Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[Kevinroc]

It's still an established aspect of the character even if they didn't utilize it as prominently.

That's kind of my point, though. It was there just to be there and didn't serve any vital story function. They gave lip-service to Spider-Man, but didn't understand how to actually make them elements that were necessary for the story.

(I have no problems with the MCU films dropping Peter's photography.)

Well, he beat Mysterio. He pretty much barely managed to beat Vulture (which for my money is one of the more underwhelming final fights in a Spider-Man movie). He needed help from his guy in the chair to beat Shocker.

(Remember when he was actually holding his own against Avengers in Civil War?)

Can't a villain just hate and want to kill Spider-Man anymore?

That's also my point. The MCU movies put too much emphasis on the rest of the MCU.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Where we happen to disagree (at least from what I inquire from your post - I don't mean to put words in your mouth) is that you regarded Webb franchise's Gwen as "the one" and "meant to be". I don't think either the writers or Peter as a character in those films sees it that way.

You are correct in that this is indeed my contention about the franchise.

But the writers, director, cast, and Garfield Peter absolutely saw Gwen that way. They said many times in interviews that Gwen was more compatible to Peter, and so on. That might be promotional stuff to boost their movies and so on, and there's an element of that, but either way they wanted the audience to know that this is how Gwen should be seen in their movies and presented her that way.

From a Watsonian perspective, Peter and Gwen are clearly in love but none of them romanticize their relationship to the point where they think they're "meant to be" or that there is literally no one else in the world they're compatible with.

They don't have to literally say that in dialogue but an entire history of romantic comedy and performance recognition created recognizable codes that audience instinctively recognize right away. The movies traffick in that so it's rather obvious. The presentation of the movie, the coding of the scenes and performances, the framing and staging of scenes, beats the spoken text of the movie, always always always (to quote Lindsay Ellis).

From a Doylist perspective, we knew MJ was coming had that franchise kept going and nothing in the films played up Gwen as "the one" or "meant to be"

The problem is that the way Emma Stone was played up in the first two movies, no way any actress cast as Mary Jane in the third movie will register as anything other than a lesser character. And short of going SPIDER-MAN REIGN there is not any way to bring that Peter out of the hole the movies dump him in at the end of that.

I'll dispute this. One thing I think the ASM films did right was seeing Spidey in motion and in a fight, particularly the Electro and Goblin fights.

The VFX of the TASM movies were obviously at a more advanced stage in the early 2010s than when Raimi's movies broke ground ten years before. But that's not the same thing as effective staging of action scenes. The fight scenes in the TASM movies lack visual panache and flavor, emotional tone, and impact.

You look at TASM-1 and TASM-2 and for the most part, the action is staged at night or in dark places. In Raimi's Spider-Man 1 for instance, most of the action is in broad daylight with the main finale at the bridge and warehouse taking place at night simply because Raimi has the sense that "I have two characters who wear costumes in primary colors, I want everyone to see that". Raimi also stages the action so that it has a weight and flow to it in terms of body movement, so that you feel the impact of the punches and kicks. Where we don't get that on the same level in the Webb movies.

[Frontier]

That's kind of my point, though. It was there just to be there and didn't serve any vital story function. They gave lip-service to Spider-Man, but didn't understand how to actually make them elements that were necessary for the story.

I mean, originally what we were talking about was there to foreshadow the job people know him for having. Again, the ASM2 thing is a completely separate thing.

(I have no problems with the MCU films dropping Peter's photography.)

I do. Give him something to do other than being Spider-Man, a high school student, or Tony Stark-lite.

The VFX of the TASM movies were obviously at a more advanced stage in the early 2010s than when Raimi's movies broke ground ten years before. But that's not the same thing as effective staging of action scenes. The fight scenes in the TASM movies lack visual panache and flavor, emotional tone, and impact.

You look at TASM-1 and TASM-2 and for the most part, the action is staged at night or in dark places. In Raimi's Spider-Man 1 for instance, most of the action is in broad daylight with the main finale at the bridge and warehouse taking place at night simply because Raimi has the sense that "I have two characters who wear costumes in primary colors, I want everyone to see that". Raimi also stages the action so that it has a weight and flow to it in terms of body movement, so that you feel the impact of the punches and kicks. Where we don't get that on the same level in the Webb movies.

I think the fights happening at night are more a consequence of the CGI. The same happened with Vulture in Homecoming.

I think there was impact in the Lizard and Goblin fights. Electro was an energy being so it was completely different.

[Kevinroc]

I mean, originally what we were talking about was there to foreshadow the job people know him for having. Again, the ASM2 thing is a completely separate thing.

Again, those movies didn't end up doing anything with Peter's photography. That's why I think those elements were there just to be there. But we're arguing in circles at this point.

I do. Give him something to do other than being Spider-Man, a high school student, or Tony Stark-lite.

I'm just ready for the MCU Spider-Man films to be over at this point. I've been really disappointed by them.

[Frontier]

Again, those movies didn't end up doing anything with Peter's photography. That's why I think those elements were there just to be there. But we're arguing in circles at this point.

I guess it's coming at it with foresight instead of in hindsight view.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think the fights happening at night are more a consequence of the CGI. The same happened with Vulture in Homecoming.

Just to be fair to the Garfield movies...I think the fight scenes in the MCU movies are far inferior to the Marc Webb movies, FWIW.

[Jman27]

is Peter really a good photographer? I mean with his abilities he can angle great shots

[Frontier]

is Peter really a good photographer? I mean with his abilities he can angle great shots

Well, he stages the cameras to get perfect shots of himself as Spider-Man but he's also done non-Spider-Man photography work, so I assume he's a solid photographer.

[PCN24454]

is Peter really a good photographer? I mean with his abilities he can angle great shots

Depends on who's writing him (as always).

[Jman27]

i dont know it always seem cheap to me cause its proven that other people couldn't get consistent great shots of spider-man

[Revolutionary_Jack]

is Peter really a good photographer? I mean with his abilities he can angle great shots

That's actually something that's never been resolved.

If you read the original Lee-Ditko issues, and go to Peter's first encounter with Jameson in Amazing Spider-Man #2

ASM#2 - Peter meets JJJ.jpg

Jameson is a lot warmer and fuzzier then he's usually shown to be in other takes on "When Peter met his Boss". Jameson explicitly praises Peter's photos and calls it sensational.

Now obviously you can argue that this was early before Lee and Ditko concieved and had a real sense of the Peter-JJJ dynamic.

But then in the Master Planner Saga, you have Jameson knowingly admit in his thoughts that the pictures Peter has given is worth "thrice that much".

ASM#33 - MP Peter-Jonah Images.jpg

SO I don't think Peter was ever intended to be a bad photographer by either Lee or Ditko. That's something which crept up later among a section of fans. Technically Peter has to be very skilled at photography if you consider that he has to angle quick cameras on the fly and in a place of his choosing. Now Peter's not supposed to be an artistic genius in the sense of Richard Avedon, Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange and others. But he's definitely a qualified photojournalist (most of whom have to take functional effective photographs rather than create stuff for the art gallery).

And photography was always a skill that ordinary people with cameras could "git good" at very quickly on their own. Through practice and hard work, you could master F-Stop, aperture opening, ISO, shutter speed, proper use of lenses, and in the case of Peter create and man his own dark room to develop his material.

[Jman27]

I never heard of those 3 people before in my life. But yeah with time Peter should be good on his own

[Agent Z]

The thing is, they wouldn't have killed MJ off because that wasn't her role in the franchise, which they slightly gave to Gwen in the films before killing her off and without properly establishing Mary Jane. That was part of the problem.

(I don't hate Gwen or Webb Gwen, for the record).

I don't think it's required to establish MJ for Gwen's part in the story.

[Kevinroc]

I don't think it's required to establish MJ for Gwen's part in the story.

We just saw what happened when they don't do that. I don't understand this opinion after Amazing Spider-Man 2.

[Agent Z]

They don't have to literally say that in dialogue but an entire history of romantic comedy and performance recognition created recognizable codes that audience instinctively recognize right away. The movies traffick in that so it's rather obvious. The presentation of the movie, the coding of the scenes and performances, the framing and staging of scenes, beats the spoken text of the movie, always always always (to quote Lindsay Ellis).

Coding is not the law. Not everyone interprets a film in the same way and people do not base their viewing experience on how well a movie matches up with tv tropes. You're basically saying that audiences are easily manipulated sheep who can't form their own opinions of a film and instead have to rely on how well it matches up with cliches other romantic movies follow.

The problem is that the way Emma Stone was played up in the first two movies, no way any actress cast as Mary Jane in the third movie will register as anything other than a lesser character.

We don't know that because a third movie was never made.