The Spider-Man 3 Discussion Thread

2456714

Posts

  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    In the first movie, the criminal trips trying to escape from Spider-Man and falls out of a window to his presumed death.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • HeatwaveHeatwave Come, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Heatwave wrote: »
    I've been reading a bunch of reviews and posts on the net and I can't get over how a lot of ppl can rate Spider-man 2 over Spider-man 1. I haven't seen the extended cut, but from the version I own, I find SM2 inferior to SM1 in terms of combining the action and drama. In relation to SM3, many people have said it uses the same formula in SM2, and to me that's not exactly saying much

    SM2 focused too much of Peter's civilian life, and not enough of his life as a costumed hero; which for me was pretty boring. Also, despite being dressed like a power ranger, the Green Goblin was actually evil and put real thought into his schemes. Doc Ock on the other hand seemed to do stuff just for the sake of it, without any thought (kidnapping MJ). I also found the musical score to be a little off and didn't set the mood properly in some scenes.

    Wow, that entire second paragraph didn't make very much sense at all. If you've read any Spidey comics, you'd know one of the biggest focuses of the comic is Peter's civilian life. All of the biggest moments in the Spider-Man mythos impact Peter's personal life, such as Uncle Ben's death, Gwen's death, and May's recent shooting. Spider-Man is built on Peter Parker and his personal life. As for Norman being evil, it's not so much evil intentions than him being completely fucking crazy. In fact, most of his "evil deeds" mainly had to do with furthering his own goals than making Peter miserable. Also, i would hardly call attacking the board in broad daylight with thousands of witnesses great planning. Ock, on the other hand, kidnapped MJ because, A) he was going slightly insane, and B) to make sure Peter did what was told of him. As for the music, i honestly felt it was virtually exactly the same. The train scene from SM2 had a different composer do the music that made it into the movie, and if you hear the Danny Elfman version, it adds alot more to the scene.

    Anyway, you're allowed to like the first movie over the second one, but your reasons for doing so are pretty weak.
    I know about the focus on Peter's civilian life, but what I'm referring to is the lack of attention to his super hero antics. Because that's what he is, right? A super hero.

    Scenes like when he was getting ready to see MJ's play (although crucial to setting him up to the car chase), and the "Oh happy life" montage were played out too long and distracted what the movie was really about: a super hero. For a superhero, he did very little crime fighting in SM2 than he did in the first movie. It gave off the impression that he wasn't really needed but just some guy that gives a little help every now and then.

    I'm not saying that there shouldn't be focus on his civilian life at all, but that it needs to be toned down a little so we're not drowned in it. In Spider-man 3, there are, apparently, two song scenes and a dance or two. Song. And. Dance. It's a 2hour movie for crying out loud. Give the audience what they came for, not some filler.

    Now as for the Villains in the first two movies, I found GG to be the better villain because his intent was to get his way first and cause some havoc along the way. He blew his board members in broad daylight not only to kill them, but also humiliate them in front of the public to show how truly powerless they were in his company and as normal human beings. He set three traps - one ruin his reputation and persuade him into becoming his lackey, another one to find his answer and kill him of he declines, and the last one to further ruin his reputation (failure to save civilian lives) and kill him at the same time. These schemes were really thought out and show that as super villain, he knew his shit.

    Dock Ock was pretty misguided in terms of being a villain. Sure he did a little planning, but didn't think of any consequences his actions might cause in terms of achieving his objectives. Throwing a car a Peter would have killed him had he not really been spider-man. Actually no, there wasn't any planning, only luck. Not very smart for a villain and genius scientist. Also, he basically whored himself for the tritium instead of raiding some facility and getting it himself.

    Finally, the music which actually bothered me was Dock Ocks. It didn't feel intense at all but instead cheesy, like in a cartoon or something. Maybe that was the intention, what with the movie being based on a comic and all, but I personally would have preferred something a little more serious to create a sense of urgency. Some of the other music bothered me as well not because of how it sounded, but because it was overused to the point where it lost it's intensity. In the first movie, we were given small hints/adaptions in some scenes, but in SM2 we'd get the full thing almost all the time.


    Okay, I'm done talking about the past movies, on with the new!

    I feel Sandman should have been left out of his movie because it's clear that he doesn't get enough development and is just around as a means of making Peter descend to darkness. His purpose could have easily been filled some nobody thug, but because Raimi wanted to include Sandman. IMO, he should have been in a SM movie as a solo villian like GG and Ock - there's just too much to his character to have to share screen time with two other baddies.

    Heatwave on
    P2n5r3l.jpg
    Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    How can you complain that Spider-Man 2 didn't have enough scenes depicting him as a crime fighter only to then complain that Spider-Man 3 has a whole extra villain who exists solely to give Spider-Man an additional criminal to fight and hit with superhero antics?

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Heatwave wrote: »

    I feel Sandman should have been left out of his movie because it's clear that he doesn't get enough development and is just around as a means of making Peter descend to darkness. His purpose could have easily been filled some nobody thug, but because Raimi wanted to include Sandman. IMO, he should have been in a SM movie as a solo villian like GG and Ock - there's just too much to his character to have to share screen time with two other baddies.

    Sandman?

    Really? Sandman?

    Bloods End on
  • HeatwaveHeatwave Come, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    How can you complain that Spider-Man 2 didn't have enough scenes depicting him as a crime fighter only to then complain that Spider-Man 3 has a whole extra villain who exists solely to give Spider-Man an additional criminal to fight and show off superhero antics?
    Because in this movie he pretty much gets shafted. And I meant crime fighting as in burglars and thugs Spidey picks off every once and a while
    Bloods End wrote: »
    Heatwave wrote: »

    I feel Sandman should have been left out of his movie because it's clear that he doesn't get enough development and is just around as a means of making Peter descend to darkness. His purpose could have easily been filled some nobody thug, but because Raimi wanted to include Sandman. IMO, he should have been in a SM movie as a solo villian like GG and Ock - there's just too much to his character to have to share screen time with two other baddies.

    Sandman?

    Really? Sandman?
    He's a guy whose life sucks and has to find a way to care for his family. His becoming of Sandman helps give him self fulfillment and means to support his family, but also turns him into a villain. As a baddy, he knows what he's doing is wrong and is reminded constantly by his family, but continues because he loves his family too much for them to live poorly.

    Yeah, I'd say there's quite a lot to be covered for this continuity's Sandman. Too bad we will probably won't get to see it played out properly

    Heatwave on
    P2n5r3l.jpg
    Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sars_Boy wrote: »
    I loved that.

    I propose a rule.

    "Whenever a Spider-man topic is started, at some point within the first 10 pages, SOMEONE must mention Peter having a list of fat jokes ready for when he fought the Kingpin."

    Because we always do.
    And we always love it <3

    Also according to AIC news and Rotten Tomatoes, to make up for changing Sandman's origin, they decided to keep Venom's origin COMPLETELY true to the comics. Sam Raimi even said that the scene with the bell tower is pretty much ripped from the comic.

    The Muffin Man on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Heatwave wrote: »
    How can you complain that Spider-Man 2 didn't have enough scenes depicting him as a crime fighter only to then complain that Spider-Man 3 has a whole extra villain who exists solely to give Spider-Man an additional criminal to fight and show off superhero antics?
    Because in this movie he pretty much gets shafted. And I meant crime fighting as in burglars and thugs Spidey picks off every once and a while
    Bloods End wrote: »
    Heatwave wrote: »

    I feel Sandman should have been left out of his movie because it's clear that he doesn't get enough development and is just around as a means of making Peter descend to darkness. His purpose could have easily been filled some nobody thug, but because Raimi wanted to include Sandman. IMO, he should have been in a SM movie as a solo villian like GG and Ock - there's just too much to his character to have to share screen time with two other baddies.

    Sandman?

    Really? Sandman?
    He's a guy whose life sucks and has to find a way to care for his family. His becoming of Sandman helps give him self fulfillment and means to support his family, but also turns him into a villain. As a baddy, he knows what he's doing is wrong and is reminded constantly by his family, but continues because he loves his family too much for them to live poorly.

    Yeah, I'd say there's quite a lot to be covered for this continuity's Sandman. Too bad we will probably won't get to see it played out properly


    No, no. There really isn't. No one gives a fuck about Sandman's family. He's just one of those villains that heroes beat up to build up the mood for the real story. Like Stilt-Man.

    Scooter on
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    How can you say he gets shafted when you haven't watched the film yet?

    And I don't see why you'd prefer Spider-Man fighting thugs to Spider-Man fighting super-villains.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • DeVryGuyDeVryGuy Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Normally I'd say one scene where Spidey catches some thugs is enough for a film, just to establish he's still crime fighting and not ignoring smaller problems in light of the bigger issues he faces.

    But it shouldn't take the place of a Super Villain.

    DeVryGuy on
    Pokemon Diamond: 5369 6910 9799
    FFTSig.jpg
  • JCMJCM Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Just a question.

    If Sandman is his uncle´s murderer, didnt Spidey scare the shit out of a car thief and send him to his death?

    Thats rather a drastic punishment for stealing a car, Id love to see them explain why that made him deserve to die.

    JCM on
  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think my biggest problem with Doc Ock was his peculiar aversion to putting on a damn shirt.

    CyberJackal on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    JCM wrote: »
    Just a question.

    If Sandman is his uncle´s murderer, didnt Spidey scare the shit out of a car thief and send him to his death?

    Thats rather a drastic punishment for stealing a car, Id love to see them explain why that made him deserve to die.

    I'm guessing it will end up with the two of them working together, the car thief and Sandman... or maybe it was even an accident on Sandman's part that was caused by the car thief. They have to tie the two of them together... at least, I think they do.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Keep in mind that Ben was car jacked in this telling, and the thief was driving away in Ben Parker's car. Now unless the thief stole the car of a man who was already dying, stole it from Sandman (who, while an able murderer, is easily car jacked himself), or stole the car from Ben moments before Ben was killed for unrelated reasons, the thief must have been complicit in Ben's death.

    Or, of course, Sandman's being framed.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Diablo FettDiablo Fett Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Scenes like when he was getting ready to see MJ's play (although crucial to setting him up to the car chase), and the "Oh happy life" montage were played out too long and distracted what the movie was really about: a super hero. For a superhero, he did very little crime fighting in SM2 than he did in the first movie. It gave off the impression that he wasn't really needed but just some guy that gives a little help every now and then.

    This where you're getting confused. Spider-Man was, essentially, never really about Spider-Man, but more about Peter Parker. Through everything that's happened to him, he's stayed Peter and has tried to maintain a civilian life, which has always been a big part of the Spider-Man universe. Conversely, Batman is about Batman, where Bruce Wayne takes the back seat. Just like Clark Kent, Steve Rogers and, hell, even Johnny Blaze take the backseat to their superhero alter egos. Spider-Man, on the other hand, has always and will always be about Peter Parker. Ultimate Spider-Man excells when it delves into Peter's civilian life, while it falters a bit when focusing solely on the superhero aspect. ASM's current arc is dealing with the damage dealt to Peter's civilian life. The Spider-Man media has always been about Peter first, and Spider-Man second.

    I'm honestly not even gonna go into the whole villain thing.



    EDIT: To clarify about the whole Sandman thing, he was an accomplice to the theif that died in the first movie and ultimately the one who pulled the trigger.

    Diablo Fett on
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Is that confirmed info, Diablo?

    In any case, I really don't think the screenwriters would be dumb enough to do a complete 180 and decide "lolz this dude killed your uncle." I'm confident that it'll make sense in the end.

    Also, a recent arc in Friendly Neighborhood deals with Sandman being framed, similarly to how it appears to be set up in the movie. It ends up tying into "The Other," but it's remniscient to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if the movie moved along on similar lines.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I had that portion of the movie spoiled for me when I looked up the wikipedia entry on the guy who killed Ben Parker and saw a snippet referring to the novelization of Spider-Man 3.
    However in Spider-Man 3, it is revealed that the carjacker may in fact not be as responsible for Ben's death as assumed, as the police have new evidence that incriminate Flint Marko; also, in the first movie the carjacker is never shown killing Ben, only using his car.

    At the climax of the Siderman 3 novelization, Flint Marko confesses to Peter that he accidently shot Ben Parker when he refused to give him his car. "Caradine", a friend and accomplice of Marko's, stole the car and left Marko behind to take the fall. Marko escaped, however, and so it was Caradine who died for the crime Marko commited.

    I don't mind it too much. I hate when a character's sole source of motivation is one single event, and one single word.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Tempted to read that, but I've had so much of this movie spoiled for me (between all of the preview footage they've released and what I saw flipping through the novel, I get the feeling that I know more about this movie than I don't) already that I'd rather just wait until Thursday night.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • Diablo FettDiablo Fett Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    There was an article on the Hype that had Raimi confirm that he is, in fact, the killer, but for some reason i can't seem to find it. I also believe that it'll make sense in the end, espicially considering almost all of the reviews i've read so far have not made any complaints about him being the killer. I'll keep looking for the article.

    Diablo Fett on
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Single moment motivations, like determining the course of your life based solely upon a single, defining moment in time, are one of worst things about comic books, as far as I'm concerned.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    DeVryGuy wrote: »
    Normally I'd say one scene where Spidey catches some thugs is enough for a film, just to establish he's still crime fighting and not ignoring smaller problems in light of the bigger issues he faces.

    But it shouldn't take the place of a Super Villain.

    What'd be great if, on his way to fight Sandman, he just webs up a bunch of thugs in the middle of a break-in.

    Like, the guys are smashing the window in, and Spidey webs them up in the shop window without even slowing down.

    The Muffin Man on
  • DeVryGuyDeVryGuy Registered User
    edited April 2007
    DeVryGuy wrote: »
    Normally I'd say one scene where Spidey catches some thugs is enough for a film, just to establish he's still crime fighting and not ignoring smaller problems in light of the bigger issues he faces.

    But it shouldn't take the place of a Super Villain.

    What'd be great if, on his way to fight Sandman, he just webs up a bunch of thugs in the middle of a break-in.

    Like, the guys are smashing the window in, and Spidey webs them up in the shop window without even slowing down.

    Muffin Man, we must begin authoring the next spider-man movie script. This is our destiny!

    DeVryGuy on
    Pokemon Diamond: 5369 6910 9799
    FFTSig.jpg
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic scores have dropped slightly.

    I'm not sure tabulating reviews before most major publications have done them gives the most fair estimate, though. So far, Spidey 3 has 25 reviews, which is obviously a bit less than the 200 Spidey 2 has. So take it all with a grain of salt, perhaps.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited May 2007
    DeVryGuy wrote: »
    I mean, Ultimate Spidey prepared a list of fat jokes to say to the kingpin.
    Yeah, that was pretty great.

    I forgot that Ultimate Spider-Man didn't always suck metal tentacle cocks.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited May 2007
    I think my biggest problem with Doc Ock was his peculiar aversion to putting on a damn shirt.

    My biggest problem with Doc Ock was his origin story, which managed to make even less sense than the original comic-book origin.

    Also, the amazing "mini-sun" fusion thingie which was defeated WITH THE POWER OF WATER

    They would've called Captain Planet but Heart Kid lost his ring

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • BornToHulaBornToHula Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I work at the local cinema and I'm really not to excited about either the midnight showing or the Friday evening showing. There is the off chance that I get to screen it early like I did with Hot Fuzz earlier. The buzz is huge though, we're anticipating like 60,000 people over the weekend in a city with only 50,000 residents. Other counties are coming to see it because we get it in IMAX.

    The screening early would be neat though.

    BornToHula on
    steam_sig.png

    Origin is the exact same as my Steam, in case you're needing a Support or Assault in BF3.
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited May 2007
    I'm going to be skipping off work a little early on Thursday to catch it, and thanks to the miracle of timezones, thats going to be a good 24 hours before the midnight session on Thursday night in the USA :D

    (I'm from Australia, let me gloat just this once because we don't have to wait for something to be released here after the rest of the world has had it for weeks/months)

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • HeatwaveHeatwave Come, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Scooter wrote: »
    No, no. There really isn't. No one gives a fuck about Sandman's family. He's just one of those villains that heroes beat up to build up the mood for the real story. Like Stilt-Man.
    Well apparently Raimi cares, but that's not the point. The point is that this character here has a purpose in the film other than being a simply being spidey-villian. If he was going to be just some punching bag, he would've been just a common thug with no need for development.
    How can you say he gets shafted when you haven't watched the film yet?

    And I don't see why you'd prefer Spider-Man fighting thugs to Spider-Man fighting super-villains.
    Like I said earlier, "reviews". True, I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I've gathered, he gets less development.

    And in regards to your second sentence, I never said that at all. Seriously, where did that come? What I did say was I'd prefer Spider-man to fight some more thugs. Like the occasional purse snatcher or something while on his way somewhere. Not all the time, of course, but at least two scenes.
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Scenes like when he was getting ready to see MJ's play (although crucial to setting him up to the car chase), and the "Oh happy life" montage were played out too long and distracted what the movie was really about: a super hero. For a superhero, he did very little crime fighting in SM2 than he did in the first movie. It gave off the impression that he wasn't really needed but just some guy that gives a little help every now and then.

    This where you're getting confused. Spider-Man was, essentially, never really about Spider-Man, but more about Peter Parker. Through everything that's happened to him, he's stayed Peter and has tried to maintain a civilian life, which has always been a big part of the Spider-Man universe. Conversely, Batman is about Batman, where Bruce Wayne takes the back seat. Just like Clark Kent, Steve Rogers and, hell, even Johnny Blaze take the backseat to their superhero alter egos. Spider-Man, on the other hand, has always and will always be about Peter Parker. Ultimate Spider-Man excells when it delves into Peter's civilian life, while it falters a bit when focusing solely on the superhero aspect. ASM's current arc is dealing with the damage dealt to Peter's civilian life. The Spider-Man media has always been about Peter first, and Spider-Man second.

    I'm honestly not even gonna go into the whole villain thing.



    EDIT: To clarify about the whole Sandman thing, he was an accomplice to the thief that died in the first movie and ultimately the one who pulled the trigger.
    Civilian life is always going to be apart of a Super hero's life. It's what they do when they're not running around in tights. It's a given, I know. But there's a point where you need to draw the line.

    Peter has responsibilities as a hero. He became Spider-man to fulfill these responsibilities. To do otherwise would essentially waste his gifts instead of putting them to use. I mean, the "With great power comes great responsibilities" line gets used all the time. Don't you think that means something? But anyway, to each his own.

    Heatwave on
    P2n5r3l.jpg
    Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
  • RonnieWooWoo!RonnieWooWoo! Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Three full pages of posts and I'm the first one to complain that this movie turned the Green Goblin into what appears to be a gay flying snowboarder?

    RonnieWooWoo! on
    Woo!
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I think most of us are over that.

    Or have better things to discuss.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • DeVryGuyDeVryGuy Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Three full pages of posts and I'm the first one to complain that this movie turned the Green Goblin into what appears to be a gay flying snowboarder?

    I'm pretty sure someone mentioned him as a Power Ranger, which is a better analogy, methinks.

    DeVryGuy on
    Pokemon Diamond: 5369 6910 9799
    FFTSig.jpg
  • AngryAngry The glory I had witnessed was just a sleight of handRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Zeromus wrote: »
    Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic scores have dropped slightly.

    I'm not sure tabulating reviews before most major publications have done them gives the most fair estimate, though. So far, Spidey 3 has 25 reviews, which is obviously a bit less than the 200 Spidey 2 has. So take it all with a grain of salt, perhaps.

    you can't put much faith in those sites aside from giving you a basic idea if it's decent or not. if you were to actually go and read a lot of the reviews they count, you would be astounded at how many of them are poorly written drivel. one of the rotten reviews on rt is by some woman who calls the movie gay three times in her review. another dislikes the movie because it doesn't match up to the christ scene of two (getting passed through the crowd on the train.)

    i'm not saying that it's going to be amazing, but i tend to read the negative reviews more and too often it seems people give negative reviews just to stand out of the crowd.

    Angry on
  • BlankspaceBlankspace __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Three full pages of posts and I'm the first one to complain that this movie turned the Green Goblin into what appears to be a gay flying snowboarder?
    He turned the Glider into a board, he kept the mask but trimmed the top of it. Really, I don't see much of a problem.

    Blankspace on
    SIG.gif
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The first Green Goblin outfit was even worse than the new one, if you ask me.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • DeVryGuyDeVryGuy Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Angry wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic scores have dropped slightly.

    I'm not sure tabulating reviews before most major publications have done them gives the most fair estimate, though. So far, Spidey 3 has 25 reviews, which is obviously a bit less than the 200 Spidey 2 has. So take it all with a grain of salt, perhaps.

    you can't put much faith in those sites aside from giving you a basic idea if it's decent or not. if you were to actually go and read a lot of the reviews they count, you would be astounded at how many of them are poorly written drivel. one of the rotten reviews on rt is by some woman who calls the movie gay three times in her review. another dislikes the movie because it doesn't match up to the christ scene of two (getting passed through the crowd on the train.)

    i'm not saying that it's going to be amazing, but i tend to read the negative reviews more and too often it seems people give negative reviews just to stand out of the crowd.

    And oftentimes those people seem to have seen so many movies that they can no longer enjoy them on any level, at all.

    DeVryGuy on
    Pokemon Diamond: 5369 6910 9799
    FFTSig.jpg
  • ReynoldsReynolds Raving Rabbit Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    That first outfit was ass.

    This one just looks all black and stealthy. Flying the glider like a board is shit, though, I agree. As long as he's nutty, I'm willing to give him that one.

    Reynolds on
    OGueI9Q.gif
  • Diablo FettDiablo Fett Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Scenes like when he was getting ready to see MJ's play (although crucial to setting him up to the car chase), and the "Oh happy life" montage were played out too long and distracted what the movie was really about: a super hero. For a superhero, he did very little crime fighting in SM2 than he did in the first movie. It gave off the impression that he wasn't really needed but just some guy that gives a little help every now and then.

    This where you're getting confused. Spider-Man was, essentially, never really about Spider-Man, but more about Peter Parker. Through everything that's happened to him, he's stayed Peter and has tried to maintain a civilian life, which has always been a big part of the Spider-Man universe. Conversely, Batman is about Batman, where Bruce Wayne takes the back seat. Just like Clark Kent, Steve Rogers and, hell, even Johnny Blaze take the backseat to their superhero alter egos. Spider-Man, on the other hand, has always and will always be about Peter Parker. Ultimate Spider-Man excells when it delves into Peter's civilian life, while it falters a bit when focusing solely on the superhero aspect. ASM's current arc is dealing with the damage dealt to Peter's civilian life. The Spider-Man media has always been about Peter first, and Spider-Man second.

    I'm honestly not even gonna go into the whole villain thing.



    EDIT: To clarify about the whole Sandman thing, he was an accomplice to the thief that died in the first movie and ultimately the one who pulled the trigger.
    Civilian life is always going to be apart of a Super hero's life. It's what they do when they're not running around in tights. It's a given, I know. But there's a point where you need to draw the line.

    Peter has responsibilities as a hero. He became Spider-man to fulfill these responsibilities. To do otherwise would essentially waste his gifts instead of putting them to use. I mean, the "With great power comes great responsibilities" line gets used all the time. Don't you think that means something? But anyway, to each his own.

    I'm sorry, but are you not understanding what i'm saying? I'm not saying the Spider-Man's few moments as Peter Parker are what make the story progress, i'm saying that Peter Parker, and only Peter Parker and his decisions makes the story of Spider-Man progress. Peter Parker isn't just some civilian identity for Spider-Man on his off-time like Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, he's the heart, soul, liver, lungs, stomach, brain and every other major body organ that makes the comic go around. Spider-Man is simply the fists.

    You pretty much are stepping right into the stereotypical "superhero comic-nerd" archetype. Spider-Man is not about Spider-Man. It's about Peter Parker.

    Diablo Fett on
  • DeMoNDeMoN twitch.tv/toxic_cizzle Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I wish I cared about movie Peter Parker as much as I do comic book Peter Parker, but I don't. I don't care about him at all, in fact. Quite frankly, if he died in this movie I wouldn't mind. Then maybe Topher could become Spider-Man and I'll be happy.

    DeMoN on
    Steam id : Toxic Cizzle
    *TyCart*_banner.jpg
  • Diablo FettDiablo Fett Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Never said anything about liking movie Peter. I, frankly, believe Tobey outgrew the role of Peter Parker about 5 minutes into SM2. But the argument here is that he's saying the movies focus too much on Peter and not enough on Spidey, when the fact of the matter is that's exactly how the comics have always been (except maybe in the 90's, but we all try to forget that period).

    Diablo Fett on
  • HeatwaveHeatwave Come, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I actually liked 90's Spider-man...

    Anyway, I can see where I've gone wrong in my point.

    It wasn't so much that Peter was getting too much focus but that his crime fighter persona didn't get enough. Comics are different from movies because there's more room to include things so that they eventually become a common theme. Movies, however, don't so this aspect of Spidey was condensed and not given as much depth. Now before you go mention the history of Spider-man for the millionth time, keep in mind that all this is in relation to personal preference.

    Heatwave on
    P2n5r3l.jpg
    Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
  • TankTank Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Anyone know if Bruce Campbell is going to do a cameo in this one?

    Tank on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.