Why do so many people hate TASM series?

[Lee]

And what about the mcu overemphasizing the peripheral elements of Spider Man? Hell they borderline focus more on the mcu than Spider Man in his own movies.

This is true. Having adventures outside of New York City, in foreign countries, working with SHIELD, admiring Iron Man, using gadgets borrowed from Iron Man, fighting alongside the Avengers in outer space.

You can find examples of all of these in the Spider-Man comics, but they are peripheral, they're the exception and not the rule. In the MCU films Spider-Man has had more Avengers style stories than he has traditional Spider-Man style stories, even in his own movies. It's a massive disservice to the mythos that two classic Spider-Man villains, Vulture and Mysterio, were both motivated by getting revenge on Iron Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean energetic, witty and well sounding alive.

Those are stereotypical attributes and while it's important that cheerleaders or waiters or other customer care affect these traits, it's not at all so for characters in a story.

I know it isn't a 1-1 but Tobey just sounded kinda flat and didn't have that much wittiness compared to Andrew.

It really isn't a 1:1 because ultimately a similar scene can play different based on everything around it. Like Tobey's Spider-Man came off as an actual Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man who was not yet comfortable with interacting with people as a role model and so even his attempt to affect that tone came off as dorky but earnest, which felt consistent to the character Tobey was. Whereas with Garfield's Peter there was an element of pandering and showboating in all his "Spider-Man meets the plebes" scenes. Like that bit where he wears a fireman's hat in the middle of a crisis...that kind of silliness. It just didn't make sense or feel right.

It's not a sports competition. You can't judge actors based on "who emotes most", "who comes across as customer-care Spider-Man better"? You have to take an overall thing to account. Also have to put acting in context with screenplay, direction, and tone.

Or after he saved MJ during the parade on the balcony. He was clearly trying to be humorous when he told her "beats taking the subway." Just something was lacking in his voice.

It's not like people being awkward around the love of their lives is an uncommon or new experience. Especially in the case of Tobey's Peter where he never told MJ his feelings. The key bit is when Spider-Man after dropping her by that roof garden swings away whooping in cheer.

Spider-Man is suppose to be kinda quippy and fun at times.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man isn't accurate to the characters in the comics in a lot of ways, especially not with Tobey's Peter and Kirsten's MJ. It's a specific interpretation and Raimi is trying to be true to that interpretation. Raimi was a casual reader of the comics and what he took away from it was Peter was a constant insecure dude angsting over stuff, and he felt that morose inner life mixed with an old-fashioned sincerity was the best way. He found that in Tobey and went with it. He also felt that it made the movies into a classic boy-meets-girl love story rather than the considerably more realistic and nuanced romance in the comics. Still he made it work.

None of the Spider-Man live-action movies are accurate to comics' Spider-Man and Peter in any way. Each film and film-maker foregrounds and explores different aspects. What makes them valuable as films are entirely cinematic and how that works with everything else. Thankfully the comics' Peter and his cast are complex enough to allow different interpretations.

I really don't know what you are talking.

Just read ASM#31-38, the first eight issues with Gwen that Steve Ditko worked on.

Gwen became nice after she became Peter's girlfriend and kinda lost her personality which is why they killed her off in favor of MJ.

My point is that the interesting version of Gwen, the best written and most consistent version of her, was the Gwen "who wasn't nice". The Gwen before she became Peter's girlfriend. You know, "Resting b--ch face" Gwen, the Regina George of ESU.

Gwen was just a much better character in TASM...

Compared to the comics...i.e. Lee-Ditko Gwen, Ultimate Gwen, heck even hysterical over-the-top Gwen in some of the later L-R issues...she's not a better character than the comics. Gwen's most notable characteristics in the comics is that A) She hated Spider-Man, B) She blamed Spider-Man for her father's death. If you remove both of these but choose to adapt the Death of George Stacy (as TASM-1 partially does) and The Night Gwen Stacy Died (as TASM-2 does), you are not doing the story and character of the comics justice.**

Emma Gwen in the TASM movies is an ideal girlfriend, i.e. "the cool girl" from that famous Gone Girl monologue, there to facilitate the demands and lifestyle of a unstable, moody, intense brooding guy. She's super-rich while he's a moocher who leeches off his struggling aunt and keeps wasting time chasing the ghost of his deadbeat Dad (if still alive as the movies hints). It's quite disproportionate. She's a poorly written character that somehow works thanks to Emma Stone's effortless likability and screen presence. But just because she was the most watchable character in bad movies doesn't mean she's somehow a good character by any means.

Kirsten Dunst's MJ on the other hand was a more complex and interesting character, and whatever else she was, she was definitely not "bland" and certainly not the B-word you use so casually. Both Dunst's MJ and Stone's Gwen are quite different from the characters in the comics in many ways, but on the whole Dunst's MJ has far more in common with the MJ in the comics than Stone's Gwen has with the Gwen in the comics.




** As an addendum, let me add that TASM-1 in particular is severely dated for its Cop-Propaganda or Copaganda as they call it these days. The fact that George Stacy is reinterpreted from a senior plainclothes detective to a cop in uniform, that George Stacy gets a heroic moment where he saves Spider-Man's life from Lizard all feeds into the usual lionizing of police that many argued that the movies tied to. What makes these insidious is that the George Stacy of the comics, both in "Death of George Stacy" and the two-part story dealing with the aftermath of his death, ASM#91-92, went to great steps to divorce George Stacy from those elements and as such the movies register like A) betrayal of the source, B) tone-deaf misreading of the dramatic values of those stories, C) providing a halo to the police in the time of stop-and-frisk (tail end of Bloomberg's Mayoralty which ended in 2013, movie came out in 2012).

[Spider-Tiger]

And what about the mcu overemphasizing the peripheral elements of Spider Man? Hell they borderline focus more on the mcu than Spider Man in his own movies.

I mean that's definitely true, but it's easier for me to overlook because:
a.) The MCU films are not trying to adapt the classic mythology. They're doing their own thing. TASM was built around stories like AF # 15 and ASM 121-122 so there's bound to be a more 1:1 direct comparison to the comics. These are also stories that were adapted by Raimi so there's going to be direct comparisons to those films as well (and the comparisons do not work in TASM's favor.)
b.) The MCU films are better constucted movies IMO.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And what about the mcu overemphasizing the peripheral elements of Spider Man? Hell they borderline focus more on the mcu than Spider Man in his own movies.

1) If you like the TASM movies, your case is improved far more if you focus on the stuff you liked in the movies rather than bashing movies that came before or after. If you truly wholeheartedly believe and like that stuff, it shouldn't matter to you about the MCU or Raimi.

2) In my experience, whenever people discuss the MCU the comparison is always against Raimi's movies, the Garfield movies don't enter into the conversation at all. These movies are generally forgotten. In box-office terms both movies earned less than Spider-Man 3.

3) Ultimately, just because the MCU became disappointing doesn't mean that the TASM movies are improved. For instance, Daniel Craig isn't my favorite James Bond (even if I like him as an actor), but that doesn't mean I think that Die Another Day (the last Brosnan Bond movie) is suddenly good, or change my judgment that no Brosnan Bond movie was as good as the first one - Goldeneye.

I mean that's definitely true, but it's easier for me to overlook because:
a.) The MCU films are not trying to adapt the classic mythology. They're doing their own thing. TASM was built around stories like AF # 15 and ASM 121-122 so there's bound to be a more 1:1 direct comparison to the comics. These are also stories that were adapted by Raimi so there's going to be direct comparisons to those films as well (and the comparisons do not work in TASM's favor.)
b.) The MCU films are better constucted movies IMO.

The MCU movies are deliberately mediocre while the Garfield movies are accidentally so.

The Garfield movies merged a bunch of stufff.
A) Ultimate Spider-Man, so you have teenage Peter in high school, who spends his time in Aunt May's basement and who tells his girlfriend his secret identity and makes her his confidant/partner (a la Peter and Ultimate MJ). His dad is also a scientist but rather than being the creator-of-venom he's now the creator of everything.
B) Lee-Romita Gwen Stacy, i.e. Gwen is richer-than-god living in Manhattan.

And then it brought in stuff that was its own special nonsense (Peter's special blood, its new even worse version of Harry Osborn that made Franco's Harry look spotless by comparison). The director of these movies made a romance movie before he took this ill-advised gig, and he was more invested in the romance than the action stuff, and so that creates a war in the movies between the director and what he was interested in versus what producers and marketers wanted.

[Frontier]

I appreciated that at least in the ASM films we had one major villain (Electro) who never found out Peter was Spider-Man and that Spider-Man Electro and the Goblin without his mask needing to come off.

I dunno I didn't care for TASM-Lizard much to be honest. He doesn't work as a hermit living-alone scientist without a wife and a kid. Rhys Ifans was a good actor and he gives his best but the part doesn't suit it. They tried to make Doc Connors into Molina Ock.

I mean, if anyone could pull off a Molina Ock, it's Connors.

The funny thing is I think Billy and Martha were supposed to be referenced but were cut out of the main film. The tie-in game mentioned Billy.

As a side-note, the first ASM tie-in game was actually a pretty solid Spider-Man game by Beenox and introduced gameplay mechanics that we'd end up seeing again in the PS4 game.

Tobey was a great Peter Parker.
Tom manages to be a really fun Spider-man.

Garfield manages to do neither.

Garfield was a fun Spider-Man.

Tom's Spider-Man is just kind of a dork who gets caught in comedic situations but that isn't really any different from his Peter. Tom has barely any personality as Spider-Man, at least in a way that distinguishes him from how he is as Peter. Garfield had the opposite problem where his Peter was as confident and cocky as his Spider-Man.

I don't know if they're intentionally going for a character bit that MCU Spidey only quips when he's confident or in control of the situation (which is a reverse of the usual justification for the quips) but it leaves Spider-Man feeling lacking in my opinion.

Could you imagine Spectacular or the PS4 game if Spidey quipped like he quipped in the MCU? It would probably feel kind of dull and a waste of Josh Keaton and Yuri Lowenthal's talent.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I appreciated that at least in the ASM films we had one major villain (Electro) who never found out Peter was Spider-Man and that Spider-Man Electro and the Goblin without his mask needing to come off.

Well there's that. Now that you mention it.

I mean, if anyone could pull off a Molina Ock, it's Connors.

The funny thing is I think Billy and Martha were supposed to be referenced but were cut out of the main film. The tie-in game mentioned Billy.

I get what you mean. I meant presenting Connors as a science-daddy for Peter, which is how Molina Ock was framed in Spider-Man 2.

Tom's Spider-Man is just kind of a dork who gets caught in comedic situations but that isn't really any different from his Peter. Tom has barely any personality as Spider-Man, at least in a way that distinguishes him from how he is as Peter. Garfield had the opposite problem where his Peter was as confident and cocky as his Spider-Man.

Yeah. Neither of them create a sense of Spider-Man as a different character than regular Peter that Tobey Maguire did in the first and second movie. Tobey's Spider-Man wasn't a motor mouth but he was funny, like webbing Jameson up and going, "Let mom and dad talk". Especially since that followed a scene of Tobey's Peter meekly taking Jameson's abuse and walking out.

[Frontier]

Yeah. Neither of them create a sense of Spider-Man as a different character than regular Peter that Tobey Maguire did in the first and second movie. Tobey's Spider-Man wasn't a motor mouth but he was funny, like webbing Jameson up and going, "Let mom and dad talk". Especially since that followed a scene of Tobey's Peter meekly taking Jameson's abuse and walking out.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think Tobey had the delivery to sell it (although he did a good job in the tie-in games) but there was at least an attempt made in the Raimi movies that just isn't there in the ones that followed.

[Spider-Tiger]

The MCU movies are deliberately mediocre while the Garfield movies are accidentally so.

Haha this is pretty accurate.

The TASM team wanted to one-up Sam Raimi, produce something on par with Nolan's Batman, and build their own Spider-man cinematic universe all at once. They were trying to make filet mignon with all of the wrong ingredients and ended up with ground chuck. The MCU team is under no illusion and is very happy flipping burgers.

[Frontier]

Haha this is pretty accurate.

The TASM team wanted to one-up Sam Raimi, produce something on par with Nolan's Batman, and build their own Spider-man cinematic universe all at once. They were trying to make filet mignon with all of the wrong ingredients and ended up with ground chuck. The MCU team is under no illusion and is very happy flipping burgers.

I think the style of the TASM movies could have worked but the writing and directing approach just wasn't there to make it happen and the tacked on cinematic universe didn't help matters.

[Alan2099]

I think the style of the TASM movies could have worked but the writing and directing approach just wasn't there to make it happen and the tacked on cinematic universe didn't help matters.

I think the style was a bit too dark and really felt like it lacked the fun and energy of the other two Spidey's.

[Frontier]

I think the style was a bit too dark and really felt like it lacked the fun and energy of the other two Spidey's.

I think Spidey can be dark, though. I mean, maybe not overwhelmingly but I think it's a valid tone for the character even if Spider-Man as a character shouldn't be too dark.

[Alan2099]

I think Spidey can be dark, though. I mean, maybe not overwhelmingly but I think it's a valid tone for the character even if Spider-Man as a character shouldn't be too dark.

Spider-man CAN be dark at times, but when you're doing a movie, you need to capture what the essence of the character is, which in Spider-man's case is usually not that dark.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think Tobey had the delivery to sell it (although he did a good job in the tie-in games) but there was at least an attempt made in the Raimi movies that just isn't there in the ones that followed.

With Raimi there aren't too many scenes with Tobey as Spider-Man. He becomes Spider-Man 1 at the end of the first Act. And in the second part he has scenes with Spider-Man mixed with stuff with Peter. So that felt fine because it was in the origin.

In the second movie, Peter spends the majority of time without powers as just regular Peter. So there aren't scenes with Spider-Man just doing Spider-Man stuff. There's that great moment where Spider-Man takes the elevator, though. Likewise, Doctor Octopus being Peter's mentor science-dad gone bad means that their conflict is too serious for Peter to start dropping quips on him (whereas with Green Goblin in the majority of their interactions in the first movie, neither knew the other's identity so Peter can call him "Gobby"). The scene is Spider-Man reasoning with a friend of his going on a rampage and talking him down, not Spider-Man making fun of a pompous egomaniac.

When you make ever Spider-Man bad guy someone Peter has a personal connection with, it gets harder to do scenes and moments where Spider-Man is dropping quips in a fight scene with the bad guy. In FFH, Peter never drops the classic "fishbowl helmet" on Mysterio because majority of the film is him buying into Beck's act as a superhero, rest of the movie is him feeling guilty of dishonoring the memory of "Mr. Stark" and going 'bad Dobby' on himself like the house elf he is. In TASM-1, the fact that Spider-Man knows Lizard likewise means that Spider-Man stops quipping against the Lizard in battle.

The TASM team wanted to one-up Sam Raimi, produce something on par with Nolan's Batman, and build their own Spider-man cinematic universe all at once. They were trying to make filet mignon with all of the wrong ingredients and ended up with ground chuck. The MCU team is under no illusion and is very happy flipping burgers.

Exactly.

I think Spidey can be dark, though. I mean, maybe not overwhelmingly but I think it's a valid tone for the character even if Spider-Man as a character shouldn't be too dark.

The Raimi movies had plenty of dark moments. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin is still the most violent and murderous of all villains in any Spider-Man movie. He killed 21 people on-screen in the first movie. That's the most. The final fight between him and Peter in that warehouse is the most bloody any live-action Peter has gotten. Doctor Octopus had that violent scene where his arms get active and he murders an entire staff of innocent doctors and nurses.

The thing about it is that to do Spider-Man right, you need to shift tones and balance stuff. It has to be funny, romantic, dark, and serious. Raimi was able to switch tones. Marc Webb wasn't. The MCU found one tone (Sidekick Comedy Hour) and stuck to it.

[Frontier]

Spider-man CAN be dark at times, but when you're doing a movie, you need to capture what the essence of the character is, which in Spider-man's case is usually not that dark.

I think you can still capture Spider-Man's essence in a more moodier or darker tone. Like the Ultimate comics to a degree.

With Raimi there aren't too many scenes with Tobey as Spider-Man. He becomes Spider-Man 1 at the end of the first Act. And in the second part he has scenes with Spider-Man mixed with stuff with Peter. So that felt fine because it was in the origin.

In the second movie, Peter spends the majority of time without powers as just regular Peter. So there aren't scenes with Spider-Man just doing Spider-Man stuff. There's that great moment where Spider-Man takes the elevator, though. Likewise, Doctor Octopus being Peter's mentor science-dad gone bad means that their conflict is too serious for Peter to start dropping quips on him (whereas with Green Goblin in the majority of their interactions in the first movie, neither knew the other's identity so Peter can call him "Gobby"). The scene is Spider-Man reasoning with a friend of his going on a rampage and talking him down, not Spider-Man making fun of a pompous egomaniac.

When you make ever Spider-Man bad guy someone Peter has a personal connection with, it gets harder to do scenes and moments where Spider-Man is dropping quips in a fight scene with the bad guy. In FFH, Peter never drops the classic "fishbowl helmet" on Mysterio because majority of the film is him buying into Beck's act as a superhero, rest of the movie is him feeling guilty of dishonoring the memory of "Mr. Stark" and going 'bad Dobby' on himself like the house elf he is. In TASM-1, the fact that Spider-Man knows Lizard likewise means that Spider-Man drops the quips against the Lizard in battle.

He still quipped plenty in the Raimi movies. He quipped against Doc Ock during the bank attack for instance. Even ASM Peter quipped against the Lizard. There's at least enough Spider-Man to where they establish he's a quipper.

You do not need to sell me on the issues with MCU Spider-Man.

The thing about it is that to do Spider-Man right, you need to shift tones and balance stuff. It has to be funny, romantic, dark, and serious. Raimi was able to switch tones. Marc Webb wasn't. The MCU found one tone (Sidekick Comedy Hour) and stuck to it.

I think Webb was able to switch tones, it just wasn't as graceful as other directors might do it...because all those aspects you list were in those movies.

I'm not a fan of the MCU tone to be honest.

[SuperiorIronman]

I'm of the opinion that the fist TASM is alright. It's not perfect and definitely has some flaws but I enjoy it enough. I'm far more willing to watch it than it's sequel. TASM2 screws up in many of the same aspects Spider-man 3 does just without a lot of the charm Spider-man 3 can have. But moreover it's just too dark to be enjoyable especially since it ends on removing one of the more likable elements of the series because Gwen and Peter really work. Yeah it's not perfect but it's enjoyable enough that removing Gwen and ultimately building towards her death was a mistake.

It also doesn't help that the Green Goblin just kind of sucks in this. He's like a troll doll who really liked the character design of Iron man 3. It should work, but Dane Dehan just doesn't have the same sort persona that William Dafoe has. So while both Goblins aren't as good as they could be, the Raimi version at least is way more fun to watch. I can look past the character design since the Raimi version is at least entertaining whereas Webb is only memorable to me for how bad that character design was. The story from what I recall was also juggling too many threads when it just needed to pick one.