-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
RTTP: Spider-Man Trilogy
- Thread starter QuantumZebra
- Start date
It's not that the events don't happen; it's that it never seemed that he changed.
But you're right. If it ever streams anywhere I am subscribed to, I will.
One thing's for certain about this trilogy, JK Simmons' performance is timeless.
QuantumZebra
Member
Seeing him again in those films after seeing Whiplash recently - I think he definitely channeled some JJJ into his amazing performance in that film.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
It comes from the idea that there's an "ideal" Spider-Man IE "Homecoming is the ideal portrayal" but no one knows where that comes from (can't source it anywhere). It's just a combination of features Spider-Man / Peter Parker have exhibited throughout the years. Homecoming and Raimi's versions are quite similar except Homecoming doesn't explore or show Peter / Spider-Man struggle in a meaningful way that connects to the audience. Homecoming prioritized fun over making a character you can relate to more than just "I want to be an Avenger". Civil War set up Spider-Man pretty well (poor, making shit out of dumpster bin shit) but then this just forgets it all. Like, it's a waste of a set up because you don't get any focus on Peter's genius side. Raimi gave you the entire package and people loved the shit out of it. Think of how Raimi portrays Peter's decision to focus on Peter and not Spider-Man, his genius side is shown by him not being just super smart but by being more diligent to his school work / himself which is something A LOT of people can relate to. People love it so much people are actually defending Spider-Man 3 in this day and age.
iPaul93
Member
This is my opinion as well.I'm not going to go in to Spider-Man 3 since it'll just turn in to a page long rant, one of the few films I (almost) walked out of.
The first one hasn't aged as well as Spider-Man 2 but it does still manage to work, it's a charming film that reminds me of Donners approach to Superman.
Spider-Man 2 is still up there as one of the greats in the genre, just behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for me.
MugiwaraCole
Member
Since seeing it, I have felt that the Spectacular Spider-Man television series did the best job of capturing the essence of the character. To me, it's similar to B:TAS Batman insofar as it is a distillation of elements from lots of other portrayals (the Raimi films and both Amazing and Ultimate comic book runs) to create a particular take on the character that (for me) is the best version of that character. If you were to ask me about my ideal, that's what I'd lean towards.
I don't agree with your interpretation of the character in Homecoming, though. You see him making his own webbing in the film; you see him working with Ned on modifying his suit; and its clear from other information (e.g. where he goes to school, his position on the team, the respect others on the team have for his intelligence if not his reliability) that he's very smart. So, I don't really know what you mean. I also don't really watch these films looking to identify with or relate to the characters. I didn't identify with Parker during the Raimi films, and I was a few months from 15 when the first film came out, and socially awkward to boot. Don't ask me why I didn't. But for me, the character as portrayed in Homecoming was more sympathetic, at least. I suspect it has to do with the actor; I really, really liked Tom Holland in The Impossible, so I had a kind of preexisting sympathy there, and more substantively I thought he better captured what makes the character charming (in a dorky kind of way) for me.
And I have never seen SM3. I thought it looked uninteresting at the time, and then it was panned so I never got around to seeing it.
I honestly don't understand the love for SM2. There's almost nothing I like about it. The plot with Spidey losing his powers, Doc Ock being a bad guy because his sentient, mechanical tentacles tell him to do so (it bothers me that this really doesn't get discussed for how fucking stupid it is), and of course, the legendary Spider-Jesus scene on the train.
Awful, awful movie.
Awful, awful movie.
daTRUballin
Member
How can a movie that has Sandman, Venom, and the New Goblin in it look uninteresting?
Discotheque
Banned
PhantomZone
Member
Prefer the original out of the trilogy.
Second movie is good
and when I first saw it I declared it to be even better than Superman '78 (which is still my all time favorite movie). However it doesn't stand up on multiple viewings imo....... the let down (which is a common occurrence with Marvel films - no matter if it's Fox, Sony, Paramount, Disney) the climatic battle. I hated Doc Ock's sudden turn around into being "good" again, and the final confrontation itself was severely weak.
Spidey 3: Clearly the weakest of the trilogy, it suffers from having too many things crammed into it, making it one hot mess. Side note: I loved emo Peter Parker
.
Second movie is good
I loved the Spider-man - MJ reveal moment
Spidey 3: Clearly the weakest of the trilogy, it suffers from having too many things crammed into it, making it one hot mess. Side note: I loved emo Peter Parker
.
GeorgioCostanzaX
Gold Member
There's room to like both honestly. Liked Homecoming a lot but I fucking teared up revisiting 1&2 in parts. Raimi just got saddled with a shitty regime at Sony that's thankfully gone for the most part. Homecomings not doing that bad but if you adjust for inflation Raimi had more butts in seats and Sony's stupid decisions are costing the franchise now.
About as stupid as the very concept of Spider-Man.
daTRUballin
Member
Not really.
You're telling me Spider-Man isn't stupid?
Nope
It's somehow more stupid that a scientist who wanted to recreate the sun in his warehouse apartment/lab with his mechanical tentacles, which by itself shoulda been a damn press conference, had the tentacles become senitent then make him crazy
Versus a young man who was bit by a super spider
Twig and Berries
Member
SM2 is still GOAT but tbh people get way too caught up in ranking superhero movies
Subpar Spatula
Banned
How is he not Peter Parker?
The movie doesn't show a process or him trying. You see the end products but none of the struggle / failings. The web is an iterative process and you don't see the previous versions failing, you don't see how he got into school and when he's at school he can never study or attend his clubs and still passes easily. He's so good he's there ace for the decathlon even though we don't see him study once. The suit scene is a really good example because he just rips it open, finds a tracker, and his friend hacks into the suit to allow him more access. I get he's supposed to be super smart but he's not even trying.
So you're saying a rogue AI connected to and fucking with somebody's brain is a dumber concept than a spider-bite transferring spider-like abilities?
AI and connecting computers to people's bodies are things we actually have.
The dumver part is certainly the recreating the sun in the warehouse apartment with mechanical apendages that made him go fucking murder crazy
to claim that he is the GOAT when they got Parker both right and wrong is stupid.
and how not has been said here ad nauseam.
I also hate how the movies have given people with only passing familiarity with Spider-man, the wrong impression of Peter. He is not socially inept, awkward or goofy 24/7. He is definitely not an outcast or loner.
Yes.
This contest is pointless. The point is, the content is pointless. It never matters how stupid the concept is. A great artist can smear a turd into a real piece. What always matters is the execution.
Debate me on Skype.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I read the thread. Can you point where people are correct in saying these don't occur in the Raimi films regarding Peter / Spider-Man's character?
What is Peter Parker and Spider-Man? The answer is a collection of traits from decades of comics.
My laptop's not powerful enough to run Skype. Nice try.
Look, I guess what bothers me about the talking tentacles is that it just wasn't necessary. Why was evil, sentient machinery needed to make Doc Ock do evil things when you could have given him natural, non-stupid motivations for being a bad guy (you know, like in the comics).
Because all of the villains needed a tragic backstory
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Tragic backstories are, like, almost all super hero stories. Fuck, even the Vulture had one.
Because all Peter's villian's have to be misunderstood Dr.jekyll Mr.hyde father figures.
daTRUballin
Member
The way Peter Parker turns into Spider-Man at least makes sense, even if not realistic. A college student was bitten by a radioactive spider and now has spider-like abilities.
Meanwhile, Dr. Octavius builds these metal tentacles and has them fused into his back. And for whatever reason, they turn evil and start controlling him. Why did they turn evil? Were they evil all along? Did he unintentionally make them evil while creating them? Who knows? Not to mention the whole recreating the sun thing someone else mentioned above. Seriously? Why? Granted, I haven't watched the movie in years, so maybe I'm not remembering things well.
He's still a cool villain though.
I think Film Crit Hulk was referring to Amazing Spiderman, where Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is very clearly a cool kid but the movie pretends he's a nerd.
Tobey's Peter is supposed to genuinely be a nerd with nerd problems and you're supposed to be able to relate to him or at least sympathize. Garfield's Peter is supposed to be a cool kid unfairly labelled as a nerd, and you're supposed to shake your fist at the sky and say "Damn you world, when will you accept me... er, I mean Peter Parker... as the cool kid I really am?"
Eggxactly.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
You're wrong. The train sequence is phenomal. and if you come with my opinion for that particular hot take, I'm come back to you like the Rock and.. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF IT'S YOUR OPINION. YOU'RE WRONG.
The Vulture had a backstory but it wasn't tragic. Vulture was just a guy who got screwed over on a contract and decided to become a arms dealer. He loved his family and was loyal to his crew but he wasn't some good guy that due to an act of god turned crazy.
I think you can be expected to infer these things without explicitly being told them. It's like Uncle Ben. They never explicitly say it, but there have been enough nods that, assuming you come into it with a modicum of background knowledge, you'll figure it out. For instance, they don't show a process of him figuring out the web fluid (because this isn't an origin story), but they do show that he's working out a third version of the web fluid.
This is more or less how I feel. A portrayal of the character as any of those things ring false to me, and that's how Maguire's seemed to me. I didn't like Garfield's for getting the balance wrong in the other direction, and making him and a creepy piece of shit, too. I saw some conversations where people leveled that accusation at Maguire Spider-Man around here recently, too, but I don't remember it there.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
A guy who spent all his money to run his business and then lost it isn't tragic?
Like, it fits the description to a T.
You still need to show the audience. Skipping over moments and letting the audience assume or just figure it out doesn't help when you want them to relate to your character.
The web fluid is weird. It doesn't show the previous versions were bad in a way. He's iterating on a good product as is. I thought it would be brought up as defective and needed to improve as he went but it kind of ended at the lab scene.
CrichtonKicks
Member
He absolutely changes. It's most evident in the sequence in Spider-Man 2 where he gives up being Spider-Man. He has his act together, is excelling at school, projects confidence, has several girls checking him out, etc. He's also brave enough to enter a burning building to save a little girl despite the fact that he doesn't have his powers. This is all in stark contrast to the Peter Parker that we met at the beginning of the first film. He has come along way.
His problem/curse is just that its impossible to have that normal life while carrying the weight of being Spider-Man on his shoulders. That's the theme of the second film and really the theme that has consistently been at the core of the character in the comics for decades.
Other than being a bit less quippy than usual, the portray of Peter Park in SM2 is pretty much the perfect distillation of the character IMO.
No it provided context for his actions but it wasn't tragic . The Vulture had a choice. He could file for bankruptcy, move to a smaller house and look for another job. Happens to small business owners all the time. Instead of doing that he decides to become an arms dealer. He has agency throughout the whole thing.
Compare Vulture to Green Goblin/Doc Ock/Lizard/Electro. All nice enough guys where some freak act of science turns them evil.
riskybusinesstomcruise
Member
Aren't his tentacles controlled by AI? I think it's mentioned in the movie, though I haven't seen it in a while. If that is the case though its a pretty easy line to draw; AI programmed to execute task takes over (malfunctions) and tries to complete task with little regard for human life. (HAL 9000)
Vampfox
Banned
Why does this bother so many people?
The plot where Spider-Man loses his powers is taking from the comics(Amazing Spider-Man Annual # 1).
CrichtonKicks
Member
Yes, they are AI controlled. He has an inhibitor chip installed to keep the AI under control but it's damaged during the fusion reaction. The tentacles act independently for self preservation when Ock is under during the surgery to remove the tentacles. When Ock tries to kill himself after leaving the hospital they take over fully, again as a form of self-preservation.
I will have to take your word for it. It's possible that my memory of the character is a flatter, less dynamic version what what he actually was. But since you're telling me my memories are faulty here, and I wasn't that confident in them anyway, I'll just drop it.
I didn't expect to have anything brought up. I figured it was safe to surmise that if there was a third version, the first two were unsatisfactory somehow. I didn't need to be told exactly how. I don't think that we're going to agree here; you are framing your arguments as though you were presenting general rules for writing that the film is violating, and yet these sins, as you've identified them, didn't hamper my experience. I don't think that you are going to be successful in convincing me that they should have.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Rewatched Spiderman 2 a few days ago, still one of the best super hero movies. Definitely the best Spiderman movie
The issue with Vulture was they didn't show it.
They needed to insert one scene of what he was running from, specifically how bad it was. Why? Because at times, the film felt tonally off because of it. He vaporized someone to keep his secret, yet they played it off like it was supposed to be a joke? yet not? For a man who was doing it all for his family, his family had a really nice crib nor did it seem like anyone else from his crew wasn't just a gangster. This was all simply repeated. For the intensity brought in the car sequence, there really was never that background other than him repeating family like a FnF movie. Even when they had chances to give him and Pete a moment at the end... nope, just walk and another joke.
Comparing to GG. They introduce him being nice to Pete, show his projects failing and get threaten, his decision to use the serum, then him fighting, but also giving into the Goblin. He progresses over the course of the film. Not just stating he is doing this for his family and getting foiled by Spiderman. His character has an arc and unlike Doc Oc which ends in redemption, even his last act is selfish and fits with what his character was doing. He still choose to make another selfish act. Unlike Vulture who is largely static thru out. His character is established then remains till the end.
I would also argue, I never quite found Norman tragic. He was a man consumed with his own. GG simply manifested it into a malevolent form, but even from the start. The strain relationship between him and Harry, his desire not to fail, his fight with the board. All of these are issues he caused by his own.