Controversial Spider-Man Opinions

[marhawkman]

What do you mean by "continuity hole"?

It's a part of the fictional setting that logically SHOULD exist, but doesn't get used in the fiction. Missing back stories are a common example. The writers can't fill in every single one. If you visualize continuity as a piece of paper... it's a hole in the piece of paper because there's just nothing there. Peter Parker is a Human, so logically he had a mother and father. But... other than the family name Parker... what do we know about them? Not much... :/

[TheRay]

I just feel that "hole" has a negative connotation in this context.

[marhawkman]

I just feel that "hole" has a negative connotation in this context.

well, yes, yes it does. It means part of the story is missing. IE not a good thing. It's not necessarily a strong negative, but it is a negative.

[Johnatellodi]

Octavius should still be Spider-Man. It's weird, interesting, and everything fun about comics. Peter is never going away, be that in the movies, games, cartoons, or myriad of flashback stories or alternate timelines within the comics themselves. I wish the Marvel universe was allowed to evolve more, but I mostly understand why it doesn't.

[HypnoHustler]

Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man is very overrated and his performance is pretty bad. Its one of the things that actually weighs the trilogy down. I personally think that Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is the best portrayal and Amazing Spider-Man is my favourite live action Spider-Man movie.

Plus, Tobey is a HUGE jerk IRL https://pagesix.com/2014/06/11/tobey...e-poker-table/, so I have a tough time watching him on screen.

I never thought the Raimi films were that good. They just seemed good within the context of the time they came out when most other CBMs (except maybe the X-films) were dreadful and unwatchable. The best thing that came out of that trilogy were the memes.

That said, I don't think the Andrew Garfield films are that great either, but Garfield is a really nice guy IRL, so I'd rather watch his movies. Probably.

Honestly, I think 'Into the Spiderverse' is still the only truly great Spidey film.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Plus, Tobey is a HUGE jerk IRL https://pagesix.com/2014/06/11/tobey...e-poker-table/, so I have a tough time watching him on screen.

I never thought the Raimi films were that good. They just seemed good within the context of the time they came out when most other CBMs (except maybe the X-films) were dreadful and unwatchable. The best thing that came out of that trilogy were the memes.

That said, I don't think the Andrew Garfield films are that great either, but Garfield is a really nice guy IRL, so I'd rather watch his movies. Probably.

Honestly, I think 'Into the Spiderverse' is still the only truly great Spidey film.

Didn’t Garfield cheat on Emma Stone? As long as we are raising a fuss about offscreen lives and petty gossip which is all that anecdote about Maguire amounts to?

I agree that ITSV is the best film overall, though.

[HypnoHustler]

Didn’t Garfield cheat on Emma Stone? As long as we are raising a fuss about offscreen lives and petty gossip which is all that anecdote about Maguire amounts to?
.

I don’t know, but degrading a human by making them bark like a seal for a poker chip while you laugh and mock her takes a special kind of delight in hurting others, and I’d argue worse than cheating. Read the article.

Beyond that though, I just think that trilogy is extremely overrated. Like … extremely.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Beyond that though, I just think that trilogy is extremely overrated. Like … extremely.

The Raimi movies go through ups and downs. You couldn’t find many kind words after SM-3.

TASM-1 was recieved decently and many said it was better than the Raimi movies and so on and then after the second Garfield movie the pendulum swung back.

So it’s like a seesaw. I personally always felt that they were imperfect movies. The first one is my favorite but the sequel which everyone seems to like better is good but really flawed. The third one can be memed to hell but it can’t become a better movie by being willed so.

The Raimi movies had the most cohesive cast and I think that’s why it has the reputation it does.

[HypnoHustler]

The Raimi movies go through ups and downs. You couldn’t find many kind words after SM-3.

TASM-1 was recieved decently and many said it was better than the Raimi movies and so on and then after the second Garfield movie the pendulum swung back.

So it’s like a seesaw. I personally always felt that they were imperfect movies. The first one is my favorite but the sequel which everyone seems to like better is good but really flawed. The third one can be memed to hell but it can’t become a better movie by being willed so.

The Raimi movies had the most cohesive cast and I think that’s why it has the reputation it does.

They had the best possible portrayal of JJJ, I’ll give them that. Dunst as MJ was pretty bad though, and I’ve never seen anyone as miscast (okay, anyone not including some questionable casting choices from the early DCEU films) as Grace as Eddie Brock. But the dialogue is so wooden, and Spidey’s quips are forced at best and cringe at worst. Garfield at least sounded natural when he was Spidey, even if his actual Peter Parker didn’t really fit expectations. I don’t get why some on this board dislike Holland so much. I don’t think he’s perfect (nor are his movies), but he fits a USM mold of Peter. I have a feeling a lot of Raimi fans grew up with these movies and hold a special nostalgia for them. I was already in my 20s when they came out, so I think I saw them with more critical eyes and time hasn’t helped them improve with age.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

They had the best possible portrayal of JJJ, I’ll give them that. Dunst as MJ was pretty bad though, and I’ve never seen anyone as miscast (okay, anyone not including some questionable casting choices from the early DCEU films) as Grace as Eddie Brock. But the dialogue is so wooden, and Spidey’s quips are forced at best and cringe at worst. Garfield at least sounded natural when he was Spidey, even if his actual Peter Parker didn’t really fit expectations. I don’t get why some on this board dislike Holland so much. I don’t think he’s perfect (nor are his movies), but he fits a USM mold of Peter. I have a feeling a lot of Raimi fans grew up with these movies and hold a special nostalgia for them. I was already in my 20s when they came out, so I think I saw them with more critical eyes and time hasn’t helped them improve with age.

What I meant by cohesive is that the Raimi films have a cast that represents their comics counterparts across the first 40 years of the characters publication history. Jonah, Robbie, May, Ben, Peter, Mary Jane, Robbie all appear in each of these movies and they all play the roles in the comics in these movies and resemble their characters in a variety of ways(not necessarily in looks). What I mean is Jonah is curmudgeon, Robbie is the calm second, MJ is the only one to like both Peter and Spider-Man even when he is unpopular and later becomes his confidant, Harry is Peter’s ******* friend, May and Ben visually look like their comics counterparts in AF#15.

Whereas the movies that came after lack that cohesiveness. The Garfield movies for instance generally lacked a wide supporting cast and even then most of them were drastically altered from the roles they played in the comics. Neither the movie’s George Stacy nor Gwen resemble their comics counterparts nod do they play the roles they originally did in those stories. A Gwen that doesn’t hate Spider-Man is just not Gwen Stacy. I’d say only Sally Field is like the character in the comics but since so much of the movies pivot on Richard Parker and not her and Ben she’s wasted in the movie.

This continues with MCU where only Zendaya’s MJ is close to her comics counterpart but everything else is garishly altered. You have a Ned Leeds who is Ganke to a white guy instead of Miles. You have an Aunt May who is a joke character in the movies with Marisa Tomei again wasted like Fields. You gave Iron Man supporting characters like Happy Hogan as invasive species. The end of FFH brings a Jonah who never met Holland Peter and has no connection to Spider-Man suddenly outing him out of nowhere before any of the complex scaffolding is established.

The Raimi movies and also ITSV feature the most faithful take on Spider-Man’s world with things coming after being garish revisions.so that gives it value regardless of how one feels about it’s execution.

My problem with the Raimi movies have always been with the writing, not the dialogue but the plotting and action is often odd and contradictory and after the first one, the sequels become weak structurally. The characters are also let down. I like Kirsten Dunst’s MJ but she got let down in the sequels, especially the third one. Even JK Simmons’ Jonah all the best stuff with him is mostly in the first film and he becomes a joke character in the sequels with little to do.

[Spiderfan001]

What I meant by cohesive is that the Raimi films have a cast that represents their comics counterparts across the first 40 years of the characters publication history. Jonah, Robbie, May, Ben, Peter, Mary Jane, Robbie all appear in each of these movies and they all play the roles in the comics in these movies and resemble their characters in a variety of ways(not necessarily in looks). What I mean is Jonah is curmudgeon, Robbie is the calm second, MJ is the only one to like both Peter and Spider-Man even when he is unpopular and later becomes his confidant, Harry is Peter’s ******* friend, May and Ben visually look like their comics counterparts in AF#15.

Whereas the movies that came after lack that cohesiveness. The Garfield movies for instance generally lacked a wide supporting cast and even then most of them were drastically altered from the roles they played in the comics. Neither the movie’s George Stacy nor Gwen resemble their comics counterparts nod do they play the roles they originally did in those stories. A Gwen that doesn’t hate Spider-Man is just not Gwen Stacy. I’d say only Sally Field is like the character in the comics but since so much of the movies pivot on Richard Parker and not her and Ben she’s wasted in the movie.

This continues with MCU where only Zendaya’s MJ is close to her comics counterpart but everything else is garishly altered. You have a Ned Leeds who is Ganke to a white guy instead of Miles. You have an Aunt May who is a joke character in the movies with Marisa Tomei again wasted like Fields. You gave Iron Man supporting characters like Happy Hogan as invasive species. The end of FFH brings a Jonah who never met Holland Peter and has no connection to Spider-Man suddenly outing him out of nowhere before any of the complex scaffolding is established.

The Raimi movies and also ITSV feature the most faithful take on Spider-Man’s world with things coming after being garish revisions.so that gives it value regardless of how one feels about it’s execution.

My problem with the Raimi movies have always been with the writing, not the dialogue but the plotting and action is often odd and contradictory and after the first one, the sequels become weak structurally. The characters are also let down. I like Kirsten Dunst’s MJ but she got let down in the sequels, especially the third one. Even JK Simmons’ Jonah all the best stuff with him is mostly in the first film and he becomes a joke character in the sequels with little to do.

Just gonna talk about TASM part.
Gwen in TASM is far far superior to any Gwen in the comics.When someone says Gwen my mind always goes to her and in my headcanon that is the definitive Gwen stacy.Comic accuracy is a big pet peeve, but Idc with her because they made everything about her better.

And how is Zendaya's MJ even remotely close to Mary Jane is the comics.

[Agent Z]

Neither Zendaya's MJ nor ASM Gwen are accurate takes on the characters from the comics. It doesn't mean they are bad characters or bad adaptations but claiming that one is more accurate than the other is disingenuous, to put it kindly.

[Spencermalley935]

Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man is very overrated and his performance is pretty bad. Its one of the things that actually weighs the trilogy down. I personally think that Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is the best portrayal and Amazing Spider-Man is my favourite live action Spider-Man movie.

Really?

I've always viewed The Amazing Spider-Man as just an edgy retread of Raimi's first movie with a worse villain, a needlessly convoluted origin story and less inventive film making.

[Spiderfan001]

Neither Zendaya's MJ nor ASM Gwen are accurate takes on the characters from the comics. It doesn't mean they are bad characters or bad adaptations but claiming that one is more accurate than the other disingenuous, to put it kindly.

I agree, but while Gwen in TASM is much better in most aspects Zendaya's MJ isn't MJ at all.Comic MJ was a layered and nuanced character, they replaced her with Michelle.
Both are inaccurate but one is clearly for the better while one isn't even close and to put it kindly.
Also Michelle means we will never see the real MJ in MCU.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Just gonna talk about TASM part.
Gwen in TASM is far far superior to any Gwen in the comics.

Superior in terms of what? I don’t think an adaptation making the character likeable automatically makes it superior. There’s more to storytelling than that.

Comic accuracy is a big pet peeve, but Idc with her because they made everything about her better.

That’s fine. My point is characters are tied to their role in the stories. If you borrow the name and remove all the context you might make a character more likeable but you will do so at the risk of compromising their function, their role, in the story. That’s cool if your changes make something that’s special but if not then it’s likely a waste.

And how is Zendaya's MJ even remotely close to Mary Jane is the comics.

She’s aloof from others around her, puts on a facade to hide how much she cares, she susses out that Peter is Spider-Man before he tells her, and her somewhat jokey attitude is from Defalco’s run on ASM #259 where in her flashback she reveals that she was a class clown in high school. There are issues with the writing and certainly having Ned Leeds/Ganke as Peter’s first bestie is a huge problem but Zendaya’s MJ is closer to her role in the comics than anyone else.

… Also Michelle means we will never see the real MJ in MCU.

The “real MJ” exists in the comics between 1965-2007 and intermittently after that. I still have my comics. She’s not going anywhere and I have no problems with KD’s Mary Jane or with Zendaya’s MJ.

And i don’t especially think being in the MCU is any special milestone.