Who thought SM2 was Overrated?

[Doctor Octopus]

The title of this thread is painful.

Agreed. Spider-Man 2 is one of best superhero movies ever. It definitely best Spider-Man movie.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Well of course it didn't again because it was never going to work because Ock miscalculated the fusion process, but Ock didn't think it would fail again. That's the whole point. He believed it would work. It was his life's work, the only thing left he had that he cared about, and he genuinely believed it would succeed. That was his goal. To build a successful fusion reactor.

The point is that he made the same mistake, which is believing his pointless job would work again. And by trying again, people died, for no reason. His character had no real end. It was ridiculous.

You said he wanted to kill the whole city for no reason. You are factually wrong. He wanted to complete his life's work, which again he believed would work. He never ever had a mass murder agenda of the city as his goal. That is fact not opinion.

Shame the movie never portrayed this fact of yours as you say.

Yes it does. Cheap electricity for the whole world. Sounds very nice.

Exactly. Let's a build a sun again so that everyone can die.

It's only dumb if you believe that he was trying to kill the whole city for no reason. Which wasn't the case. This was verbally stated in the movie;

"I couldn't have miscalculated. It was working wasn't it. Yes".

If he was rubbing his hands and cackling he's going to kill everyone for the hell of it, then your criticisim would be valid.

He doesn't need to, not every villain in fiction has a Joker complex.

Harry was turning against him because;

1. He believed Spider-Man killed his father. Who is Spider-Man? Peter.
2. That Peter takes photos of the guy he thinks killed his father. Who was that guy? Spider-Man. Who is Spider-Man? Peter.

1) Harry didn't know Peter was Spider-Man.
2) Oh, damn. I guess he should go after every photographer out there that catches Spider-Man on camera.

His life as Spider-Man brought all this about. As for MJ, Peter is her best friend. She spells it out to him; everyone from Aunt May, to her sick mother, to her money grubbing father are able to make it to see her play. But her best friend who claims he cares about her can't make it to ever see it. Anyone would feel upset and let down when their friend keeps letting them down over something important as that. The reason he kept letting her down and not being there was because of his life as Spider-Man.

Not really. Peter doesn't have to be present whenever she wants, but whenever he can. He's a grown man, he has responsibilities. Something MJ can't seem to understand since the writers wanted to make any less likeable than she already was.

Again all shown clearly in the movie.

Yes.

No, the first thing he does is he goes to college classes, does his homework, lives a normal healthy life as we saw in the raindrops keep falling on my head montage scenes. MJ's play didn't come until after all of that.

Again all shown clearly in the movie.

Sometimes I think you just do this on purpose. Let me be clear. What did Peter do after he woke up, brushed his teeth, had breakfast, and went to college as he normally would?

Show how he's ready to begin a cancerous relationship with her.

 

[The Joker]

The point is that he made the same mistake, which is believing his pointless job would work again. And by trying again, people died, for no reason. His character had no real end. It was ridiculous.

No, the point is he didn't try to deliberately kill the whole city, as you wrongly claimed. Villains who are scientists believing their schemes can work when they have a flawed scientific basis is a staple of comic book villainy. Especially with Spider-Man ones.

Norman Osborn tests a serum on himself that had already proven to turn people insane and violent. Curt Connors thinks the best way to help humanity is to turn them all into lizards etc. Does this sound like sound science to you?

Of course his character had a real end. It had a beautiful poetic end, and his whole character arc was a fantastic parallel to Peter's. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order for his dream to succeed. By the end they both came full circle and took responsibility for what they'd done. That's why Peter was able to quote the very words Aunt May had said to him about responsibility and giving up your dreams to do the right thing back to Ock. It applied to both of them.

That was part of the brilliance of Ock as a villain. They made a connection between him and Peter on a conceptual level.

Shame the movie never portrayed this fact of yours as you say.

Except it does;

"I couldn't have miscalculated. It was working wasn't it? Yes. We can rebuild. Make it bigger and stronger than ever".

Now where in that dialogue do you read his intention being he wants to kill everyone?

Exactly. Let's a build a sun again so that everyone can die.

Quote me the words in the movie where he says everyone will die if does this. I quoted the ones that support the facts. If you're going to claim something as fact then back it up with actual proof. Show one iota of proof that Ock's intention was to murder everyone by building that fusion reactor. Quote the dialogue word for word. Or link me to some external source from someone associated with the movie who said that was the character's goal. Seriously give me anything factual that can back up your claim.

He doesn't need to, not every villain in fiction has a Joker complex.

Yes, he does need to. If you're going to say his motive was mass murder, then it would be stated in the movie. We can quote the dialogue that his intention was just to build his reactor because he believed it worked. So lets hear the dialogue that backs up what you say.

Every villain in every CBM always states what their motive is.

1) Harry didn't know Peter was Spider-Man.
2) Oh, damn. I guess he should go after every photographer out there that catches Spider-Man on camera.

1. What difference does that make? Does it change the fact that Peter's life as Spider-Man caused this? No.
2. Is every photographer Harry's best friend making money off the guy he thinks killed his father?

Not really. Peter doesn't have to be present whenever she wants, but whenever he can. He's a grown man, he has responsibilities. Something MJ can't seem to understand since the writers wanted to make any less likeable than she already was.

Yes really. This was not expecting Peter to be present when ever she wants for some trivial thing. This was a big deal. When your best friend is a constant no show for your first big break on broadway, that is bad friendship. She had every right to be upset with him.

Sometimes I think you just do this on purpose. Let me be clear. What did Peter do after he woke up, brushed his teeth, had breakfast, and went to college as he normally would?

Do what on purpose? Talk facts? What do you mean what did Peter do after he woke up? The movie showed you exactly what he did after he gave up being Spidey. He went to college, he did his homework, he did normal every day things like chill out and buy a hot dog, mend his bicycle etc.

Simple every day things he never got to do when he was Spider-Man. The normal kind of life he was craving. The movie showing you the reason why he gave up being Spider-Man and embracing the normalcy he wanted.

MJ was secondary after all of this. Don't see him setting foot near her until after this. Again all factually shown in the movie. If MJ was most important the first thing we'd have seen him do is go to her play. But we don't. Fact. You can only argue what the movie shows you, not what you like to believe.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

It's pretty clear to me that Andrew doesn't understand this film at all. And not to be condescending or patronizing, but his inability to comprehend the blatant messages and overt themes of this film are indicative to me of a huge problem with most major motion pictures these days...namely, studios treat the audience as if they're idiots. EVERYTHING has to be explained in excruciating detail, nothing is left to be inferred or felt. I hate it, and I'm glad Raimi didn't necessarily always go that route.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

No, the point is he didn't try to deliberately kill the whole city, as you wrongly claimed. Villains who are scientists believing their schemes can work when they have a flawed scientific basis is a staple of comic book villainy. Especially with Spider-Man ones.

Incorrect. It's stupidity and a cheap motivation when you can't rely on anything but tropes. Failed experiment? Check. Failed scientist? Check? Building the same experiment with no changes or whatsoever because 'project of his entire life' ? Check.

Horrendous.

Norman Osborn tests a serum on himself that had already proven to turn people insane and violent.

Did those experiments made them want to take over a single city alongside its best hero? Nah.

Curt Connors thinks the best way to help humanity is to turn them all into lizards etc. Does this sound like sound science to you?

Are you really going to talk about another movie? Man, I don't know what's wrong with you.

Of course his character had a real end. It had a beautiful poetic end, and his whole character arc was a fantastic parallel to Peter's. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order for his dream to succeed. By the end they both came full circle and took responsibility for what they'd done. That's why Peter was able to quote the very words Aunt May had said to him about responsibility and giving up your dreams to do the right thing back to Ock. It applied to both of them.

Peter didn't make evil things to live his dream. Ock killed to live his dream you keep babbling about. There's no parallel.

Except it does;

"I couldn't have miscalculated. It was working wasn't it? Yes. We can rebuild. Make it bigger and stronger than ever".

Now where in that dialogue do you read his intention being he wants to kill everyone?

Probably the last bit, it's not like he didn't fail twice before, but let's make another one and consequently wiping millions from existence. Because building a sun next to a city is really honorable.

Quote me the words in the movie where he says everyone will die if does this. I quoted the ones that support the facts. If you're going to claim something as fact then back it up with actual proof. Show one iota of proof that Ock's intention was to murder everyone by building that fusion reactor. Quote the dialogue word for word. Or link me to some external source from someone associated with the movie who said that was the character's goal. Seriously give me anything factual that can back up your claim.

Besides destroying the entire city? It's not like he didn't hijack a train or brutally murdered a group of medics before, right? One does not expect more tragedy caused by him, except believers.

Yes, he does need to. If you're going to say his motive was mass murder, then it would be stated in the movie.

Wrong again. I don't know what cartoons you're watching, but that's not a thing.

We can quote the dialogue that his intention was just to build his reactor because he believed it worked. So lets hear the dialogue that backs up what you say.

Actions aren't enough?

Every villain in every CBM always states what their motive is.

Okay, and...?

1. What difference does that make? Does it change the fact that Peter's life as Spider-Man caused this? No.

Yeah, it really didn't. If Norman didn't kill himself, someone would eventually do that. He would probably take a death sentence if captured alive.

2. Is every photographer Harry's best friend making money off the guy he thinks killed his father?

Every photographer has to work their ass to get paid. Not eberhoke is as rich as Harry is. You can't blame Peter for doing what he has to do to live. It's like blaming the photographers during 9/11 for framing the towers.

But hey, whatever that helps you sleep at night.

Yes really. This was not expecting Peter to be present when ever she wants for some trivial thing. This was a big deal. When your best friend is a constant no show for your first big break on broadway, that is bad friendship. She had every right to be upset with him.

This is really sad. It's like you have to cancel everything important to your life, because your "best friend" is having her first big break on Broadway. In the real world, a best friend would understand what you have to do, not blame you for being occupied with work.

Now I'm worried.

Do what on purpose? Talk facts? What do you mean what did Peter do after he woke up? The movie showed you exactly what he did after he gave up being Spidey. He went to college, he did his homework, he did normal every day things like chill out and buy a hot dog, mend his bicycle etc.

And the point flew right over your head. Yes, he did everyday things that he could have done as Spider-Man. Maybe not all at once, because that's just life, but he coid. You just buy everything this nonsensical sequence tells you.

I guess Peter would never managed to buy a hot dog as Spider-Man, or fix his bicycle in a weekend, because he's Spider-Man 24 hours per day, no intervals allowed.

Yeah, nah. That's dumb.

Simple every day things he never got to do when he was Spider-Man. The normal kind of life he was craving. The movie showing you the reason why he gave up being Spider-Man and embracing the normalcy he wanted.

Same thing.

MJ was secondary after all of this. Don't see him setting foot near her until after this. Again all factually shown in the movie. If MJ was most important the first thing we'd have seen him do is go to her play. But we don't. Fact. You can only argue what the movie shows you, not what you like to believe.

I gotta agree, that one hour sequence of Peter goofing around in the morning after dumping his suit in a trash can and then seeing MJ in the same night was just too much.

It's pretty clear to me that Andrew doesn't understand this film at all. And not to be condescending or patronizing, but his inability to comprehend the blatant messages and overt themes of this film are indicative to me of a huge problem with most major motion pictures these days...namely, studios treat the audience as if they're idiots. EVERYTHING has to be explained in excruciating detail, nothing is left to be inferred or felt. I hate it, and I'm glad Raimi didn't necessarily always go that route.

I wonder what you tell to people who you disagree with. But man, the only idiot I see here...

Not you Joker, obviously, you know I adore you.

 

[PeterBenParker]

I'll always give points to anyone who points out MJ being an awful character.

That said, I still love this movie.

 

[The Joker]

Incorrect. It's stupidity and a cheap motivation when you can't rely on anything but tropes. Failed experiment? Check. Failed scientist? Check? Building the same experiment with no changes or whatsoever because 'project of his entire life' ? Check.

Horrendous.

Incorrect. It's never a cheap motivation for someone to want something that is personally important to them, like their life's work. This wasn't something he had been working on short term. This was his dream. His vision.

So when the A.I. in the arms convinced him into believing his reactor could work, that something he spent his life working on wasn't a failure, it was plausible and it was convincing as a personal motivation.

Again, the point you keep side stepping is that it was never stated as his intention to try and kill everyone. Which was your whole original point.

Did those experiments made them want to take over a single city alongside its best hero? Nah.

I don't understand this question. Are you seriously insinuating that was Ock's goal?

Are you really going to talk about another movie? Man, I don't know what's wrong with you.

I know, imagine making an analogy to another scientist villain in another Spider-Man movie.

Madness!

Peter didn't make evil things to live his dream. Ock killed to live his dream you keep babbling about. There's no parallel.

Peter was irresponsible and doing the wrong thing by turning his back on being Spider-Man and not living up to his credo that with great power comes great responsibility, just so he could live his dream of a normal life. That was Peter's irresponsibility. Ock's was doing the evil things he did to make his dream happen.

That was the blatantly obvious parallel, punctuated by Aunt May's words about dreams and responsibility being said to both Peter and Ock. It was spelled out for you in 50 foot high letters.

Probably the last bit, it's not like he didn't fail twice before, but let's make another one and consequently wiping millions from existence. Because building a sun next to a city is really honorable.

So you ignore the part that he says believes his reactor works - meaning it's safe, and instead make believe that he is actually planning to just kill everyone?

That's the argument you're trying to make here?

Besides destroying the entire city? It's not like he didn't hijack a train or brutally murdered a group of medics before, right? One does not expect more tragedy caused by him, except believers.

Three things;

1. He didn't kill the medics. The arms did. Ock was unconscious, and when he woke up he screamed no when he saw the dead bodies.
2. He hijacked the train to get Spider-Man to wear himself out trying to save it, so he could take him down when he was weakened and deliver him to Harry to collect the tritium.
3. You're criticizing a villain doing villainous things in the name of what he believes is a greater good.

Wrong again. I don't know what cartoons you're watching, but that's not a thing.

Yes, it is a thing. Name one CBM where the villain doesn't state their intentions. Go ahead.

Actions aren't enough?

No. Why should they be? Look at Sandman in SM-3. His actions look evil, but he wasn't a bad guy. He was just trying to get money for his sick daughter.

Okay, and...?

And Ock never stated he wanted to kill the whole city. You are factually wrong on this.

Yeah, it really didn't. If Norman didn't kill himself, someone would eventually do that. He would probably take a death sentence if captured alive.

Yeah, it really did. You think someone else would have murdered The Green Goblin? Based on what exactly?

If Norman was captured he would be declared insane and shipped off to an asylum.

Every photographer has to work their ass to get paid. Not eberhoke is as rich as Harry is. You can't blame Peter for doing what he has to do to live. It's like blaming the photographers during 9/11 for framing the towers.

Rubbish. If your best friend was defending the guy who you believed killed your father just because he is his pay check, anyone would be pissed off at that.

Comparing it to the Twin Towers, which are inanimate objects that didn't hurt anyone, is ludicrous.

But hey, whatever that helps you sleep at night.

Thinking of how the TASM franchise failed and got cancelled helps with that

This is really sad. It's like you have to cancel everything important to your life, because your "best friend" is having her first big break on Broadway. In the real world, a best friend would understand what you have to do, not blame you for being occupied with work.

Your best friend would understand that you keep missing it every time, even when everyone else is able to make it at least once?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Now I'm worried.

Your concern touches me in all the warm places.

And the point flew right over your head. Yes, he did everyday things that he could have done as Spider-Man. Maybe not all at once, because that's just life, but he coid. You just buy everything this nonsensical sequence tells you.

The movie established that Peter was missing classes, wasn't getting his work done on time etc, then the raindrops montage shows him getting to class, getting his work done - is basically showing you Peter is able to do all the things he was never able to do when he was living the life as Spider-Man, too.

You think the point flew over my head. The irony.

I guess Peter would never managed to buy a hot dog as Spider-Man, or fix his bicycle in a weekend, because he's Spider-Man 24 hours per day, no intervals allowed.

Peter barely had time to scratch his butt, let alone casually strut around the city buying hot dogs and mending his bicycle. That's why he was always late to class, late to his pizza job, and as Curt COnnors said always looked exhausted.

Andrew, you can't be that day dreamy that you missed all these blatant plot points.

Same thing.

Except it's not. You've failed to show otherwise.

I gotta agree, that one hour sequence of Peter goofing around in the morning after dumping his suit in a trash can and then seeing MJ in the same night was just too much.

Was that right with the scene where Ock said he wanted to kill everyone?

Not you Joker, obviously, you know I adore you.

Oh I know. I mean you get worried for me and all

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Let's do this. Why not.

Incorrect. It's never a cheap motivation for someone to want something that is personally important to them, like their life's work. This wasn't something he had been working on short term. This was his dream. His vision.

Incorrect. It's done a thousands time before, and a thousand times better. This is just insisting with the same mistake, and ultimately committing it again and even worse.

Genial, engaging, fabulous much.

So when the A.I. in the arms convinced him into believing his reactor could work, that somerthing he spent his life working on wasn't a failure, it was plausible and it was convincing as a personal motivation.

Oh, you mean the evil Matrix A.I who could control the subject into doing things because.... that's evil?

Again, the point you keep side stepping is that it was never stated as his intention to try and kill everyone. Which was your whole original point.

His work would, and he was aware of that.

I don't understand this question. Are you seriously insinuating that was Ock's goal?

I can't remember which section of my previous post you are answering. My bad, SHH can be a mess on a cellphone.

This is the dedication you're getting from me.

I know, imagine making an analogy to another scientist villain in another Spider-Man movie.

Madness!

Finally we can agree on something.

Peter was irresponsible and doing the wrong thing by turning his back on being Spider-Man and not living up to his credo that with great power comes great responsibility, just so he could live his dream of a normal life. That was Peter's irresponsibility. Ock's was doing the evil things he did to make his dream happen.

That was the blatantly obvious parallel, punctuated by Aunt May's words about dreams and responsibility being said to both Peter and Ock. It was spelled out for you in 50 foot high letters.

Are you a fan of BvS? But yeah, still wrong.

So you ignore the part that he says believes his reactor works - meaning it's safe, and instead make believe that he is actually planning to just kill everyone?

That's the argument you're trying to make here?

So safe, indeed.



Three things;

1. He didn't kill the medics. The arms did. Ock was unconscious, and when he woke up he screamed no when he saw the dead bodies.

Debatable. That could have been a reaction to what happened to him and his wife.

2. He hijacked the train to get Spider-Man to wear himself out trying to save it, so he could take him down when he was weakened and deliver him to Harry to collect the tritium.

Wow, the guy can read the future. It's not like Spider-Man barely held the thing away from falling in the end. His calculations must have been correct now.

3. You're criticizing a villain doing villainous things in the name of what he believes is a greater good.

No, I'm saying he's a scumbag, and that his end goal was laughable.

Yes, it is a thing. Name one CBM where the villain doesn't state their intentions. Go ahead.

I think you forgot about the part i said "Joker complex." It's somewhere high above.

No. Why should they be? Look at Sandman in SM-3. His actions look evil, but he wasn't a bad guy. He was just trying to get money for his sick daughter.

He's a good guy. Not arguing against that.

Yeah, it really did. You think someone else would have murdered The Green Goblin? Based on what exactly?

Perhaps I've seen the theatrical cut, but he sabotaged a military experiment, attacked Times Square, burned a building, and then the whole bridge sequence.

If Norman was captured he would be declared insane and shipped off to an asylum.

Probably not.

Rubbish. If your best friend was defending the guy who you believed killed your father just because he is his pay check, anyone would be pissed off at that.

Because clearly, Harry has proof that Spider-Man killed Norman. Who never committed murder and brought the guy's body to the next of kin?

Thinking of how the TASM franchise failed and got cancelled helps with that

Kinky.

Your best friend would understand that you keep missing it every time, even when everyone else is able to make it at least once?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Because Peter clearly doesn't suffer from financial issues. He must be free whenever she wants, right?

Nah, you're wrong.

Your concern touches me in all the warm places.

PM me if you need help. I'm always free for you.

The movie established that Peter was missing classes, wasn't getting his work done on time etc, then the raindrops montage shows him getting to class, getting his work done - is basically showing you Peter is able to do all the things he was never able to do when he was living the life as Spider-Man, too.

You think the point flew over my head. The irony.

He could do, just not as often.

Peter barely had time to scratch his butt, let alone casually strut around the city buying hot dogs and mending his bicycle. That's why he was always late to class, late to his pizza job, and as Curt COnnors said always looked exhausted.

Life can be a *****, eh?

Andrew, you can't be that day dreamy that you missed all these blatant plot points.

I didn't. Theres none.

Except it's not. You've failed to show otherwise.

Proof.

Was that right with the scene where Ock said he wanted to kill everyone?

Come now, Joker, you can admit when you're wrong.

Oh I know. I mean you get worried for me and all

I just come here to see you.

 

[The Joker]

Incorrect. It's done a thousands time before, and a thousand times better. This is just insisting with the same mistake, and ultimately committing it again and even worse.

Thousands of times eh. Name some then.

Genial, engaging, fabulous much.

Well that we agree on. It is all of that and more.

Oh, you mean the evil Matrix A.I who could control the subject into doing things because.... that's evil?

"These things have turned you into something you're not"

I will keel over in shock when you can quote something from the movie to back you up.

His work would, and he was aware of that.

No, he wasn't, because again he said he thought it would work, and that's why he decided to rebuild it.

I asked you before to prove otherwise, and you haven't. If you want to hang onto any credibility then back up this argument with proof, otherwise you are just arguing for the sake of it because you've been backed into a corner.

I can't remember which section of my previous post you are answering. My bad, SHH can be a mess on a cellphone.

This is the dedication you're getting from me.

I'm flattered you are going to all this effort for me. If only the quality of the replies matched the effort

Finally we can agree on something.

Are you a fan of BvS? But yeah, still wrong.

I loathe BvS. Terrible movie. That and Suicide Squad were embarrassments for DC this year.

Saying I'm wrong, and not offering any argument or proof of why you think so is just poor debating. If all you have to offer is just saying I'm wrong, then save your phone battery.

So safe, indeed.

????

Debatable. That could have been a reaction to what happened to him and his wife.

Him being blatantly unconscious, waking up groggy, and seeing the dead bodies and screaming no is him reacting to the death of his wife?

I'll bite, explain how him being unconscious while the arms kill the medics because they were about to cut them off is a reaction to his wife's death. This I gotta hear.

Wow, the guy can read the future. It's not like Spider-Man barely held the thing away from falling in the end. His calculations must have been correct now.

You need to see into the future to know one guy trying to stop a speeding train would physically drain him?

That's logic and common sense. Not fortune telling.

No, I'm saying he's a scumbag, and that his end goal was laughable.

How is he a scumbag when his mind is being influenced by A.I. arms. "These things have turned you into something you're not".

Rebuilding your life's work that you believe works is not laughable. Something like thinking humanity is better off as lizards, that is laughable.

I think you forgot about the part i said "Joker complex." It's somewhere high above.

I forgot nothing. What is Joker complex, or rather what is your definition of a Joker complex?

He's a good guy. Not arguing against that.

But he attacked and hurt and kidnapped innocent people. By your own same logic with Ock he is a scumbag, and Sandman doesn't even have the excuse of having his mind screwed with by A.I. and yet you call him a good guy.

Your argument has more holes in it than a fish net.

Perhaps I've seen the theatrical cut, but he sabotaged a military experiment, attacked Times Square, burned a building, and then the whole bridge sequence.

And did it all without coming close to being killed. So where is this idea that someone would murder him coming from?

Probably not.

Explain why. He has a split personality, talks to himself in the mirror, and dresses up like a Goblin. On what planet would he not be declared insane?

Because clearly, Harry has proof that Spider-Man killed Norman. Who never committed murder and brought the guy's body to the next of kin?

Exactly. People have been accused of murder on less than being caught red handed with the dead body. Not to mention the comics did the exact same thing.

Raimi nailed the Goblin story.

Because Peter clearly doesn't suffer from financial issues. He must be free whenever she wants, right?

No, just once. Just for one single evening to see her play. Not asking him for anything every other friend and family member has not done.

Nah, you're wrong.

Sure I am, and pigs fly.

I won't hold my breath for you to explain logically why you think I am wrong.

PM me if you need help. I'm always free for you.

You're bringing tears to my eyes.

He could do, just not as often.

Where in the movie suggests he could do these things? It doesn't. It shows Peter is so busy that he even forgets when it's his own birthday. He can't keep up with college. He can't hold down a job. You're saying he has time now and again to buy hot dogs and mend his bicycle.

Andrew, if I was sitting in front of you now I know you wouldn't be able to keep a straight face saying that.

Life can be a *****, eh?

The biggest.

I didn't. Theres none.

So you watched the movie with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. Because that's the only way you could have missed them. Unless your I.Q. is single digits.

But the most likely explanation is you are simply ignorning them, just like you've ignored every quote and plot point offered that proves you wrong, and favor insane baseless ideas instead like Ock subconsciously killing the medics because his wife died lol.

Proof.

I just gave it several paragraphs above. It shows Peter is so busy that he even forgets when it's his own birthday. He can't keep up with college. He can't hold down a job. You're saying he has time now and again to buy hot dogs and mend his bicycle.

Come now, Joker, you can admit when you're wrong.

I can. If the time comes when I am, I will. But right now I am talking to someone who thinks the villain's goal in SM-2 was to mass murder everyone. When you start debating against that, then you can never be wrong.

I just come here to see you.

Get in line

It's pretty clear to me that Andrew doesn't understand this film at all. And not to be condescending or patronizing, but his inability to comprehend the blatant messages and overt themes of this film are indicative to me of a huge problem with most major motion pictures these days...namely, studios treat the audience as if they're idiots. EVERYTHING has to be explained in excruciating detail, nothing is left to be inferred or felt. I hate it, and I'm glad Raimi didn't necessarily always go that route.

I was giving him the benfit of the doubt initially, but after several posts it is clear he either didn't pay attention to the movie, or has not even seen it at all.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Low battery, hold tight now. I will be back for you, darlin'.

 

[The Joker]

He called me darling. Be still my heart.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

lol reading Andrew Lucas posts. He must be joking with answers he's giving.

 

[ehh]

You can make the argument that any film is "overrated" or "underrated." Especially with comic book films.

I've heard them made against movies like Spider-Man 2, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, and so on. I kind of just shrug and don't pay it too much attention.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

I wonder what you tell to people who you disagree with. But man, the only idiot I see here...

I was giving him the benfit of the doubt initially, but after several posts it is clear he either didn't pay attention to the movie, or has not even seen it at all.

It's not worth your time or mine to reply. I love good reasonable discourse and informed discussion, but this is just inane.

 

[Herofan]

How is he a scumbag when his mind is being influenced by A.I. arms. "These things have turned you into something you're not".

That was arguably one of the weaker elements in the film, the arms were able to convince him to turn to crime pretty easily, so easily that it feels questionable or forced for them to get so much of the share of the blame for the villainy.

right now I am talking to someone who thinks the villain's goal in SM-2 was to mass murder everyone.

That wasn't his goal but he was pretty indifferent to the possibility of causing that and him trying to do so despite that possibility is somewhat weak motivation-he already saw how destructive the experiment was to him, to his wife and in general so being determined to do so on a bigger scale, insisting that it was working (never mind the end results), seems very delusional/irrational. Of course that was a story point, that he eventually realized it was too irrational and too much disregarding of the consequences to others but a different story and characterization may have been better.

 

[ehh]

Octavius turns to crime when the AI has completely taken over. While in that state, he is completely irrational and willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild his machine. Clearly if he was in the right state of mind, he would have thought, "gee, this went really wrong the first time and people got hurt."

Notice that the AI tentacles' sole purpose is to operate Ock's machine. That's why they were created, and that's why the arms were very persistent on getting him to rebuild it, otherwise... they have no purpose. That's just one theory of mine.

 

[Krystal]

Are you guys for real?

 

[ehh]

Are you guys for real?

lol are you talking about Andrew and Joker?

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Octavius turns to crime when the AI has completely taken over. While in that state, he is completely irrational and willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild his machine. Clearly if he was in the right state of mind, he would have thought, "gee, this went really wrong the first time and people got hurt."

Notice that the AI tentacles' sole purpose is to operate Ock's machine. That's why they were created, and that's why the arms were very persistent on getting him to rebuild it, otherwise... they have no purpose. That's just one theory of mine.

Agreed. That why Otto give his life to destroy reactor at the end. He making up for what he did.

Are you guys for real?

lol it Andrew Lucas. He talking silly.

 

[ItchyWebShooter]

Probably because you can't handle the pressure. You're no Joker. At least the guy tries hard.

See below for your response, troll.

Nah I'm just a glutton for punishment. Most people wouldn't waste their time on posts that basically hang themselves.

Octavius turns to crime when the AI has completely taken over. While in that state, he is completely irrational and willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild his machine. Clearly if he was in the right state of mind, he would have thought, "gee, this went really wrong the first time and people got hurt."

Notice that the AI tentacles' sole purpose is to operate Ock's machine. That's why they were created, and that's why the arms were very persistent on getting him to rebuild it, otherwise... they have no purpose.

Thank you, is this so hard to understand?

 

[Mandon Knight]

I can see why and where the praise is heaped on number 2, my own preference is the first for me, is the best of the 3. I really like the second and how it progresses well (a real theme of the trilogy, they are a very well thought out start middle end) but I think there is a tendency to say 2 is the best of the lot because in the moment of 'history' it came out it improved the SFX from 1 and Molina nailed Doctor Octopus, so for me no, it's not overrated, but it does steal some of the light away from the first and certainly the third, which I think is 'trashed' more than it should be.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Spider-Man 2 is a good movie, but it does have flaws and it's overrated. It's overrated in the sense that people still hold it as a benchmark for comicbook movies, despite the fact that I think we've had better comicbook films since then. Not many, but we've definitely had a few.

 

[NealKenneth]

Spider-Man 2 has some of the best action scenes of any film ever. The fight that goes from the bank up a side of a building is incredible. The one that starts on a clock tower and ends with Spidey slowing down an entire train...simply astounding. For action, these scenes were not matched until The Winter Soldier in my opinion.

Bad qualities include Mary Jane and, yeah, it's true that Dunst's acting wasn't great but I don't think that was the problem. For me it was more that Raimi never allowed Mary and Peter to really be together, so I never really cared when they weren't getting along. The only time they went out during Raimi's run was between the second and third film (which, of course, we didn't see.) The film would have worked a lot better if Mary Jane could have been there for Peter as he struggled instead of there being this subplot involving some other guy.

I also do not think Octavius is a great villain. As a spectacle, he's amazing, but as a character he gets very uninteresting after the accident. He basically just goes crazy, which is not only boring on it's own but a repeat of the Goblin as well.

Finally, there's the subplot involving Peter losing his powers. This never worked for me. Why does it happen? Because he loses confidence in himself? And then he gets them back when Mary Jane is kidnapped? And shoehorning Uncle Ben into it was very weird.

Although the montage of Peter living life without his powers is highly enjoyable, it would have been better to find a more concrete reason that Peter lost his power/gave up the costume. Maybe he could have just decided to give up the costume so that he could be with Mary Jane without putting her in danger, only to have that backfire when Octavius kidnaps her. Then, when she learns his secret at the end of the film, he could say he is leaving her to protect her but she could insist they stay together. This would really give Mary Jane some more definition and have made the film flow much better in my opinion. Plus, in this context, giving up the costume would be a moral quandry for Peter instead of just a practical decision.

Anyway, do I think the film is overrated? Yes, definitely. It was a breakthrough for superhero films and is a good film, but it has been far surpassed by several films in the MCU IMO.

 

[The Joker]

Bad qualities include Mary Jane and, yeah, it's true that Dunst's acting wasn't great but I don't think that was the problem. For me it was more that Raimi never allowed Mary and Peter to really be together, so I never really cared when they weren't getting along. The only time they went out during Raimi's run was between the second and third film (which, of course, we didn't see.) The film would have worked a lot better if Mary Jane could have been there for Peter as he struggled instead of there being this subplot involving some other guy.

What are you talking about? They only got together at the end of the second movie, and they were a couple for the bulk of the third movie (which has nothing to do with SM-2).

So I don't know what you mean by Raimi never letting them be together. Again if you're a Spider-Man fan you know the road to them being together in the comics was even longer.

I also do not think Octavius is a great villain. As a spectacle, he's amazing, but as a character he gets very uninteresting after the accident. He basically just goes crazy, which is not only boring on it's own but a repeat of the Goblin as well.

He doesn't just go crazy like Goblin. First we see his life fall apart when his wife is killed, his life's work destroyed, and he gets four mechanical arms welded to his spine. He is influenced by the arms to rebuild his life's work. It's a personal goal for him because it's all he has left that he cares about. He lost his wife, his dream went up in smoke. Then the arms offer him the glimmer of hope that he can still succeed and rebuild his dream.

He was a compelling villain, and partly because he was a mirror image of Peter and his conflict in the movie. Peter is being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he can live his dream of a normal life. Ock is being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream happen. In the end they both come full circle and take responsibility. It's why Peter was able to say the very words Aunt May had said to him. It applied to them both.

Finally, there's the subplot involving Peter losing his powers. This never worked for me. Why does it happen? Because he loses confidence in himself? And then he gets them back when Mary Jane is kidnapped? And shoehorning Uncle Ben into it was very weird.

Although the montage of Peter living life without his powers is highly enjoyable, it would have been better to find a more concrete reason that Peter lost his power/gave up the costume. Maybe he could have just decided to give up the costume so that he could be with Mary Jane without putting her in danger, only to have that backfire when Octavius kidnaps her. Then, when she learns his secret at the end of the film, he could say he is leaving her to protect her but she could insist they stay together. This would really give Mary Jane some more definition and have made the film flow much better in my opinion. Plus, in this context, giving up the costume would be a moral quandry for Peter instead of just a practical decision.

This was ripped straight out of the comics. Peter's life as Spider-Man ruining his personal life, the weight of the guilt he feels for Uncle Ben's death, it all has an emotional weight on him that gets so great that it makes him lose his powers;

And when someone he cares about is put in danger, they come back;

This was spelled out to you in fifty foot high letters in the movie. The whole Spider-Man no more story is ripped from the comics;

 

[NealKenneth]

I don't know what you mean by Raimi never letting them be together.

Like you said, they are not together until the very end of the second film (literally the final scene.) Then, in the third film, their very first scene together has Mary Jane storming off because Peter is so self-absorbed.

Across the entire trilogy, these guys probably had less then five minutes of screen time where they were happy together.

He doesn't just go crazy like Goblin. First we see his life fall apart when his wife is killed, his life's work destroyed, and he gets four mechanical arms welded to his spine. He is influenced by the arms to rebuild his life's work. It's a personal goal for him because it's all he has left that he cares about. He lost his wife, his dream went up in smoke. Then the arms offer him the glimmer of hope that he can still succeed and rebuild his dream.

He doesn't just go crazy like Octavius. First we see his life fall apart when they need to go "back to formula", his life's work is destroyed when the board wants to kick him out of his own company, and he gets superpowers from testing the formula on himself. He is influenced by a mask to rebuild his life's work. It's a personal goal for him because the company is all he has left that he cares about. He lost his company, his dream went up in smoke. Then the mask offers him the glimmer of hope that he can still succeed and rebuild his dream.

Again if you're a Spider-Man fan you know the road to them being together in the comics was even longer.

This was ripped straight out of the comics.

First of all, there's no need to accuse me of not being a fan. If writing such a long review of a film that came out over a decade ago doesn't prove I'm a fan...what does?

I've read the first 150 issues or so many times in my life. They are fantastic. But not everything that works in the context of a comic book story works in the context of just six hours of film. Having a long, winding approach to a relationship in a series of films is going to get tiresome, especially if you don't balance times of trouble with times that are trouble-free. Like we covered earlier, Mary Jane and Peter don't have any time that is trouble-free in the entire trilogy (something that Webb's first film finally showed us with Gwen.) They never have that honeymoon period that makes us feel bad when things go wrong later on. It's doomed from that start, leaving you feeling more like "Well, yeah, what did you expect?"

Similarly, stripping a guy of powers when he's only had them for like an hour and a half so far...it was too early for that on top of all the other problems I mentioned before. Not to mention that a good chunk of the audience came to the film hoping to see those powers in action.

And yes, it's one of my favorite comic issues of all time. That doesn't matter.