Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello, yesterday i saw man spider 2: the betrayal strikes back, and here is my review of the movie. First of all, i hated the first movie as all the true spiderman fans did because it was a total betrayal for the character that we loved from the comics, for the reasons that we have talked many times, and my expectations about the movie werent too good, and yesterday, i discover that i wasnt wrong. I have heard some ridiculous things like "best comic movie ever" , " best sequel ever" , etc, etc. I wonder if those guys have seen the same crap movie than me, because this piece of crap is almost as bad as the first one. Lets go with my review:

The movie starts with the same crap that the first one, tobeys voice as the narrator of the story, and sounded as bad as the first one. But lets resume it in the good and bad points.

The good points:

The special efects: althought maybe looked a little bit unrealistc sometimes, too videogame, but in general the special efects of spidey swinging in the city, spidey fighting doc ock, doc ocks tentacles, etc, were the best part in the movie. Great, great fight in the train and in the bank and in the tower, but i think in the end the battle should be longer and more brutal.

Some supporting characters: as in the first part, Rosemary Harris and J K Simmons stole the show. Donna Murphy as Rosalie Octavious, otto's wife, was good too.

Tobey Maguire as peter parker: He was really very good as Peter, although his voice doesnt work again.

The bad points:

The old ones: Spidey again with organics, the story (althought is better than the first one) is wrong again. Too many focus in peter parker and too little in spider man and doc ock. Not enough wisecrackings again , spidey not talking himself like in the comics.

A copycat from superman: the obession of Raimi with copy superman as in the first one, see the scenes with the shirt and the spider simbol or the loss of powers like in superman 2.

Loss of powers: so, peter loses his powers because he cant concentrate in his work? just dumb and non sense. It sound an excuse to me to see spidey rating out webing in some scenes.

The people in the train seeing who spidey is: That was stupid too, please, how on hell could you believe that none of those people wont tell anybody who spidey is,? that was stupid. So, all the people in a train see that peter is spidey and nobody wont tell it? Raimi, you must be joking.

Spidey powers: So if doc ock is a normal guy and spidy has superhuman strenght, how on hell he cant beat him with even pouching him 5 or 6 times, that was also stupid. So , spidey could stop a train and lift a car and he cant beat a normal guy with several punches?.

Mary jane as gwen again: i have included it in the new ones because in even she has her hair more blondish to look more as gwen. Stupid and unnecesary again. Again, Kirsten Dunst was terrible as Mary Jane. I dont know that if its Kirsten's fault or the scripters fault, but it happened again. Gwen stacey with red hair.

James Franco: again, Franco was too weak as Harry, his role is even worse in this part because he doesnt add anything to the story.

Bad developing of the supporting characters: Again, they go screen time to that stupid character of Hoffmam( played by Raimi's brother) and who add anything to the story , Robbie Robertson and Betty Brant are just cameos.

and lets go with the worst part of this terrible film:

Doctor Octopus: Lets see, Alfred Molina is a very good actor and he is a very good choice for the role, but with the atrocity of the script, he couldnt do more. Its really ashamed and stupid and pathetic and sad that sam raimi has one of the best villains in comic story ever and he and the scripters ruined him totally. So , the real villains of the movie are the tentacles? Lets see.

Myopic: I know that it is a minor change, but why doc is wearing graduated glasses as in the comics?

Matrix style: why he is wearing that sunglasses and that coat as morheus in the matrixx? why not a lab coat? that is the lack of imagination of the scripters?

A good guy: In the comics, Otto Octavious is really bad guy before the accident, not a villain, but yes a real arrogant and pompous prick, and in the movie he is mr right; mr nice guy who wants to save the world. That was pretty stupid. So , he is a good guy controled by the tentacles who talk with him? Please, give me a break. What is the problem with doc ock being bad by himself? why not developing him as in the comics ? and even the lack of the imagination of Raimi and the scripters is so big that they go and copy batman and robin: doc ock turned good ( or better said, scapes from the control of the tentacles) and saves the world as a hero. What a blafesmy. They dont have enought with ruined spiderman and the green goblin, they have to ruin doctor octopus too. Why change the things that work on the comics? why change one of the best villains in comics ever and turned him in the nice man of science corrupted by the evil tentacles ? what is the problem with the old doc ock that we have knowed and loved all the life? But sonny, Sam Raimi and Hollywod have to do it again, have to ruin the characters again, they have to do their own and precious vertion again.

To resume it, this piece of crap should be called man spider 2 vs the tentacles. Those movies wont never acepted by the true spiderman fans who could see what a betrayal are them.

And please, i hope that the thin blonde chick who is living in Peter's buliding wont be gwen stacey, because it would be one of the best worst casting choices with Michael Keaton as batman.

And i wonder, if in the third part the villain is the lizard, will be the real villain the tail? With sonny and Sam Raimi, everthing is possible.

If you have to post this babyish whining could you at least show a shred of decency and block it out with a SPOLIER WARNING.

if ur a true fan then why did u just see the movie yesterday? now im not sure when spidey2 came out in spain.( if it came out recently then i apoligize) but i think it was awesome, and iam a huge fan. of course the organics part is messed up but i disagree with most of ur other statements. it most be doin something right cuz its brakein all kinds of records. and out of curiousity what ur favorite comic film?

First,why he warned people before they read it that there are spoilers

Here comes the man-spider 2: the reasons on a new betrayal(spoilers)

(spoilers) !!!!!!!!!!

Its not his fault if people didnt see it.

Second, bakerboy is right the movie is a joke, and i saw the movies but i was hesitent because i didnt want to be dissapointed by Sam changing the origanal storyline and chaninging there personalities like in the first movie.

Quit your bitching.

its a MOVIE, not a fricking comic book. i would die of laughter if they simply Cookie cutter copied the plot from the comics. that thing has more plot holes than swiss cheese. I much rather would put up with spiderman in a new setting, from scratch then worry about al sorts of non relevant crap. i mean look at ultimate spiderman. he was bitten by a geneticly enhanced spider, does that ruin it? no. i mean i see the movies just like ultiamte spiderman, same basic stuff , new modern setting.

First of all, if the people, as spidervenom has said very well, didnt see my spoilers alert, isnt my problem. The word is very clear in the tittle, i think.

Second, it isnt babysh whinning or bitching , is a a review and a negative critic to what i think that is a betrayal to the true spider man fans, and a bad movie too.


And who has said that the movie should be exactly as in the comics? Superman isnt exactly as in the comics and 100 better that those stupid man spider movies. I want to see a spiderman movies that respects the origins and the concepts of the characters and stories from the comics, but with a new and original story with good acting and correct developing of the characters, and the man spider movies arent in that way. Only in the betrayal non sense way.

And the ultimate spiderman comics are a betrayal as great as the man spider movies and the stupid 70s tv series. That isnt an excuse, they are the same evil.

And i saw the movie only for curiosity to see what new betrayals are capable sonny and Sam Raimi, and i wanst wrong, there are a lot of them in the movie. And the fact that the movie is breaking the box office isnt a proove of its quality. There are many bad movies with incredible box offices and many good movies with poor box offices that it doesnt prooves anything. And my favourite comic boock movie is superman: the movie. A true classic.

why in the hell would you create two of these whiny-ass threads?? you know no one agrees with you!! so just shutup!

ok first off i have too say that robo chocobobo (or what ever the hell his name is), put it best. its impossible to make a movie that is intirey true to the comics. there is no where enuff time to intruduce all the characters and fit them into the plot in 2hrs. if there is one thing that the spidey films do best is character development, and there relationships with each other. if u want to hate on these films then u can but id rather watch the movies then sit around all day readin the comics. take these films for what they are worth, ask ppl who have never picked up a comic and then ask them if they liked the movies, ill bet u a million dollars 99.9% will say they liked them...... and by the way u dont have to be a comic book junkie to actually be a fan of spiderman.


and secondly i personally dont find a alien from outer space ( superman) that realistic, especially that he can fly, hes faster then a speedin bullet, man of steel, has x ray vision, and is practically invincepal.

It's being really unfair - you should count the fact that Raimi focussed more on Peter Parker, the chemistry and relationship with him and Harry and MJ, more than Spider-Man. Peter Parker, for me anyway, is just as good a reason to watch a Spider-Man movie than Spidey himself is. If you know what I mean.

You have to admit - the movies have done a sterling job with Harry's descent into madness - especially since the comics royally screwed it up and made it into a farce.

The comics are guilty of some awful crimes themselves, a heckuva lot more than the movies.

For me, the movie should be seen more like a drama, because that what it is. It tells a brilliant story about brilliant characters.

I have to agree I don't really understand why Doc Ock was Mr. Nice Guy - but it didn't bother me at all - it at least made the story more involving.

Lets see, i want to anwser in this thread only for not awsering in two threads about the same thing.

Manowar: as i have said before, create two threads was my mistake, for that reason i want only to talk in this one because here is the my total review. And this isnt a thread of whinning, is a negative review of the movie. And its false that all the people are disagree with me, there are a lot of people who is agree with me. And if it wouldnt be in this way, it dont care about it. so, shutup you.

Carnage 713: as i have posted before, i want a movie 100% exactly as in the comics, i want a new story who respects the characters and the stories created by stan lee and steve ditko and this movie isnt it. Its only a bad movie that betrayls the character and the spirit of spiderman. Sure that there are enough time to developed more the characters, why not developed more the characters of robbie and betty and erase that stupid character of hoffman who doesnt add anything to the story? Only knows more about them, their names and another things. In superman , all the supporting characters are corectly developed, pa kent, ma kent, perry white, jimmy olsen, lex luthor, lois lane, jor el, etc. But in those movies, robbie and betty are only cameos. And i only want movies who are loyal to the characters, and those stupid man spider movies arent it.
And i have said that superman is realistic, none is realistic. An alien from outer space with superpowers and a boy with the powers of a spider aren realistic, but the superman movies are much better developed and with a much better script that the man spider movies ( specially the first two). Chris Reeve was clark Kent and Superman, Tobey Maguire was only Peter Parker, not spiderman.

Black cat: you are the one who is acting like a 1 year old baby because you are defending your precious movie like a toy, without reasons or explanations, only for you liked it, that is just childish. Beasides you are insulting me only for critize your precious man spider movie. Typical in a man spider fan. Lets see:

To compare to anwser a question with the spider man powers is just ridiculous and non sense. There arent not reason to loos his powers only for feel sad or for not concentrate in it. Its really dumb. Come on, the comic scripters has many much better reasons to the lose of powers, not that stupid thing from the movie.

Yes, the comics are about peter parker, but always spidey has his time . Same focus on both of them, peter real problems and spideys figthing criminals. In the movie, it was all about peter parker , with spidey as a guest star. If you put all the focus in peter , it is nothing more than a soap opera. That is one of the great mistakes of the movie.

I have said many and many times that the organics are a big change because peter is a freak with them, there arent any good explantion for not use the webshooters , a thing that has worked in 40 years of spiderman story, and it explains Peter Parker's genious, something that is missing in both man spider movies. Because the organics, he is now man spider , not spider man.

Your excuse about mary jane being more as gwen is the more lamest excuse that i have heard, so if the girls want a hero , lets go to change mary jane into gwen? are you drunk or something? If the girls want a hero, why not use the original mary jane from the comics. What is the problem with her?

James Franco is a very bad actor and his character is as important as a table in the man spider 2 movie.

This is good, Alfred Molina rocked and he is a great actor and doc ock was brillaint in the movie because i liked it. Well, a very wel made argument. If you were a true spider man fan, you know that to make of doc ock a nice man of science and a hero who redimes himself and saves the city, is a total betrayal to the character, in the same way that the power ranger goblin.

I was talking about doc wearing graduated glasses as in the comics, not only sunglasses. He is myopic in the comics. But they turned him in a white clone of morpehous from matrix, not the nerd and arrogant science man from the comics.

Surely, and if some of those people of the train could win millions of dolars for reveals his identity to the press, they are so good soul that will pass of it. You have nailed the point.

And insulting me only for critize that stupid movie only shows the arrogant and rude and childish man spider fan that you are. I can distinguish a good movie when i see it, and those man spider movies are just bad movies. Your problem, as a man spider fan as you are, is that you cant distinguish a man spider from spider man because you are only kissing the ass of sony and their crap movies. And dont put the lamest excuse of the money again, money in the box office doesnt mean talent and quality.

And i saw this crap movie only to see if it was as bad as the first one, and i wasnt wrong.

Oh well, you can't please everyone I guess.

I thought James Franco was pretty good in this one, and I hear he's won awards in the past show it shows that those who know their acting think he's pretty good too.

The loss of the powers thing was great - it truly showed how bad Petes mental state was. His life was being run by being Spider-Man, and when he realises he IS Spider-Man, he gets them back, and carries on the burden as a stronger, more heroic figure, having made that choice very clear to the audience.

This was the first superhero movie that makes the audience understand why Spider-Man is so heroic. Superman never put this across, because he always seemed to powerful, and he had a million and one ways in which to overcome his troubles, and made the duty seem too glamourous, and therefore unbelieveable. Batman in his movies comes across as arrogant some times. Daredevil was Ben Affleck. Spider-Man was the first superhero on-screen that truly personified "superhero" in every sense of the word. That, to me, is more important than a silly dispute over webshooters and whether or not Doc Ock was bad or not to begin with.

Red superfly: Surely that peter parker is a reason for himself to see a movie. I want to see his relationships with mary jane, harry, aunt may, j j jameson and the others, but spidey is as important as peter is. I could acept that peter has a little more focus than spidey as it has hapened in the comics too, but not 85% peter parker and 15% spiderman. That is just wrong because they are making spidey only an excuse to tell the peter parker story, a minor thing in the story, and that is just wrong.

Some things about harry were good in the script, there are some good ideas, but the acting of james franco was too weak that ruined the character for me. Maybe with another actor playing the character and more screen time for him it could work better.

Im not agree, the movies has the bigest crimes agaisnt the characters that the comics never did, except in the ultimate spider man comics.

I preffer to see a right balance between drama and action, the movie was too about drama and too little about action.

Sorry, but made of doc ock mr nice guy was unreasonable and idiotic. Why on hell not use the original doc ock from the comics. What is the problem with him? And they go and copy one the worst comic book movies of all time, batman and robin, and made of ock the new mister freeze, he redimes himself and saves the world sacrificing his life like a hero. What an stupid thing. Raimi and the scripters ruined a great character once again.

robo-chocobobo....lol i am so putting that in my sig....

like i said, copying a movie completely, and faithfully is impossible, swiss cheese plot holes abound.

and 4 superman...i dont like him...i never could relate to him or other dc char's like i could with spiderman, and marvel peeps. i just cant relate to a alien demi god, that nothing except a pissed off grey alien can kill. i mean, i just find spiderman so much more human, and down to earth. someone on my level, with the same problems, instead of some guy who wears glasses as his only disguise, and his main problem is finding a phone booth to change in. I mean COME ON, HIS MAIN WEAKNESS IS TO A PIECE OF ROCK!!!!!!!


that and i really liked the scene in Spiderman(yes LIVE ON manspider) damn u - marks) were hes doing the laundry and his suit bleaches his clothes.

Oh man, why did you ahve to go and compare Doc Ock to Mr.Freeze from Batman and Robin?

No matter how crap you think Doc Ock was portrayed, there's no need to compare him to Mr "Ahnold" Freeze. Nothing deserves that.

*Thinks of the Bathammer, Mr.Freezes car and Bane from that movie!*

Good God! What have you done to me!

*Bashes images out of head via brick wall*

Red superfly: Im not agree with you. for me, james franco is a bad actor, his weak acting made the character of harry too fragile and nothing important to the story. I dont know if he is good in some movie, but for the work that i have seen from him, he isnt very talented.

But in the lose of powers issue, ok, i know that he wasnt too convinced to be spidey etc, but, what is the reason for the loss of powers? there arent any explanation. So, if he was afected for the radiation in octavious experiment, it could be right. But loose the powers for not being concentrate and when he is concentrate, hooss, magic, the powers again. That is a joke for me. It is just a dumb argument.

And what about make of the villain of the story a good guy turned bad only for his evil tentacles and becoming good again in the end? It is stupid and an atrocity for the character for me. And the webshooters is so important because it shows how a genious is peter parker and his way to superate all his problems. Both things are very important.

About superman and spiderman, i was comparing the movies , not the characters. Surely i preffer spidey over supes too, he is a more interesting character, someone to relate with him, with more real problems, someone more real. But the movie of superman was much better than the man spider movies and the script and the dialogue were much better and realistic.

And surely Molina is 100 times a better actor than arnold, but the end of both characters were the same, both becoming a hero.Same betrayal in both cases.

but him running ou of webbing is adds to the character also. i mean, its not so much of his genious, but his spirit, and mentality that makes him shine on the screen. his perserverance, his emotion, whatching as spiderman destroys his life, never to enjoy the fruits ofa life without this responsibility weighing him down.

when he was telling aunt may how he could have stopped the guy who killed uncle ben, it made my eyes all wet, and i felt that on the train(despite all you naysayers...you all know who you are) it only added to the film...and then, when all the people make a human shield to stop octavious he just goes BAM AND SHOVES THEM ALL TO THE SIDE.

that was funny

No man, it was his sub-conscious switching his powers off.

OK, it's kinda hard to explain, but I understood it, having done A-Levels in Psychology and stuff. I understand how the sub-conscious can affect the conscious.

Althletes can have the same problem. If they feel uncomfortable or have mental anguish over being an athlete, their performance can be hindered.

It came across as though Pete deep down wanted to give it up so bad that his sub-conscious accepted it, and made it so.

It's like those dreams where your flying, and want to go higher, but you can't - it's your sub-conscious trying to tell you something. Or where you can't run, even when you want to, because maybe sub-consciously, you really don't want to, you want to see what happens if you don't.

I loved that whole psychological twist on it.

I too loved the scene on the train, where the people realised Spidey was just a kid. It made sense from a movie point of view. It hammered home to the audience that Spider-Man was just a kid, doing all these amazing things for total strangers. I had a tear in my eye.

bakerboy, read the book adaption. You're feel better. I agree with ya.

Some people just don't understand the concepts of time constraints in movies. It's the SOLE REASON why Spiderman didn't have webshooters.

Hey, Spiderman loses his powers temporarily in the comics too. Hope you didn't forget about that one.

Some people also don't understand psychology, not that I blame them, it's quite complicated for such simple minds. Look at Superfly's response above, it's correct.

Complaining(a negative review is when you bash a movie for actually being a crap movie, not because it isn't 100% like the comic book) isn't going the change anything, Sam Raimi is still making millions while you go to sleep clutching your Spiderman comics in the fetal position.

Kirsten Dunst is...uuuhh...yea. Ew. Like I've said before, They should've had Gwen in the first one. Killing her off at the bridge scene(cuz that's how she died, if i remember correctly), and then having Mary Jane(someone who WASN'T Kirsten. She should just stay away from comic book movies. She was shit in Crow: Salvation too) there to help Peter out would have been perfect.

Yeah I still find it hard to find Kirsten Dunst attractive - however, in Spider-Man 2, with the blonde/red hair she looks really nice - and she doesn't act like she does in real life (airheaded) which is a plus.

I still think the chick that plays the gorgeous Miss Brant should have been MJ.

Word

(I could say something just as smart in response but I don't feel like it)

Ok so - as I've said before: Correct me if I'm wrong -

You want a movie set in 1962. Peter is in love with Betty Brant who works at the Bugle (Gwen Stacy not showing up 'till 1965 - same time as Harry Osbourne)

You want him to be poor, and yet amazingly to have have the ingredients in his bedroom to invent super flexible high density webbing that he can carry gallons of around in tiny little metal canisters (which he also invented?) and the pressurizing equipment (also in his bedroom i'm supposing?) to get this miracle webbing into the canisters and then before going to bed to invent and build (in his bedroom/laboratory/workshop) a firing device for all this goop. Not that he takes out a patent on this and becomes a multi-millionaire : he keeps it to himself and lets his aunt starve and get poor medical attention for decades. nice guy.

You want his first 4 battles to be with normal non-superpowered crooks and when he finally battles a super powered villain it has to be the SUPERCHARGER!!!

Dont worry about Supercharger being a dumb villain tho, because we have a hundred even more dumb villains to go! We wont get to DOC Oc till around the 8th movie- and we wont see the Goblin till MUCH later.

No problem tho, because we are being FAITHFUL and thats what counts. Yes the dialog will be terrible, and the fights will only be 5 mins long, and the same villains will keep coming back and doing the same dumb crap over and over - but who cares... FAITHFUL is our motto.

Crazyness, pure and simple.

Spider-Man 2 isn't a perfect movie, but it's a JOY to watch.

first off,read his entire thread because its NOT babyish whining,he is giving a review of the movie,and he said the movie has some good points.thats hardly babyish whining.

oh please,dont try and give us all this stupid nonsense with that old lame the movie is great because it made so much money nonsense.the movie made so much money because spiderman is an extremely popular character so it did not matter how awful these movies are.

first off dude if you are so insecure about criticem of a movie you like,then dont come to these boards and he is hardly bitching because he said this movie had some good points,thats called praising a movie,obviously you did not read that though.

please dont come back with that stupid crap its a freaking movie nonsese,that does not justify them making stupid changes such as raimi copying the superman movies making spidey lose his powers,lets seee some original ideas.or it being a movie does not justify organics being in it or many other stupid mistkes that were in the first movie such as MJ knowing pete since grade school,thats just plain stupid screenwriting.

no you shut up,this is a site to criticise movies if you so desire,if you all are so insecure about criticismes of your stupid manspider movie,dont come to this site and post then,this site is to discuss movies.all for now,I will be back to defend you later against these childish posters bakerboy.

wow now this is getting really mature, and are u bakerboys mom? do u need to come back and defend him? SOO WHAT U DONT LIKE THE MOVIES.... TOO BAD, im a big spidy fan and i enjoyed the movies.
And im sry but about superman beeing better, HAHA are u kiddin me? HIS ONLY DISGUISE IS AS CLARK KENT IS HE WEARS GLASSES AND PARTS HIS HAIR TO THE OPOSITE SIDE! maybee its true to the comics but come on, if n e one told me supes was better then spidey id laugh in there face.

To reiterate:



So the comics copied the Superman movies too I guess.

Thank you, Mr Zero.

Quit your bitching, bakerboy.

all i hear is "whaaaa! whaaaaa!"

Read my "faithful to the comics" post and answer my comments there - I keep asking you "organics are a sin - keep it faithful!!!" geeks these questions about how you would handle it and you all ignore me because you KNOW remaining faithful to the books would look dumb.

What you want is faithful to how you see the character in your head - as the 2004 spider-man : which is a different thing altogether. Im happy to hear you say "the movies aren't what I wanted and I didnt enjoy them" but to say they are a betrayal is plain wrong.

They capture what lies at the heart of spidey - parkers difficulty in being parker and his unrestrained JOY at being in the suit. Anything else is nitpicking.

I was reading Spidey #1 to see what the movie was like had they just copied the comics.

Flash Thompson: "Peter Parker is the high schools only wall flower" (not the exact quote) - wow Flash you really burned him!

Peter (making webshooters): "This device should do the trick"...............
what? that's it? You don't even see him make them, they just magically appear out of nowhere, I forgot all about this and was shocked how shoddy the idea was in hindsight.

And, the movies are doing us a favour - they ween out the crap bits and combine the good bits from the comics. The comics are NOT perfect (if you have been reading them as long as I have you'll know how truly awful they could be at times). People only seem to remember the great moments, and therefore THINK that the rest of the comic was equally as good - it wasn't. Sorry to smash the rose tinted specs, but I bet Stan Lee could tell you that much.

I could honestly care less about the webshooters. The idea is truly outdated, and despite the fact I would have liked to have seen them, I'm glad they plucked for the organics, because they proved it had no effect on the story, and would still provide as many plot points as the webshooters.

Also, webshooters simply don't work on an aesthetic basis. Even when I was five years old I used to think the comics were a bit stupid because he'd be wearring the webshooters under his costume, yet you'd see no visible indication of this - no bumps, no nothing. Even as a kid I thought it was really stupid. I grew to love them, but have always had that thing against them, and when I was a kid, I really wanted Spider-Man to fire them out of his hands. I guess the movie realises my childhood dream, and it makes Spider-Man no stronger, or weaker, than before.

And, er wait, the message limit is cutting me of, brb....................

.......here we go.....

And, having read Amazing Spidey #1 again, I can confirm that the webshooters didn't even demonstrate Petes intellect that well either. He just goes "I'll use these".

"But only Peter Parker could make the webbing, now the organics mean that anybody could have been Spider-Man" I hear you say

Not really. Remember the Spider CHOSE Peter (as revealled in the Ezekial story). Only Peter could have had those powers, because of his character, he was the perfect "host" for the spider-powers. They could still adapt this for the movie and show us that only Peter Parker could have been Spider-Man.

Anyway, there's no need for an explanation of that, because only someone of Petes character would have become a superhero. If it was someone else, whos to say they wouldnt become yet another super-villain? The movie still shows that only Pete could be Spider-Man, merely due to the fact the Uncle Ben "responsibility" thing makes this true.

Add this to the fact that the movies proved how smart Spider-Man was anyway (his conversations with Dock Ock, and the fact he knew how to switch off the fusion reactor, his genius in Conners lecture, etc etc), there's no real need for anything beyond this to prove how smart he is.

Well, James Franco won several awards for his role as James Dean (who was a rather dark person). His acting, in my opinion, was far from weak; some people in the star wars episode III forum even believe that he would have made a better anakin skywalker than hayden christianson because of his brilliant portrayal of a dark and troubled man in spiderman 2. If you're not convinced by his acting, perhaps you are only paying attention to his lines, b/c there's more to his acting than that. His facial expressions (esp. his eyes), the way he holds the dagger, and other small details you might have overlooked add much-needed drama to what might have been a bland character if it had been portrayed by any another actor. True, he didn't affect the storyline of spidey 2 that much since he wasn't given that many scenes, but it is definitely setting the movie up for a spidey 3, therefore giving a sense of continuity for this trilogy. I also believe that if it weren't for his famous unmasking of spiderman scene that they always put as the final shot in all the spidey commercials, the movie wouldnt have done so well in the box office.

Wow, I never thought about having Franco as Anakin - he'd be awesome.

Then again, it's really down to the directing. Lucas doesn't seem to know what day it is anymore, no wonder Hayden came across as whiny.

I liked Hayden Christensen as Anakin, I think he's a good actor. But somehow they directed his character all wrong and I get the impression Franco wouldn't have been any better because of the weak script and direction the prequels have gone.

Bringing it back to Spidey, I'm glad Lucas didn't get to do Spider-Man. He can butcher his own creations for all I care, just as long as he doesn't do it to anyone elses. Or Spielberg, who would end up making Spider-Man into Captain America with some lamoid patriotism every five minutes. Or James Cameron, who was gonna have Leonardo DiCrappio as the webslinger.

Just imagine if DiCrappio was the wall crawler - I'd be inclined to back Jameson on this one - I'd want to see him strung up by his web too.

Heh, it would at least explain why Spidey ain't too good with water or sinking ships (ba-zing!).

Carnage to say that this manspider franchise of sonys that what they do best is character development is absolutely ludicrise.Not only did they betray the main character of peter parker by turning him into a damn monster with those moronic organic webshooters but they also betrayed the character of MARY JANE making her most like gwen stacy and hardly nothing at all like the mary jane from the comics. and boy thats really grasping at straws saying 99% of people who did not read the comics will say they liked the film because I have seen on other message boards and people in real life who never read the comics that they did not like the movie.I have also encountered quite a few people over the years who never read the comic who liked the cartoon show better.that statement is laughable.and bakerboy never said ANYWHERE that he wants the movie to be exactly like the comics so stop putting words in his mouth.the comics are far better and superiour written than this stupid manspider franchise of sonys.

obviously a kid who is insecure about criticisems of a movie you like.

No your just a manspider fan who goes along with whatever stupid nonsense and crap sony throws at you and your chilidish behaviour hardly qualifys you as being marure not being able to stand critisism of a movie you like. and bakerboy is right, SUPERMAN is 10 times better of a movie than this god awful MANSPIDER movie is.

No remaining faithful would not look dumb at all,trying to make your own little version like sony did DOES and DID look dumb.No thats actually hitting the nail right on the head when saying the movie is a betrayal to his character and the comicbook. a true fan would understand that and its funny that you say all you here is whaaaaa because thats pretty much what all you manspider fans are doing is going whaaaa with your childish antics of BAKERBOY SHUT UP!!! ect.

No the SOLE reason for WHY the webshooters were not in the movie is because sony just wanted to make their own little version,nothing more.the webshooters could have been in there with a short two minute montage sequence that EASILY could have been done.I agree with you that GWEN should have been in the first film,however I disagree that she should have died in that film.That was a stupid mistake they made in the comics that gerry conway-the writer came up with at that time-may he burn in hell for killing off gwen stacy. it was a stupid mistake that NEVER should have happened in the comics.I would like to see gwen in a sequel-but that will never happen as long as sony is producing these films and see MARY JANE killed off that way that damn marraige would never happen-that throws off you guys theory that I want everything to be EXACTLY like the comics to hell.

wtf are u talkin about mr parker? shut the f*** up u dont know wut ur talkin about.

but hes only a high school/ colledge kid. i dont know anyone who could be smart enough to develope a webbing forumula, and then design fluid projectors (aka shooters) for them(in a 2 minute sequence no less).


In the end, despite any cosmetic changes or slight variations

this is Spiderman(or spider-man if you really wanna B***Ch about it..)

its spiderman, and while he may not have web shooters, or have the exact details you all want him to have, he doesnt, so we all should just accept it and just move on with it.

(question: If you know the movie is going to have nothing you like in it, and its gong to be unfaithful, and you beyond a doubt despise it, then why do you go see it?)

LoL what on earth are you doing Mr Parker? Are you going to quote every single post that disagrees with Bakerboy's and refute it in your own childish way? If you ask me, I totally respect Bakerboy's opinions and his first post was well-written, but you acting like bakerboy fanclub's spokesperson is just weakening his argument rather than helping it.

oooo ok and u tell me mr parker, wut makes u sooo much mature then everyone else? im childish? f*** you, u dont know me. i can stand critism, u cant, u come on here belittleing every damn person that doesnt agree w/ u. so how bout u shut up and stop thinkin ur so much better then evry 1 else. wow u sound real mature. im not even gunna argue my point n e more becaue u dont hear wut n e one has to say u just shove ur opinion down every one elses throat. so grow the f*** up *****.

No, I'm just sick and tired of your bitching.

Hence, "quit your bitching".

YES you are chilidish,this constant use of the F word of yours you use is plain chilidish and dont be surprised if you get a warning from the mods to knock it off.All of what you just said about me is a bunch of crap so you know what? I am done with you since you are incapable of discussing this in a mature fashion.and for the record,I have known bakerboy for 3 years and he just made an honest typing mistake that everybody makes from time to time when he said- I want everything to be exactly like the comics.I know he doesnt want things to be exactly like the comics so what he meant to say was -I dont want everything to be exactly like the comics.you cripple your arguments with absurd nonsense saying that these manspider movies are faithful to the characters so I am not going to bother with you in your absurd ramblings you have anymore.

Not constraints in the movie length itself, constraints in the making of the movie. I agree, a 2-3 minutes scene would have been enough, but all directors have a deadline to keep, and making the webshooters scene would have taken a bit of time that they probably didn't have. They'd have to make the extra props, do the demonstration scene(we all know that with Toby's acting ability, it'd have taken more than just one take), and they'd have to edit in the special effects. Time consuming to say the least.

And yes, Gwen is much cooler than MJ, and should have lived.

Robo-chocoba,first off,I want to say thank you for not responding in a chilidish manner like MR ZERO,CARNAGE,FECE MAN AND MAN OF WAR and SPIDERGURL have.thats all I ask for,if you can respond more often like this and not resort to name calling like CARNAGE did when someone has countered your point , then this CAN be a fun discussion.this is spiderman? surely your joking? spiderman is a guy with chemical webshooters,thats not the guy we saw on the screen. you cant call this a spiderman movie.accept it? I will NEVER accept such a stupid change as organics. you say you dont know of anyone who could be smart enough to develop a web formula and design fluid designers.well I know you ALSO dont know of anybody who could cling to walls,have super strength,and spider sense ect from the bite of a genetically altered spider either,so whats your point? this is fiction we are talking about.he got the knowledge how to create webbing from the bite of a spider and already was a sceintist expert,so whats the big deal?

all you got to do is watch the 90's cartoon and it gives a perfect explanation for him designing the webshooters.to answer why I go see it if I despise it so much,well I am going to do what I did with the first film.I waited till it came out on cable to see it for free,that way I only wasted my time and not BOTH my time and money.

and spidergurl,I think bakerboy would disagree with you that I am weakening him rather than helping him.go back to the first page and you will see how chilidish MR ZERO,CARNAGE,FECEMAN,ROBO CHOCOCO AND MAN OF WAR acted towards him and I am sure bakerboy would tell you he appreciates me defending him against those childish posters.

Well the thing is sony never even wanted the chemical mechs in the first place,they didnt even try to make it work which is just plain lazy film making.They said before the filming even began that organics were going to be in the film,meaning they just wanted to make their own little version.

By the way spidergurl,I think bakerboy would disagree with you that I am weakening him rather than helping him.go back to the first page and you will see how chilidish MR ZERO,CARNAGE,FECEMAN,ROBO CHOCOCO AND MAN OF WAR acted towards him and I am sure bakerboy would tell you he appreciates me defending him against those childish posters.so you want to talk about people in their own childish way?THEY are the ones you need to be talking about,NOT me.

I read your post the first time so there isnt any need to repeat yourself, mr parker. I'm quite sure that Bakerboy can handle criticism on his own, and your opinions are entirely your own so you need not act as if you are speaking for Bakerboy all the time because it's really annoying.

get ur facts straight buddy. i started " name calling" when u first called me childish and imature.u want a nice fun discussion then we cud have that, if u didnt belittle people and call them childish. thats gets on my nerves the most. u countered my point by dissing me then i countered urs by dissin u, fair. go back and read my first post to bakerboy. i certaintly was not out of line. so enuff with u thinkin u know it all and pissin ppl off

oh yah,boy, sure she did. Wait a minute i have to go to the toilet.....
im just going to wash my hands. !!!what?!?!!, i was just eating pie,u know. i mean.....whatever

What? what outragious peter always developed sth like the web shooter since first grade, thats why he already had their sketch made, he just made or adapted it to the web ( wherever it comes) knowledge

this thread is not much them a conspiracy of dc comics members. they are tryiing to down spiderfans , ive seen them doing that in other forums

if you are implying that me and bakerboy are D.C. comicbook members R.J. then you are waaaayyyy off base,all you got to do is look at one of my latest posts and you will see how I hate the first two batman movies and find tim burtons batman movies highly overrated as well.Just ask that poster the joker,he will tell you I bash the first two batman films all the time as well.

it was a joke, havent u get it?
and the first 2 batman were really great, for the time (i mean BATMAN, and BATMAN THE RETURN)

Oh.well this isnt the batman section so im not going to get into it with you WHY the first two batman films were horrible movies as well.

soooo wait...you hate the batman movies, and the spiderman movies...let me guess, you dislike the incredible hulk because its so boring, and confusing, and you hate daredevil because it has ben in it.

and what the crap was that about childish 7 of your(extremely spam tastic) post ago.

okay people look here, the ULTIMATE hypocrisy





how can you say very mature then say im childish...

and did you say that you havent even SEEN spiderman2 yet, but here you are posting on a thread about it....omg..this guys whack...

i mean, simply refusing to even see a movie simply because you heard this or read that, is ludicrous. your saying you didnt even go see Spiderman until it came out on cable...why is that...did his lack of web shooters make you un happy that much?

and if your going to diss me, at least spell my name right.

about the movie, u must have something on ur mind, its an ADAPTATION,dude, a new stile, and as raimi said on first spider interview he wanted to contestualize spiderman to our age, otherwise he would be using that bell mouth shaped pants got it? about u dont like certain points in the movie.
its all righ .u cant please greeks and troys right.
but i disagree with most of ur speeching, and the web stuff i abhorn any commentary, cos i wished if they put the web cartridge over,on his hands apearing like ben reily spidey costume, shining . and if so that they made a new uniform,
but he wanted the original, and since his obtained spider abilities why not the webbing,
and mr parker,although i may look like rude. i dont want no commentary about the WHERE the web should be coming from theres no sense in aplying real life into fantasy words.

hey dude, are you brazilian?

That, or mentally challenged...



LMAO! You call me childish when you're throwing a tantrum about organics?

Originally posted by FeceMan
That, or mentally challenged...

what the hell u mean with that? yah im brazilian, and proud. not my fault my english is not that good

Mr Parker instead of insulting people (I bet $100 he's going to through a fit at me for this post) why don't you argue thier opinions respectfully instead of saying that what they're posting is rubbish and crap? you've made your opinions now let them make thiers. I enjoy this thread so cut out the name-calling or it will be closed!

sound like its gonna suck just as bad

Mr Parker one of the most polite and intelligent peole here dont insult him.

my 2cents: No need to get personal people: be nice.

I'm still waiting for the Anti-organics people to cough up what THEY want to see in a Spidey movie that would make it acceptable?

( I'm not taking any side here,this is my opinion)

First,what bakerboy said was his review,his opinion.Not everybody thinks alike you know.

Second,I have to say the movie was pretty good.It had a few bad points.They didn't stick to the comics,I expected that.They wanted to grab the attention of children more than anything else(I hate to say this but that's how they more most of their money.I could explain more about this,but I know most of you don't want to heard it.)

Alfred Molina,who play Doc Ock.They made a great choice.He was one of the best to play Doc Ock.His costume was cool,now a heard someone said they could of done better.Well,your right they probably could have,but not a lab coat.They wanted something more dark.It just wouldn't look right(Molina in a white lab coat).Now the tentacles talking to him was....odd and not in the comics.But again they didn't want to really copy the comics,now did they.

Kirsten Dunst,she made a good Mary Jane.I also heard there was something wrong with the color of her hair.Well,people make mistakes,we're only human.Besides her hair looks red enough to us.Anymore red and it might look unnatural.

I'm not going to talk about Tobey Maguire,because he played it prefect.

And third,one of the oddest things they did in the movie was having Peter lose his powers.Well,the reason was,..although it may sound stupid.., is so that he could figure out and appreciate who he is.Also, to accept the responsibility that was placed into his hands..


Okay,that's all for now

Dude, go read the first issue of Spider-Man, the Amazing Fantasy one.

He plucks the webshooters out of nowhere, he just makes them, there and then. We are never told how or where he got them from. They just were there. The movies at least kept in line with this part of the comic - they kept it just as simple.

Later, they realised he should explain it a bit better, and so we found out he was conveniently devising similar technology before he was bitten - yet another contrivance for the comics to hang their head in shame for. There's nothing worse than for comic book writers to "make it up as they go" - it has a snowball effect and ends up becoming standard to do this, and can cause plotholes.

Well damn, that's just stupid. They should've at least tried.

I don't care enough about anything besides the comic books themselves to really care though. Sometimes(ok, lots of times) I'm in the mood to argue though, and that's usually why I'll debate someone.

First of all, i want to say thanks to my friend Mr Parker , one of the true spiderman fans, of help me in his thread, thank you my friend. Your help is always appreciated.

Second of all, i did a mistake in one of my posts. I didnt want to say that i want a movie 100% loyal to the comics. I wanted to say that i dont want a movie 100% the same as in the comics, because it would be impossible and absurd. Cinema and comics are two different mediums and is impossible to trasladate 100% one thing to the other, beasides that it would be very boring. I want a movie who respects the characters and the story with in a new story fresh and with good and ideas, but without unnecesary changes and sam raimi and sonny has made in the man spider movies.

And once again,in the comics , peter parker is a genious, who is capable of the creation of the web shooters. In the movie , he is only a guy who is clever and good in science. That is the main difference. The genious of Peter isnt in those stupid movies. Beasides his capacity of superation, with the creation of the web shooters, peter shows how he is capable of superate all the difficults, so he complete his powers with the web shooters. beasides when is run out of the fluid and has to fight the villains with his intelligence and the other powers, that is his capacity of superation. And those things arent in the movie.

The loss of powers is a stupid thing, as is doc ock being a nice guy. That is just a bad script with lack if imagination.

And for the guy who has said that i was only critizing the movie for not being loyal with the comics, ill said that it is totally false. Because i have said in my review that the movie, althought the story and the script is better than the first one, is just a bad movie. The first one was a big crap, the second one is less crap but still crap. Just a mediocre movie, for that reason i always laugh my ass when some people here and in other forums is posting" best movie ever", " best sequel ever" or " best comic movie ever". To say that the man spider 2 is the best movie on cinema story is just an insult and a taunt to the cinema, the comic and the bad taste. Plain and simple.

Okay for now on instead of addressing each post individually,I will now address everybody in one post like bakerboy was doing.
Black Cat -obviously you did not read how the other posters responded to bakerboy in his first post because if you had,you would have noticed THEY were insulting bakerboy and were the ones posting rubbish and crap and when I came on and pointed out to them how childish they were,I was insulted for no reason.Just look at how carnage spoke to me using profanity in his posts.Because of his behaviour I now have him on ignore.and as you can see,I find Robo-chocobo and spiderman r.j being mature in their posts so since they have discussed this with me in mature fashion,I am willing to continue this discussion with them unlike I will with carnage.

R.J.- No offence but I really couldnt understand anything you were saying to me in your post so I didnt find anything you said to me rude at all.

Mr Zero-Right now I have to go so I will address you another time since unlike your first post to bakerboy on page one,you are being mature now.

Swords Point-thank you for the kind words.

OK, I think we all understand that, but could you at least NOT call it man-spider?

Why not? in those movies, there arent any spiderman, only man spider. Those movies are about a freak with organics, because of that, those movies are about man spider, nothing to do with the spiderman that we all know.

Have you even seen the REAL Manspider movie? It really kicked ass, and when you see that, you will understand what a FULL spider mutation really is. Giving Spiderman organics is NOTHING compared to what this guy got.

Exactly Arachnoidfreak.I thought for sure it had to be some kind of false rumor,that surely they would not be stupid enough to make a movie like that? whats next superman with a jetpack? I wouldnt put anything past hollywood now after that.The organics would probably never have been in the movie in the first place if not for James Cameron,he was the original script writer and suppose to originally to direct the movie and it was his lame brain idea to have the organics in the movie.if you ever read Camerons script for the movie,you would see that guy has no knowledge of spiderman whatsoever,they took out most of what he had in his scrennplay because it was just plain horrible and an even worse script that david koepps.that should have been a clue to sony that the organics were a horrible idea. the only reason they left the organics in is because james cameron is a well respected director in hollywood and since it was his lame brain idea,they decided to keep it.may those sony executives burn in hell for that.

superfly that IS the character on the screen,MANSPIDER because he is a damn monster.just because sony tells you a spiderman movie has been made,I think thats pretty ignorant to believe that.the real spiderman if you want to see him onscreen,watch the 90's cartoon,now THATS spider-man. and yes Arachnoidfreak,we have seen the real manspider,the 8 eyed 8 legged furry monster from the 90's cartoon but THAT was alos manspider on the screen because he is a damn monster also because he has STILL mutated.

Yes, well said mr parker. To give spiderman organics is so stupid as give superman a jet pack. Some time ago, i did a poll in some site called superheroype in a superman forum, and all superman fans hated the idea to give supes a jetpack instead the power of fly. That is just the same that the organics thing and what the spiderman fans feel about it.

In other way, i want to express my satisfaction for could express my opinion about the movie in those forums with total freedom of speech. Not as some nazi site called "superherohype" where the moderators are nazis and fascists and dont let the free speech and the critizims agasint the man spider movies. If you post something bad about the movies, you are banned. They must be paid for sonny to promote the movie or something, because they dont let the bad reviews against the movies. I could only call it fasicsm. Its incredible that a site like that could exist.

I hope so. I'd rather see someone screw up Superman than do him justice that he doesn't deserve. Sorry that's just me and my hatred for flying superheroes (the ones that can just "fly" for the hell of it). That lamoid should still only be jumping tall buildings (stupid DC and their making-it-up-as-they-go silliness).



Now this I agree with. I mean, Leonardo DiCaprio as Spider-Man.

Now if Cameron had made the movie, I'd probably be with the "Man-spider" people on this one 100% I'd hate him for making me want Spider-Man dead because he was played by the whiny floppy-haired wimp from Titanic. Saying that, I'm glad Sam Raimi got it. You can criticise it al you want. The first movie had it's flaws, but the second one blew all of my expectations out of the water. To me, that WAS Spider-Man, he had all of the pathos, character and essence of the fundamental structure of the brilliance of the comics down to a tee. I find it really hard to criticise the second episode, both as a movie, and as an adaptation of the comic.

I see it the other way around.. giving Superman a jetpack is analogous to giving Spiderman web shooters because in both cases they are relying on something man-made rather than an inherant trait.

Fly for the hell of it? How do you mean?

I think characters like Storm and Jean Grey have justifiable flight (though Jean's isn't really flight).

Yeah, Storm makes sense, Jean Grey too. Iron Man can fly, he has rockets. Magneto can fly.

I mean characters like Wonder Woman and Superman who can just "fly". Are they telepathic? Can they control the wind? Do they have jetpacks? No, they just fly.

I like characters like Archangel, who has wings, therefore, he deserves to fly. I consider "flying" to be a pretty amazing superpower in itself. It shouldn't just be a "standard" superpower.

Also, the likes of Magneto and Jean Grey can fly - but they have to concentrate - which means their powers elsewhere are weakened. Storm is also using wind, so it may not be incredibly accurate.

Superman on the other hand, just flies, makes it seem like it's nothing, it's very stupid.

It also detracts from characters like Archangel and Hawkgirl - when their main superpower is flight, and they need wings, when supermans flying superpower is simply standard, and he doesn't need wings at all. It's very backwards.

I think flying superheroes should only fly if they have a reasonable means of flight. I'm sure there's some nerd who could explain why superman can fly - but it ain't gonna be good enough because thats just making crap up to defend his bad design.

Sorry, turned into a rant, but yeah, fake flyers suck.

we are told in one of non related spiderman series, i think i was the untold stories,it shows peter developing what should be a webbshooter.i mean in paper.

non-related? Well that doesn't really mean anything then. As far as the true, canon, legit, Amazing Fantasy story goes, Pete just made em there and then.

i mean non related series not comics. its a marvle comics. and reading u previous post ,it might be the one u meantioned about creating as it goes. cos i do have all 62 first spiderman comics. and i remember pretty well he with a nerd smiley face shooting the web with croseed arms

about super he was suposed to glide (dont ask how) after getting a huge impulse from the ground .what would be fall with sytle

LOL, falling with style - he even looks like Buzz Lightyear with that ridiculous chin.

That would make sense, I would understand it if he had powers a bit like Cannonball from the X-Men, where he could use himself as a missile, by using his super-jumping ability to launch him. It would limit his flying ability to a more acceptable standard. Like, he he could fly like this, but only at really high speed, and he finds it hard to control.

I mean, the man can run really fast - whats the point when he can fly? Why the hell have contradictions within your own freakin arsenal?

i dunno i never saw him running i saw his once transportating into a phone box once.
the lame about super is that his is the same person with or witthout glass. how can no one notice it. metropolis definetely need a consult with the oftalmologist (the eye doctor)

The "faster than a speeding locomotive" always referred to Supermans ability to run really fast.

In fact, I'm sure we see Clark Kent outrunning a train in the Superman movie.

i dont remember those old movies only the ones with super power guys and a gay shazam luthor made or bought. in my country he is always refered as faster then a bullet so it can aply to either flying or running tho

Yeah, people think it's his flying thats faster than a speeding bullet, but it was in reference to his super speed.

crybaby
oh im sorry are you done crying yet? , i insulted u for no reason? hmmmm i do remember u calling me childish and immature when my posts and comments had nothing to do with you. omg u ingnored me cuz u can dish it but u cant take it.... please

MUST KILL RANDOM FLIERS!

I am officially the 100th post on this thread.

And spidey's webs seemed to be stronger in the second movie.

1.) When he is holding that mono-rail cart his web starts to break. (i thought it was as strong as steel.)

2.) When he is stopping the train, his webs hold out longer and don't break, they just pull bricks off the building.

Hopefully i am not repeating anything.

He can fly because the gravity on earth is much weaker than the gravity on Krypton.

Yeah, in the first one, she had on a red wig. In the second one, she dyed her hair.

if u take gravity into the question, to weight as soft as superflies on earth his weight should be 1000 ton so no way he could ever be like he is

Can you please rephrase that.

Wow, the text looked LIKE RJ's, but without that old avatar, I didn't even recognize him...

He still doesn't make much sense though. The best part of the entire post above me?



Also...

I'm certain that an athlete in perfect body condition can light more than 1x his weight.

Oops, I have some more.


"Average ordinary athlete"? "Inviabilize"? "1000 stronger"? What are you babbling about?


At this point, you've completely lost me. Well, not completely. I think what RJ is trying to say is that if Superman were to be considered a normal Kryptonian but have the strength to lift 100 tons, the gravity would have to be 1000 times stronger than Earth's.

But, as anyone with half a brain knows, Superman's strength is because of our yellow sun. Thus, Krypton does NOT have a gravity 1000 times greater than Earth's. Duh.

DUDE!!!!!!!!!! I KNOW THAT!!!!

That's the ONE thing I actually like about Superman. I like the fact his planet had a stronger gravity.

OK - that's a great explanation for his strength, and his speed. I like this.

But it does not explain his flying. If I went to a planet where the gravity was a thousand times lighter than earth - should I be able to fly? No. I could jump really high - but I'd eventually come back down - I certainly couldn't hold myself in the air indefinitely like supes.

The gravity idea merely explains his super-jumping, strength, toughness and speed really well. The gravity idea does not explain how he can fly - because the gravity has no effect on that ability.

Kryptonians are just born with the ability to fly along with heat vision and ice breath - and I find that ridiculous.

I'd like Superman if he was just a super-man. He was tougher, faster, stronger, could jump amazing distances. Kind of like Hulk only not quite as trong but a lot smarter. The fact he flies, can breath ice and fire lasers from his eyes - with no real explanation, does my head in.

Oh well, it's gone off the rails a bit - but I like this discussion, keep it going.

I don't know. I've never read any Superman comics, lol. I just bought one of the DC guides to Superman and it said he could fly because of the gravity difference, and that he was normal until the sun gave him enough energy or something like that.

Superman's abilities are a consequence of a form of sub-concious telekinesis. The sun powers this telekenisis, which gives Superman an aura around him that gives him his near-invulnerability, lifts him in the air(fly), and gives him his strength(telekinetically enhanced leg muscles=super speed) Where he got the ice breath, heat vision, super hearing, telescopic vision, microscopic vision, and all that other junk is beyond me. I still like him though.

whaterver, what i dont like in spiderman movies was the frog face fat robertson, and the fact mj and pete are related ever since , but as they used the ultimate as a aproach it ok. better then blind date.

about the power coming from the sun, isnt that ultraman??

THAT'S exactly what I'm talking about. Some writer made that up. I hate people making stuff up as they go along.

Superman with telekinesis now? Come on.

And yeah, his other powers are a consequence of him being crappy, that's all.

I was watching The Justice League cartoon the other day, and it was the one where they split up. Guess who instigated the split? That's right, big fat head Superman.

"I never got into this kinda trouble when i was alone" - he's such an ass.

Lots of superheroes' powers are because of the sun. Even Cyclops's powers do.

so your saying only when cyclops out side in the day he cant shoot beams out off his eyes???? because if you are the your wrong his eyes arent solar powered

If you think about it, the telekinesis is his ONLY power, and that gives him everything else. Sometimes it is a bit much, but that won't keep me from liking him, or any number of Superman rip-offs(Supreme, Hyperion, Prime, Shazam, etc.). He's probably the most copied superhero ever, with Batman coming in second.

superman sucks..c'mon now...those people cant recongize someone with glasses and parts with hair differently..jeezus...theres a fine line between bein a superhero and bein invincable and superman is damn near invincable although the show smallville is actually descent coz its just based on a young clark kent (not superman), he cant fly, hes young, naive, and doesnt have all of his powers so he seems to be more vulnerable, but the main reason to watch that show is lana...she's hot!

Thats why I never liked SUPERMAN as a comic and thats why I thought the first manspider movie was so horrible because it was so horribly written.For one,when Tobey is talking to that wrestling promoter and yelling at him about not getting paid what he should have been,he has his mask off,after demonstrating his abilites that he did in the ring and how his photos DO appear in the newspaper there at the daily bugle,just like superman,that guy would have found out that peter parker and spiderman are one in the same.Then there is the moment in the cafeteria where he shoots out his webbing and drags the tray with his webbing,then does all these impossible back flips in the air and hits the guy sending him flying across the floor a 100 feet or so,then a couple months later,demonstrates these abilities in front of dozens of onlookers,then a guy in a spiderman costume swings by the same neighborhood a couple months later.sorry even a dork like FLASH THOMPSON would easily put two and two together and see that peter parker and spiderman are the same person.

His eyes ARE solarpowered. Light can even get through his eyelids when he's sleeping, and "since virtually all natural light on earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, a small amount of power is produced even at night".

the promoter was a russian , who can tell you the mafia didnt kill him?

How about we say that Supes' powers are locked in a once-dormant gene that was awakened upon contact with our yellow sun. 'Cause Vitamin D makes Superman superpowered.

I always thought Cyclops powers came from the fact his eyes are an open doorway to another reality (this reality is filled with plasma energy) and the fact he has brain damage means his eyes are constantly open to this reality.

ya that makes more sense then solarpowered

No, his powers are because of the sun. Read the first Giant-sized X-Men comic.

Well, read this taken from http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/c/cyclops.htm

"Cyclops possesses the mutant ability to project a beam of concussive, ruby-colored force from his eyes. Cyclops's eyes are no longer the complex organic jelly that utilizes the visible spectrum of light to see the world around it. Instead, they are inter-dimensional apertures between this universe and another, non-Einsteinium universe, where physical laws as we know them do not pertain. This non-Einsteinium universe is filled with particles that resemble photons, yet they interact with this universe's particles by transferring kinetic energy in the form of gravitons (the particle of gravitation). These particles generate great, directional concussive force when they interact with the objects of this universe.

Cyclops's mind has a particular psionic field that is attuned to the forces that maintain the apertures that have taken the place of his eyes. Because his mind's psionic field envelops his body, it automatically shunts the other-dimensional particles back into their point of origin when they collide with his body. Thus, his body is protected from the effects of the particles, and even the thin membrane of his eyelids is sufficient to block the emission of energy. The synthetic ruby quartz crystal used to fashion the lenses of Cyclops's eyeglasses and visor is resonant to his minds' psionic field and is similarly protected."

It explains why his body does not get harmed from his eye blasts - it explains why his eyelids shut off the beams. It explains everything.

Then again - there's this site:

http://www.geocities.com/sikelops/cyclops1c.htm

"Cyclops has the power to absorb vast solar energies and release it as powerful optical energy blasts."
Which is real?

"Superman's heat vision is usually described as him having an excess of solar power in his eyes that he absorbed from the sun and he has to discharge it from time to time."

Oh come on, now they really are making this shit up as they go along. What a joke.

Cheers for the info anyway man.

Well yes they do make it up as they go along lol, but I'm just trying to find any explination they have. I still don't get his Xray, microscopic, or telescopic vision.

VITAMIN D! I'll bet that's what happened with Spidey, too.

i thought this was about 2-3 guys complaining for no reason. not superman?

The comics say that his eyes are solarpowered.

Lol, I just thought he had magic beams and saw things in red. Too much fantasy and science colliding to explode me!

Yeah, well, at least it explains his powers somewhat. The thing is, when powers aren't thought through well enough in the first place, it causes problems when trying to explain them, and then when they do figure out an explanation, it sounds contrived and totally "made up out of nowhere". It makes the character seem too transparent and cheap.

I've also wonderred about Cyclops seeing in red - man that would suck. Thing is, how come he never complains about it, ever? I would, I'd go mental if all I saw was red things. You'd be colour blind.

How come whenever Cyclops has those moments of "no powers" where he can take his shades off (this must have happened like a million times already) - shouldn't he be like "Oh my GOD my powers are gone! I can see greens, blues! Oh yellow I have missed thee!".

What if Cyclops was in the X-Jet on his own, and there was a fight involving, say, Wolverine and Magneto.....

Wolvie: "Fire the missiles Scott!"

Cyke: "Which button is it?"

Wolvie: "The green one!"

Cyke: "Oh crap......oh crap....oh crap.....errr.....oh CRAP!"

*Cyclops hits any old button. he hits the ejector seat button, and lands on Wolverine. Magneto escapes*

Wolvie: "Idiot"

We'll just say that he's memorized the locations or something.

Does Cyclops see in red all the time?

It'd be hard for cyclops to enjoy anything with colour co-ordination.

Wolverine: "Which is your favourite Power Ranger"

Gambit: "I like the pink ranger"

Rogue: "The blue ones pretty cool"

Jubilee: "I like the yello..."

Wolverine: "Shut up Jubilee I didn't ask you! YOU SUCK!"

Bishop: "I like the blue ranger"

Cyclops: "I thought they were all red? Are they not all the same colour?"

Wolverine: "No"

Cyclops: *cries*

Why the people not reconigze that the man spider 2 movie sucked big time?

Why the people not reconigze that the spider-man 2 movie was a big hit?

Big hit or not, man spider 2 sucked. Big hit isnt the same that quality. The american pies movies are big hits and are garbage too.

I rather enjoyed the movie, especially when Octavious got pelted with that bag of coins.

Well, face man, you have a very curious way of thinking, so mr parker and me sucks because we dont like the man spider movies and dont kiss the ass of sonny and that stupid man spider franchise?

FaceMan? Check your spelling, d00d! And yes, your constant bitching about the "Man-Spider" movies has put you on my "people who suck" list. Stating your opinion on something once is OK. Repeatedly stating your opinion and pissing and moaning to whoever is listening (or perhaps NOT listening) and bitching and bitching and bitching AND BITCHING is not OK.

Ok, sorry, i was wrong in one letter. Feceman, im not bithching, im only posting the truth, what a betrayal are those stupid man spider movies to the original comics and its spirit. In the same way, im tired to see people always with the same brainwashed and asskissing about that man spider movie and its sequel.

d0000000000000000000000000000000000000000d!

I'm not going to ass-kiss the movies, but I still think they were pretty good .

And you shouldn't be put on the "suck" list, but it just was easier than making multiple separate lists. Actually, I probably shouldn't have put you, but just Mr Parker.

It's actually kept the spirit of the comics really well.

It HAS changed some things, and yes I understand how you feel, but people these days have their own minds. I made up my own mind about the movies. Spidey 1 was flawed but good, and Spider-Man 2 was ten times better. I've posted why this was so, and it was mainly down to the fact the movie (particularly the sequel) kept the spirit of the Spider-Man character alive.

He was getting dumped on, beat up, screwed, smashed, knocked-out, and destroyed. He was expressed on screen with all the poise, grace and brutality that he deserves. His character came across as a true hero, more than any other comic book hero so far. It did a tremendous job of showcasing Spider-Man as a serious comic book character, that adults can enjoy, and probably got rid of the misconceptions of comics being just for kids too. Peter Parker was still shown to be an boy genius without the webshooters. The fact that he was so respected by Doc Ock actually helped him save the day by helping Doc Ock destroy the fusion thingy. Only Peter Parker could have gotten through to Dock Ock's rational side. Any other superhero would have been screwed. It made Spider-Man justified, not just another superhero. It made Spider-Man look AMAZING. It was dark, tragic, funny, sad and romantic - everything that the comics were.

If that's not keeping the spirit of Spider-Man alive, I don't know what is.
Despite my initial dislike for the organics, I have gone over the facts in my mind time and time again, and everytime, their existence becomes more justified. The spirit was kept alive without them.

Their existence becomes more justified? you have made some good posts before in the past but this is the dumbest thing you have EVER said saying the existence of the organics were justified.no the spirit of the comics was betrayed,anybody with any logic and common sense would see that.the organics are only justified in the movie if the title of the film is MAN-SPIDER.

I'll bear that in mind. No need to be so insulting.

I feel that some people need to see this.

Just telling you that you made a dumb statement isnt insulting,now if I said you were dumb,now that WOULD be insulting.this movie isnt titel spiderman 2009,if it were,then the organics would be justified and I would have no problem with them even though I dont like them.

i don't understand what you all are truly B****ing about.
your all acting like an old married couple(so in love...why cant they see it? JK )


i truly just don't understand.
spiderman is still spiderman, one way or another. peter parker, spiderman....there the same, no mater what. the idea spiderman provides is the same, and the this single message still echoes in my mind.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

whether or not we like organics, we must remember, everything is all cosmetic, although the look of spiderman has changed, the essance, the concept, the morality, the soul, THE VERY BASIC IDEAS THAT COMPOSE of spiderman is still the same. Spiderman has never truly changed, he still is composed of the same values and morales, the brains and the wit, the sense of honor, his responsibiliy.spiderman in truth has never really changed.