Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 106
  1. #16
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    From a dramatic perspective, i.e. as a quick shorthand, it's effective even if it might be too blunt and clumsy. Peter sending the burglar who killed Ben to jail will make some viewers wonder if that guy is supposed to be the main villain and so on.
    I don't think the audience is that stupid.

    Ben died because of Peter, then the burglar died because of Peter. It sends a terrible message that does nothing but weaken the story.

  2. #17
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    7,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    I don't think the audience is that stupid.

    Ben died because of Peter, then the burglar died because of Peter. It sends a terrible message that does nothing but weaken the story.
    Honestly, I found it made no difference (unlike having Peter becoming Spider-Man to get revenge on the burglar in ASM movies).
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  3. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,141

    Default

    In the comics, the burglar is captured by Spider-Man and sent to jail. Either way, Peter gets his revenge.

  4. #19
    Astonishing Member Jekyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Spider-Man 2 is still one of my favorite superhero films to this day. The first two films will always hold a special place in my heart and Tobey will more than likely always be my favorite live action Spider-Man.

    With that being said, the third film is the first film I remember seeing and being incredibly disappointed and I almost left early.
    AKA FlashFreak
    Favorite Characters:
    DC: The Flash (Jay & Wally), The Atom (Ray Palmer) , Jack Knight, Stargirl, & Shazam!.
    MARVEL: Daredevil, Spider-Man (Peter Parker), Iron Fist, Doctor Strange, & Ant-Man (Scott Lang).

    Current Pulls: Daredevil, Amazing Spider-Man, Venom, Immortal Hulk, Guardians of The Galaxy, Ghost Rider, Dr. Strange, Star Wars,Shazam, & TMNT!

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    In the comics, the burglar is captured by Spider-Man and sent to jail. Either way, Peter gets his revenge.
    Not the same. In the comics he apprehended him and left him to the criminal justice system. In the movie he caused his death, in the very scene he was supposed to learn a lesson about causing someone's death.

  6. #21
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,918

    Default

    Raimi captured the essence of Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Uncle Ben, JJJ, MJ, Aunt May, Norman and Harry. He really blew it with Captain Stacy, Gwen, Sandman, the Osborn butler and Venom. Doc Ock was more or less a new take on the character, but it worked within the movie so I give him a pass. Betty was just kind of there, as was the burglar.

    He made the movies with care and love for the characters, for the most part, and they hold up as Spider-Man films, superhero movies and just, plain movies still after all these years. They gave us a saga that is not reliant on knowing previous movies, future movies, other Marvel characters or anything else as a pre-requisite. Raimi stood on the comic book mountain boldy and went where no man, or no one, had gone before. He channeled Ditko, Lee, and Romita without any Bendis, Stern or Conway to complicate matters, and for that I will be eternally grateful.

    Is it the greatest superhero trilogy saga of all time, better than the Avengers six-something-ology, Dark Knight trilogy, Blade trilogy-ish, MCU Spider-Man trilogy to be, Super-Man trilogy plus, Batman quadrilogy, X-Men something-ilogy, Hulk duology, Captain America trilogy, Iron Man trilogy and any other ilogy out there? An emphatic, confident, correct and absolute yes.
    Last edited by Scott Taylor; 01-27-2020 at 03:11 PM.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  7. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Not the same. In the comics he apprehended him and left him to the criminal justice system. In the movie he caused his death, in the very scene he was supposed to learn a lesson about causing someone's death.
    You're acting like he killed him on purpose. It was an accident and the burglar was the one who pulled a gun on him.

  8. #23
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    You're acting like he killed him on purpose. It was an accident and the burglar was the one who pulled a gun on him.
    He didn't attempt to save him. He let him die. Someone died because of his inaction.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Raimi captured the essence of Peter Parker, Spider-Man, Uncle Ben, JJJ, MJ, Aunt May, Norman and Harry.

    [..,]

    He made the movies with care and love for the characters, for the most part, and they hold up as Spider-Man films, superhero movies and just, plain movies still after all these years.
    Agreed. Signed.

    He channeled Ditko, Lee, and Romita without any Bendis, Stern or Conway to complicate matters,
    I wouldn't quite say that...
    -- Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane is very much the character that Conway/Stern/Defalco reinterpreted in the 70s and 80s.
    -- Norman Osborn being impaled on the glider in an abandoned warehouse is straight from ASM#122 written by Gerry Conway.
    -- Harry Osborn's arc in Spider-Man 3 is an adaptation of JMD's Best of Enemies story from Spectacular Spider-Man #200.
    -- The idea of Harry Osborn going to Peter's high school and being the cool kid who helped/exploited Peter as a "friend" comes from Bendis' USM which was published just a few months before SM1 went into production, as well as the idea of the spider that bit Peter being genetically engineered rather than radioactive.
    -- Doctor Octopus being made sympathetic and a kind of father/elder brother figure to Peter comes from Tom Defalco's stories in the 90s reinterpreting Otto into a "foil" for Peter.

    Saying that Raimi's Spider-Man is purely a classical version of the character or some Silver Age throwback/nostalgia thing is not accurate. The truth is that Raimi or rather the screenwriters and others mixed and matched and picked and chose stuff from across the different periods of Spider-Man publication history. Like all adaptations it's "something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue". There's definitely a kind of old-fashioned quality to the Spider-Man movies, it's very stylized and arch in its portrayal of New York City and it kind of mixes the late 90s and early 2000s with the 50s-70s. So that confuses readers but mixing the actual periods of history or an older time doesn't mean that Raimi is doing the actual Silver Age stuff published before.

    Likewise, Raimi's Spider-Man movies, and especially Spider-Man 1 is considerably more violent than Silver Age comics ever were, like the fight between Spider-Man and Green Goblin at the end of the first movie is very much in the MacFarlane/Larsen school.

    Is it the greatest superhero trilogy saga of all time, better than the Avengers six-something-ology, Dark Knight trilogy, Blade trilogy-ish, MCU Spider-Man trilogy to be, Super-Man trilogy plus, Batman quadrilogy, X-Men something-ilogy, Hulk duology, Captain America trilogy, Iron Man trilogy and any other ilogy out there? An emphatic, confident, correct and absolute yes.
    If we judge trilogy not as individual films but as an overall serial story told sequentially across three feature movie releases...then I think Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy is the best or rather most consistent superhero trilogy out there. Part 1 was good, Part 2 is great, Part 3 is not as good as 2 but on part with 1 and provides a decent conclusion to all characters introduced from the start (Bruce, Lucius, Alfred, Gordon) and new ones who came after.

    Whereas from a trilogy perspective, Raimi's movies are pretty unsatisfying. Spider-Man 1 introduced the following characters -- Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Harry Osborn who continued in all three films. The only guy who got a complete character arc in that bunch was Harry Osborn, while whatever development Peter and MJ, and even Aunt May had, was undone by 3's ridiculous retcons and poor storytelling. And JK Simmons' Jonah got little to do in each film after the first. Some great and funny bits to be sure but not really a character arc.

    On the strength of individual films, 1 and 2 are better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, and Spider-Man 1 is as good as The Dark Knight (and at least has a better final act).
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 01-27-2020 at 08:17 PM.

  10. #25
    Spider-Fan Since '95 WebSlingWonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Agreed. Signed.



    I wouldn't quite say that...
    -- Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane is very much the character that Conway/Stern/Defalco reinterpreted in the 70s and 80s.
    -- Norman Osborn being impaled on the glider in an abandoned warehouse is straight from ASM#122 written by Gerry Conway.
    -- Harry Osborn's arc in Spider-Man 3 is an adaptation of JMD's Best of Enemies story from Spectacular Spider-Man #200.
    -- The idea of Harry Osborn going to Peter's high school and being the cool kid who helped/exploited Peter as a "friend" comes from Bendis' USM which was published just a few months before SM1 went into production, as well as the idea of the spider that bit Peter being genetically engineered rather than radioactive.
    -- Doctor Octopus being made sympathetic and a kind of father/elder brother figure to Peter comes from Tom Defalco's stories in the 90s reinterpreting Otto into a "foil" for Peter.

    Saying that Raimi's Spider-Man is purely a classical version of the character or some Silver Age throwback/nostalgia thing is not accurate. The truth is that Raimi or rather the screenwriters and others mixed and matched and picked and chose stuff from across the different periods of Spider-Man publication history. Like all adaptations it's "something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue". There's definitely a kind of old-fashioned quality to the Spider-Man movies, it's very stylized and arch in its portrayal of New York City and it kind of mixes the late 90s and early 2000s with the 50s-70s. So that confuses readers but mixing the actual periods of history or an older time doesn't mean that Raimi is doing the actual Silver Age stuff published before.

    Likewise, Raimi's Spider-Man movies, and especially Spider-Man 1 is considerably more violent than Silver Age comics ever were, like the fight between Spider-Man and Green Goblin at the end of the first movie is very much in the MacFarlane/Larsen school.



    If we judge trilogy not as individual films but as an overall serial story told sequentially across three feature movie releases...then I think Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy is the best or rather most consistent superhero trilogy out there. Part 1 was good, Part 2 is great, Part 3 is not as good as 2 but on part with 1 and provides a decent conclusion to all characters introduced from the start (Bruce, Lucius, Alfred, Gordon) and new ones who came after.

    Whereas from a trilogy perspective, Raimi's movies are pretty unsatisfying. Spider-Man 1 introduced the following characters -- Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Harry Osborn who continued in all three films. The only guy who got a complete character arc in that bunch was Harry Osborn, while whatever development Peter and MJ, and even Aunt May had, was undone by 3's ridiculous retcons and poor storytelling. And JK Simmons' Jonah got little to do in each film after the first. Some great and funny bits to be sure but not really a character arc.

    On the strength of individual films, 1 and 2 are better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, and Spider-Man 1 is as good as The Dark Knight (and at least has a better final act).
    You lost me when you said "Spider-Man 1" had a better final act than "The Dark Knight." And 1 & 2 being better than "Batman Begins"? Heck no. They both are equally good, but even I wouldn't put one over the other.
    The Amazing, Spectacular, Sensational Web-Slinger!

  11. #26
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebSlingWonder View Post
    You lost me when you said "Spider-Man 1" had a better final act than "The Dark Knight."
    Well yeah. The final act of the movie with Harvey Dent going insane and suddenly deciding to kill Jim Gordon's kid doesn't come off very well, and having Joker left hanging after literally holding the movie from the very first shot, is not satisfying.

    You know Joker in The Dark Knight is quite similar to Goblin in Spider-Man 1. No big grand plan..."I just do things" and Goblin forcing Spider-Man to make a choice is similar to Joker and the two boats as well. That speech that Goblin gives Spider-Man on that rooftop is quite similar to the speeches Ledger's Joker gives in The Dark Knight.

    And 1 & 2 being better than "Batman Begins"? Heck no. They both are equally good, but even I wouldn't put one over the other.
    I guess. I personally think Batman Begins is fine. It's just that I never entirely bought Bale as Bruce/Batman. I think that voice is ridiculous. The fight scenes are too cluttered and confusing (and to echo what many people say, Zack Snyder might have his flaws, but that warehouse fight in BVS is the Batman we have all been waiting to see on screen). The issue is less so in The Dark Knight because it revolves on Joker's mind-games rather than Batman's fighting style and Nolan's never-really-figured-it-out attitude to depicting Batman in combat.

  12. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    He didn't attempt to save him. He let him die. Someone died because of his inaction.
    He fell after getting a gun knocked out of his hand. Peter didn't "let" anything happen. The guy died entirely as a consequence of his own actions.

  13. #28
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Agreed. Signed.
    Thank you, I knew you had good taste.

    I wouldn't quite say that...
    -- Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane is very much the character that Conway/Stern/Defalco reinterpreted in the 70s and 80s.
    -- Norman Osborn being impaled on the glider in an abandoned warehouse is straight from ASM#122 written by Gerry Conway.
    -- Harry Osborn's arc in Spider-Man 3 is an adaptation of JMD's Best of Enemies story from Spectacular Spider-Man #200.
    -- The idea of Harry Osborn going to Peter's high school and being the cool kid who helped/exploited Peter as a "friend" comes from Bendis' USM which was published just a few months before SM1 went into production, as well as the idea of the spider that bit Peter being genetically engineered rather than radioactive.
    -- Doctor Octopus being made sympathetic and a kind of father/elder brother figure to Peter comes from Tom Defalco's stories in the 90s reinterpreting Otto into a "foil" for Peter.
    Good points, especially about MJ, though I think he may have borrowed more from Bendis than Conway there. Or he could have been just extrapolating her character from a large amount of sources and made a kind of amalgam.

    Saying that Raimi's Spider-Man is purely a classical version of the character or some Silver Age throwback/nostalgia thing is not accurate. The truth is that Raimi or rather the screenwriters and others mixed and matched and picked and chose stuff from across the different periods of Spider-Man publication history. Like all adaptations it's "something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue". There's definitely a kind of old-fashioned quality to the Spider-Man movies, it's very stylized and arch in its portrayal of New York City and it kind of mixes the late 90s and early 2000s with the 50s-70s. So that confuses readers but mixing the actual periods of history or an older time doesn't mean that Raimi is doing the actual Silver Age stuff published before.

    Likewise, Raimi's Spider-Man movies, and especially Spider-Man 1 is considerably more violent than Silver Age comics ever were, like the fight between Spider-Man and Green Goblin at the end of the first movie is very much in the MacFarlane/Larsen school.
    I felt like Raimi pushed for classic Spider-Man and that other interests forced that other stuff into the mix. Best example is how Venom ended up in there.

    If we judge trilogy not as individual films but as an overall serial story told sequentially across three feature movie releases...then I think Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy is the best or rather most consistent superhero trilogy out there. Part 1 was good, Part 2 is great, Part 3 is not as good as 2 but on part with 1 and provides a decent conclusion to all characters introduced from the start (Bruce, Lucius, Alfred, Gordon) and new ones who came after.

    Whereas from a trilogy perspective, Raimi's movies are pretty unsatisfying. Spider-Man 1 introduced the following characters -- Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Harry Osborn who continued in all three films. The only guy who got a complete character arc in that bunch was Harry Osborn, while whatever development Peter and MJ, and even Aunt May had, was undone by 3's ridiculous retcons and poor storytelling. And JK Simmons' Jonah got little to do in each film after the first. Some great and funny bits to be sure but not really a character arc.

    On the strength of individual films, 1 and 2 are better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, and Spider-Man 1 is as good as The Dark Knight (and at least has a better final act).
    Raimi had a coherent arc for Peter, Harry, and MJ. Nolan only had an arc for Bruce Wayne, he had no arc for supporting characters like, at all. Unless you consider Gotham itself as a supporting character. Which I don't. I would have liked to see an arc for Gordon and Alfred, at least, plus it would have been nice to see Rachel make it all the way and get an actual character arc.

    But we are talking a matter of small degrees between Nolan and Raimi here, both are really good.
    Last edited by Scott Taylor; 01-28-2020 at 11:16 AM.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  14. #29
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    I felt like Raimi pushed for classic Spider-Man and that other interests forced that other stuff into the mix. Best example is how Venom ended up in there.
    Spider-Man 3 is the only movie on which Sam Raimi (and his brother) has screenwriting credit. So stuff like Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer (which has no foundation in the comics and feels if anything, a swipe from Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie) is very much Raimi's innovation and concept. People need to get over Venom and the symbiote being forced in SM3. Because as bad as those elements were, the worst part of the movie, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer which utterly ruined the character arcs of Peter, Aunt May, and so on, is totally Raimi's contribution. The idea that Sam Raimi was a true-blue classicist and everyone around him were idiots who didn't know stuff doesn't have much evidence. Sam Raimi had bad ideas that were his and his alone and they were not true to the comics. People who argue that Spider-Man 3 would have been an excellent movie but for the producers insisting on Venom need to make a case for defending Sandman killing Uncle Ben and how that's true to the comics and how that retcon doesn't negate and overwrite the characterization established by then.

    I personally think that Sam Raimi should have done what Tim Burton did when he made Batman Returns. Just walked away. That way, Burton comes out happy that he got to make two excellent Batman movies (1989 and Batman Returns, which is actually the better film) and can happily move and do other stuff, leaving the studios to fall on their sword with Schumacher. In the case of Spider-Man 3, Raimi made a movie without any real sense of having a story to tell, and any real sense of who the movie is about. He should have walked away and let the studios make their movie. The sad part of Spider-Man 3 is that Raimi's return makes it a continuation of Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2, so it's definitely "canon" but because of the mess in the vision, the most iconic version of Spider-Man and his cast is bereft of a proper conclusion. Had Raimi walked away, we could have cut-off from 2 and accepted that as canon. It's analogous to the Game of Thrones finale in that sense...albeit Spider-Man 3 is still better. Sam Raimi from what I gather was a casual reader of Spider-Man comics growing up. He wasn't a real super-fan who can list continuity and all that stuff. Which is good. He loved that material but wasn't too devoted or fixated on it. So he had a sense of what part of Spider-Man could appeal to a wide general audience and that worked wonders in Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2. But in Spider-Man 3 that same attitude worked against him, so he had a general audience's reticence about Venom and its alien origins working in the story, and he thought he could retcon Spider-Man's origin easily enough.

    http://www.bookofthedead.ws/hosted/m...0MovieHole.htm

    In this interview around 2000 when the first movie came out, he talks about his interest in the comics, and it's very much of a casual interest.

    Raimi had a coherent arc for Peter, Harry, and MJ.
    Coherent for Peter and MJ until 2, but not in 3 where they become a non-functioning couple. Harry Osborn as a character is a mess, because the movies want you to buy he's this perfect friend but he's plainly a toxic guy who has exploited Peter all through his friendship and never really respected him. He was a terrible boyfriend, so I just don't buy him being given the importance he gets.

  15. #30
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,918

    Default

    Its all personal opinion. I know its just me and a couple of other village idiots around here who enjoy Spider-Man 3. Its a great movie, to me, and the arc for Harry is closed in that movie, like it or not. Harry in the comics was a troubled guy, he had issues with trust all around. Distrust for MJ was high on that scale, too. during Romita. So was jealousy for Peter. The arc for Peter and MJ is rocky and left hanging, but is still part of an arc. That it wasn't closed up, to me, just indicates that things were left open for more movies.

    hey at least Raimi had an interest. He also had good gut instincts. Just because people didn't like something does make it bad in an objective way.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •