faithful look of Venom you wanted, we would have gotten something that looked confusing and ridiculous imo. Some changes are beneficial, in order to be faithful and make teh leap to live action. these characters are designed for paper , not film, they are not always going to make an exact translation possible without looking daft, so changes are necesarry.
Just like the Nolan Batman films.

I mean , you must see how your argument used to defend the Nolan BM films can and must be used in defnece of the Spider-man changes. You can't just drop that stance of logic for another franchise because it suits you, it's hypocritical.

 

[Dangerous]

There was nothing as exciting and amazing as those two scenes from the comics in the Raimi films.
Nothing even close.

Actually, I have to say the bit in SM1 were Gobby drops the sky car and MJ simultaneously was awesome.
That's about it.

 

[david icke]

Actually, I have to say the bit in SM1 were Gobby drops the sky car and MJ simultaneously was awesome.
That's about it.

C'mon man, the train car was pretty awesome too.

I know the kind of moments you are talking about, I have that Juggernaught issue and am very familar with the master planner story. I'm just sorry you didn't get that thrill from more of the Raimi Spider-man movies.
I do hope you get more of a kick out of the re-boot, or re-appraise the Raimis and get a better kick, we can only hope the new ones are at least as good as the Raimi's and improve on some parts, that is the ideal, but what will probably ahpopen is that they get some things right and some wrong, or lacking, just different things.
If tehy are skimping on the budget because they are not selling enough playstations though, there will probably be less chance of those awesome Spidey action momenst, but I hope not, here's hoping they use their action moments wisely if there are to be less of them.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

A scene like the one in ASM 33? How about stopping the train from crashing in SM2? Exact same scenario, SM pushed to his limits.

Exactly! The fact that some bashers deny this baffles me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The melodrama in this thread dwarfs the melodrama in the Raimi flicks.