Discussion in 'Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3' started by Batman137, Jun 28, 2008.
I've always thought SM2 was overrated. I never enjoyed the film all that much because of a few major issues:
Peter/Spider-man: I wanted to see the Peter Parker/Spider-man relationship explored. Spider-man was an outlet for Peter, he's a chance to let Peter be the person he's always wanted to be, but never had the chance to let lose. I'm not talking only about quips, but about Spider-man's personality, he's confident, cocky, reminiscent of the Zorro-esque swashbuckling heroes that Peter idolized as a kid. ASM did this better, but even that film still could have gone farther.
I also wanted to see Peter growing as a result of being Spider-man. By the time Pete got to college, the Spider-man and Peter personalities begin to merge. Peter began to get more confident, and I didn't like the over the top "teasing" scenes in SM2. Mostly because I rarely see that kind of thing happen in college. I also wanted more of Pete's scientific genius displayed.
MJ: Mary Jane was horrible. She didn't resemble her comic counterpart in any way. Far and way the character that was done the most disservice. MJ was always my favorite love interest for Peter. She's spunky, confident, and she doesn't take **** from anyone. She does have a lot of issues, but she keeps them hidden. SM1 was the only time she was somewhat close to her comic counterpart. But they wrote Mary Jane absolutely horrible in the films. I had hoped SM2 would make MJ more like MJ, but to my disappointment, it made her worse.
Ock: I thought Alfred Molina did a great job as Doc Ock. His performance is still one of my favorites, but one major issue I had (something Molina had no control over) is that Doc Ock is NOT a good man at heart. He is the true "anti-Peter." He was a bullied nerdy kid who had a hard life, gained incredible powers, and only ever decided to use them for selfish and cruel reasons. When I later heard that early drafts of SM2 included the Lizard, that was all too clear to me, because Raimi essentially merged Ock and the Lizard.
And the other thing I was never a fan of (but this is just personal preference), is that I was never a huge fan of Raimi's brand of comedy. I don't mind some corny slapstick here and there (it's always been present in the comics), but the quick witted Spidey humor is the kind of comedy that I want to see when I'm watching/reading Spider-man. Again, not just funny one-liners, but his banter in general. It should be reminiscent of the "chatty duelists" scene for the Princess Bride, or the back and forth between Watson and Sherlock in the BBC Sherlock series (though obviously in a different style then either of those adaptations).
Now, all that said, I will say this: As a film, SM2 is good. SM2 is actually very good. I just don't think it's a very good Spider-man adaptation. It's not horrible, but it's about mid-way in terms of what I view as doing the character justice. I'm usually pretty good at separating a film from its source material and judging it solely on that. For example, I love the Bourne series and movies. They're almost completely different aside from the premise (spy with no memory). But I could appreciate both. But I've loved Spider-man since I was 4, and it was just too hard for me to set that aside.
Also, SM2 had the hype factor going against it for me. I loved SM1. It was a blast to see in the theaters, especially because I honestly didn't think I'd get to see a Spider-man film, because people wouldn't like such an "outlandish" superhero. But I expected SM2 to fix the issues I had with SM1 (more Spidey personality, less corny humor, fix MJ), and it made all those issues worse. So I was very disappointed in SM2 when I saw it. And as such, I've never been a huge fan of the film.
I have to agree. I think as a film SM2 is solid, but as a Spider-Man film I think it misses the mark in a lot of ways. To be honest, I even prefer watching SM3 over SM2, though I know SM2 is objectively better.
Who thought Spider-Man 2 was overrated? Your mom.
But no really, nine years later, the movie still holds up.
Nope. Spider-man 2 is great and is still probably the best Marvel movie. I thought Avengers topped it most of last year, but has since reverted back to Spidey 2. It just has an emotional core that is lacking in the Avengers. The train sequence is infinitely rewatchable for me, whereas the final battle of Avengers excites me no longer.
Before The Dark Knight Trilogy, before The Avengers, before Iron Man...Spider-Man 2 was the pinnacle of how a CBM could be this amazing ride and be the highlight of the genre.
Overrated? Not by a long shot. Spider-Man 2 showed how a CBM could be that made you think, that made every single emotion just rile up when it was decades since that has happened regarding the genre.
Because that's the only comic book I need. It's a valid, in continuity storyline. Written by Spider-Man's creator no less, too. He doesn't have to have quit multiple times to make it valid. That's redundant repetitiveness.
No. You're just not making valid arguments.
Oh really? A movie where Peter's Uncle dies, the father of his best friend turns villain and dies, where his Aunt is hospitalized after an attack (another god awful cheesy scene "Deliverrrrrr usssssss from EEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!"), where his best friend thinks his alter ego killed Spider-Man and swears revenge on him, where he rejects MJ's love etc is a movie more in tone with cheesy humor?
No, he did not.
Where are you getting that from? The 60's was the campy era of the comics.
1. That's an elseworlds story
2. He gave up after YEARS of fighting as Batman, and he was well into his 40's when he quit.
Now I'm not knocking the idea of Batman retiring. I'm just calling out your biased hypocrisy on this issue.
Its the best Spider-Man film to date!
And just why aren't my argument valid? Oh, because you don't agree with them.
And yes, the first has a more fluid flow with the humor/camp and the drama than the second film. That is MY opinion. Not a invalid, not false, not fact. MY OPINION. How I FEEL. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's "invalid".
So what if the 60s era was the camp era? That somehow makes it less important? Why, because some fans reject that depiction? And what does The Dark Knight Returns being an Elseworld story have anything to do with it? The Nolan films (kinda like, gee I don't know the comics) are a distinct interpretation of the character. It's not based on any one era/story/run but a vision of one particular artist. Just like Bob Kane, Doug Moench, Denis O'Neil, or Frank Miller. It's not restricted to what era or continuity it can pull it's inspiration from.
No, because they contradict the logic you're trying to apply here. For example you condone an elseworlds story as a valid influence for Batman, but an in continuity storyline by Stan Lee is no good.
You're talking nonsense. No offense.
That's fine if you feel that way when you watch it. But I'm telling you factually there's more dark stuff in the first movie than the 2nd. It even ends on a miserable note with Harry swearing vengeance on Spidey, and Peter rejecting MJ.
Not at all. After all I'm sure you wouldn't complain if you saw this in a Batman movie:
But you're missing the point. Batman never hung up his cape and cowl to live with Selina in the 60's.
It's not in continuity. That's why. I'm showing you the hypocrisy of you rejecting a valid in continuity story like Spider-Man No More, but are embracing a story that is not in continuity as an influence for Batman.
Your whole argument and logic is a contradiction. I'd have more respect for your argument if you just said the Spidey no more story wasn't your cup of tea instead of trying to claim it's invalid to Peter's characterization.
I was actually less disappointed in theaters with SM3. SM2 had shown me that I wasn't going to get what I wanted in a Spider-man film while Raimi directed the series, so I came in with very low expectations. And I honestly had a fairly enjoyable night at the theater, because I wasn't expecting the next great superhero movie (since SM2 hadn't been that for me anyways.)
One thing I will say though, SM2 is definitely not still overrated with fans. The existence of this thread proves that. When I first joined the hype and tried to talk about my issues with SM2, I got flamed to holy hell and back. But after SM3, suddenly I found tons of others who shared my views. You try starting a thread with this same title back in 2005/2006, it wouldn't have lasted a day.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you being willfully dense? I never said a story by Stan Lee is "no good". But Spider-Man 2 completely changed the very reason Peter gave it up in the first place. I've already illustrated how, but you chose to ignore that and will probably choose to again. In Spider-Man No More, Peter feels he has been power hungry, a thrill seeker, that he has betrayed why he did it in the first place.
And yes, Bruce did hang up the cape and cowl and marry Kyle and they even have a kid; Helena Wayne: The Huntress.
I fail to see how taking influence from an Elseworld story somehow invalidates the credibility a film adaptation/TV show/novel or whatever. A film adaptation of a comic book has to take from established continuity in order to be considered a leigit characterization/adaptation? Why? Are you saying an Elseworld story can't be accurate to the lore of the character? They can't develop the world or say anything about characters in a realistic and honest way simply because it's not in continuity? That's rather petty imo, considering Returns in the most lauded piece of Batman writing ever made. Not to mention one of the most lauded COMICS ever made.
Oh, but it's not in continuity, so it doesn't count....
I'm not. It's not my fault you can't make a logical consistent argument over this.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I have not ignored it, I corrected you on it. There's a difference.
And you accuse me of ignoring things. Go back and re-read the panel. He says being Spider-Man has brought him and I quote "nothing but unhappiness". But since even that brilliant example somehow doesn't satisfy you, here's a myriad of other times Peter announced he was done with Spider-Man: http://goodcomics.comicbookresource...-patterns-peter-parker-is-spider-man-no-more/
For the umpteenth time Bruce did not retire Batman to marry Selina Kyle. Show me the comics where Batman had quit his life as a crime fighter to shack up with Selina.
Pay close attention, since you're blatantly doing what you've been falsely accusing me of; ignoring the point. An elseworld story is an alternate reality/out of continuity tale. It's not in canon, it's not something that traditionally falls in line with Batman.
Here's another example of one:
Batman as a vampire. It's as much an elseworlds story as The Dark Knight Returns. So your willingness to accept such out of character tales as influences on Batman in the movies is a hypocrisy in comparison to your complaints over Spider-Man 2.
Yeah...I may not have been a fan of SM2, but Joker's logic is sound. The movie didn't exactly take liberties with Pete's reasoning to quit being Spidey. He's felt like that plenty of times in the comic.
In that respect, they weren't off base.
"After all these years...it's suddenly clear...I must be a glory hungry fool...or worse."
Being Spider-Man has brought me nothing but unhappiness. IN ORDER TO SATISFY MY CRAVING FOR EXCITEMENT I'VE JEOPARDIZED EVERYTHING THAT REALLY MATTERS."
"CAN I BE SURE MY ONLY MOTIVE WAS THE CONQUEST OF CRIME? OR WAS IT THE HEADY THRILL OF BATTLE...THE PRECIOUS TASTE OF TRIUMPH...THE PARANOIAC THIRST FOR POWER THAT CAN NEVER BE QUENCHED??"
Quotes from the very comic you keep throwing at me, trying to prove me wrong when it only proves my point. I will freely admit the film takes the idea of Peter quitting due to it causing him unhappiness, but the very ideal and reasoning behind it is completely different in the film. Something I personally, did not agree with on a character level.
And dude, really. Using Batman as vampire as an argument? So The Dark Knight Returns HAS to be as OTT or OOC simply due to the fact it's an Elseworlds tale? There is no barometer to the tone of these different stories. They are all just whacked out? What kind of sense does that make? None what so ever. Thats like saying Ultimate, or Spectacular Spider-Man is out of character simply because it's a different continuity. Does that make Earth One in the DCU out of character because it's a completely different world as Earth Two? Or is Earth Two the one out of character? Does that mean, say.... Kingdom Come isn't a valid take on Superman and Batman simply because it's not part of continuity? THE FACT THAT THESE STORIES TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF ESTABLISHED CONTINUITY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY NEGATE THEIR TAKE ON THE CHARACTERS.
No, it doesn't prove your point, it completely refutes it. Those quotes are just the reasons why his life as Spidey has brought him so much unhappiness. At the end of the day the result is it's brought him misery and he's had enough. If it had a positive effect on his life would he be throwing it away? No.
Btw I love how you ignored all the other examples of him throwing in the towel you were given, too.
It's the exact same reason only Peter doesn't reason it as a thrill ride, because the reason Peter is Spider-Man is not for kicks, it's because with great power comes great responsibility. That's why he does it. Isn't that why he became a crime fighter? Because he learned that lesson the hard way at the cost of his Uncle's life.
Yes I do. Prove me wrong that it's not the same as The Dark Knight Returns.
Yes, it's the exact same. It's a what if story out of continuity and as valid as every other elseworld story including the vampire ones.
Again prove me wrong on that.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about tone. I'm talking about continuity. The reason they do these crazy elseworld stories is because they can do crazy out of character things that the characters would never do in regular continuity.
Oh yes it does. Here let me show you another example of the flaws in your argument again. The Dark Knight Returns was written in 1986 and said Batman quit because of something that happened to Jason Todd right?
Jason Todd was not killed off until 1988 by public reader vote in 'A Death in the Family'. After he was killed off did Batman hang up his cape? No he didn't. So why is The Dark Knight Returns an acceptable tale as an influence when the proper continuity of Batman comics show Batman would never quit because Robin was killed.
I eagerly await your rationalization for this one.
You're simply being ignorant and semantic just to try and prove me wrong. Just saying "UHHH DURRR WELL IT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN IN CANON SO IT CAN'T BE A SERIOUS DEPICTION OF THE CHARACTER!"
Returns is not the same as some vampire story simply because it's a legitimate take on what it would be like if Batman retired, then came back after a long period of time. It's a realistic IN CHARACTER depiction of his state of mind and psychology. Whether it is canon or not makes ZERO ****ing difference. Ask any Batman fan, I doubt many of them would say Returns in untrue to the character. It didn't get to be one of the most beloved and respect comics of all time because it's just so drastically different from the character.
So by your logic, if there was a canon comic that told the same story, but Batman came back wearing a pink gorilla suite, and killed his enemies with a hacksaw it is a more legit source of inspiration because its in canon?
Semantics do not matter.
You have the gall to accuse me of arguing semantics when your whole argument is based on him quitting Spidey because it was ruining his life in the movies, the same as the comics, but you're clinging to him saying he used Spidey as a release and an excitement rush.
The ONLY difference between The Dark Knight Returns and the vampire tales is popularity levels. Other than that they are the same elseword tales with the same credibility towards Batman's character. Again I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Yes, if an in canon story with Batman wearing a pink gorilla suit was used it would be more legitimate. Like it or lump it, it is. It doesn't mean it wouldn't suck as a story but it still would be more legitimate than a non canon elseworlds tale. You don't have a leg to stand on. I can say definitively that Spidey would and has done thrown in the towel because of the stresses his life as Spider-Man was causing him. You cannot say Batman has ever quit for years in anything other than an elseworlds story.
Like I said I'd have more respect for your opinion if you just admitted that Spidey quitting because of stress is not your cup of tea instead of trying to falsely justify it as an out of character thing for him to do, while at the same time championing Batman for doing something in TDKR that he has never done in the canon comics. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
I think SM2 is still overrated. It was probably the best superhero film to date back in 2004. But then a year later we got Batman Begins and V for Vendetta. Which both blew Maguire and Raimi out of the water.
The bar has been risen for superhero flicks, so SM2 is now slightly above average at best.
Look, Gremlin, I'll argue what I thought SM2 got wrong about Peter's character any day. I've been doing it since I first joined and when it was much harder to point out flaws in SM2. Heck, Joker probably remembers me doing it as a wee noob back when he was Doc Ock. We've argued issues before, but Peters reason for quitting was not out of character at all. Even I concede that.
Ok, fine. I admit it. I will eat crow and and say it isn't my cup of tea. I read something in the story that you don't. I don't think I ever flat out stated it was fact Peter was out of character, merely trying to excentuate my point and express how I feel it was OOC (Not even OOC exactly, just weak depiction) for ME, just like you are/were. You were the one who first started in on me, claiming my opinion was false and misguided. I even expressed in an earlier post how it was my opinion and I wasn't claiming it right, but you kept insisting it was invalid simply because you don't like it.
But I still think you are absolutely bonkers when it comes to your stance on canon and non-canon stories. It truly, absolutely baffles me you feel simply because a story is non-canon, it somehow can't be a legitimate take on a character. It makes absolutely no sense. None. Zero. Zip. So is Batman Begins is a bad or un-legit representation of the character? It's not canon, but fans would agree it's one of the best depictions ever put on the screen. What about the animated series? Not canon either, so it's not a good representation of the character and can't be taken seriously? Again, fans and comic writers alike would disagree. What about Mask of the Phantasm? A film many hardcore fans consider the best Batman film ever made even over BB and TDK. Well, it's not established lore by DC so it's not serious and can't be considered a good representation of the character? Nope, it's not canon so it's WRONG! FALSE! BAD! CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHARACTER! NO WAY NO HOW! ALL FILMMAKERS/WRITERS MUST PULL FROM CANON OR ELSE IT'S NOT REAL OR LEGITIMATE!
I remember. Fun times. Back when Raimi could do no wrong for most people. Until Spider-Man 3 came along
You posted your opinions on a public forum. I did not "start on you". I addressed what you posted. There's a line between opinions and facts. You can think it's a poor story, that's fine. Your preference. But to say it's OOC, that's a whole different issue.
You can only post so many examples to back up the point before it gets redundant. So I appreciate you admitting it wasn't your cup of tea.
Now as for the canon/non-canon stories. Not once in our whole discussion did I say it was bad or wrong to use elseworld stories as an influence on a movie. The whole reason I raised them in the first place was because I had seen you support TDKR which had Bruce do very OOC things in it, but here you were putting down Peter in SM-2 for doing something he's done in the comics several times. I could not get my head around that logic.
To clarify for you, I have no problem with elseworld comics being used. Movies are a finite universe where they have 2-3 hours to tell a story. You only have so much material you can put in and compromises and changes have to be made. Unless you're doing a long running series like BTAS, it's impossible to incorporate so much material from 70 years worth of comics.
For me, Peter Parker in Spidey 2 isn't the Peter I know from the comics. To you Bruce Wayne wasn't Bruce Wayne in TDKR. To me he was, and I bought into what Nolan was selling and not Raimi. You did the reverse. I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. Let's just leave it at that.
Shake of hands?
It's the only Spidey shaking hands pic I could dig up
That'll do just fine, sir.