Herr Logan thanks for pointing out all those faults of the film,those are major reasons why I absolutely hated and despised this film so much and why I maintain its pure crap. As far as other things spider-man ripped off from superman,well the one point that Herr Logan made of course and also jumping from building to building and being glee over his powers.That was stolen from the first superman movie when Clark was enjoying his powers out racing a train after school.Peter did the same exact same thing.If you look hard enough,you'll find photos of the first film of Peter webslinging Mj to a roof safely the same way supes to with Lois lane.Excellent points on why this movie was so awful Herr.
Herr Logan: I must step forward and agree with a lot of what you have stated. I pretty much viewed the movie the same way. Well said.
Mr. Parker: I think your points have pretty much been hammered home some 100-something posts ago. It's funny that the same things are repeated over-and-over-and-over after four months. You hated the movie. Let's move on.
Mr. Paker, I need to say, before I respected some of the tihings you said, but this is getting kind dumb. I'll give you the ripping open of the shirt but the rest is kinda weak. He was happy about getting his powers? Wouldn't you be?
__________________ Using the great power, ignoring the great responsibility.
you realize that mr. parker and bakerboy are the only idiots that are complaining about the movie and the organic web you can tell they still live in there mommys basement
You guys have to understand that they can't make the movie exactly like the comic book. The movie world is totally different from the comic book world. Things have to change if they want to make it onto the screen. Also, keep your temper down. If you hate this movie so much than why are you posting this anyway? Although I do agree, they could have made Spider-man funnier and they should have given him webshooters. I just like how the movie tells how Spider-man effects Peter's life, but he still does it because he knows he was given his powers for a reason. Plus, the Spider-man movie was what got me interested in Spider-man. Now, I think he's the coolest. Hopefully, they'll fix these "goofs" in Spider-man 2.
Last edited by Astro12345 on Feb 10th, 2004 at 09:41 PM
Tthe only thing is astro is that you were introduced to a monster, not the cool human being he was in the comics with this stupid movie.and what YOU MAN-SPIDER fans need to realise is that were well aware of that old moronic statement that they could not have made the movie exactly like the comicbook.But what YOU dont understand is that organics were done because sony only wanted to make their own little version and because it was just lazy film making,nothing more.You all did exactly what they wanted you to do which was pay money to see it and feed them.you all also dont understand that organics were NOT something that needed to be changed.You all have allowed those sony idiots into letting you believe that though with their lame ass explanations.I would really like to know why lieg decided to resurrect this thread instead of letting it die.
Im just glad the comicbook is nothing like the movie or it would really suck also.Me and bakerboy are not the only ones who hated this movie because of the organics.I ran into some kids about a year ago who I over heard talking about the movie saying Man,that movie sucked,he didnt even have those cool mechanical webshooters,the cartoon was a lot better than this movie was.dont be surprised if manspider 2 does not make near as much money at the box office as the first one did since it was so bad.
This is untrue. I can think of one film that was actually better than the original: Terminator 2. In terms of sales, I'm sure there are many sequels that surpassed the original. It is true that generally speaking, sequels aren't as good in quality.
Mr Parker, I may have mentioned this elsewhere, but it wasn't Sony's idea to mutate Spider-Man's wrists. Also, if you call him a monster simply for that mutation, then you're just as bad as the anti-mutant bigots in X-Men.
I disagree that the movie isn't anything like the comic. It stayed true to the spirit of the comic, with some major logical flaws. The character of Peter was basically the same guy down at the core, except he wasn't nearly as funny when he put on the mask and he spoke a lot of cheesy drivel when faced with a pretty girl. People hated Spider-Man even though he tried to do good. This is a constant in Spider-Man books. The movie ended with Peter brooding over the happiness that eludes him, and if you read the early issues of Spider-Man, that's what he's doing most of the time. That was the one thing I liked about the end scene in the graveyard-- it was too heavy-handed and deviated from the characters' behavior patterns, but it was true to the spirit of Spider-Man.
Now, as for you people like Astro12345 who keep saying " they can't make the movie exactly like the comic book", it's time to grow out of that. I realize this is just a movie-- a consumer product-- and it has no real bearing on our geeky little lives, but the attitude from which such statements come, it's a bad one to have. You're using an extremely flimsy excuse to defend people who could have done better. As a general way of thinking, people should not settle for inferior performance (in whatever) when it could have easily been done better. The mistakes I pointed out earlier in the thread, almost all of those should not require much more effort or money easily to fix. Seriously, a few script changes, diverting filming equipment more here and less there... it's not brain surgery to fix these little failures that add up to a large deduction of respect from what could be a greater amount. They are pandering to a shallow audience that will settle for less, but what I don't understand is the lack of logic in some of these mistakes. Couldn't they have survived if Toby had to cover up his face in one more scene (in the wrestling office)? Couldn't they have just had one super-spider on display and made sure it died? This is not difficult. I can tolerate the organic web-shooters if they don't pay close attention to them and make it gross (the way their creator, James Cameron would have) and if they give me a movie chock full of Spidey goodness. That goodness is depleted when the wisecracks come in drips and drabs, instead of like a faucet, as in the video game. There it is, Toby Maguire, crackin' wise as Spider-Man all the way through. It's corny, yes, but funny enough, and also true to the corny nature of Spider-Man.
Stop using flimsy words, and don't use the word "can't" when it's not true. It's settling for less than could be, and if you act that way in important, real life situations, you could be making a big mistake.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
Actually Logan if you read between the lines and watch how Raimi acts and listen to him when talking about the organic change,you get the vivid impression that he was against the organics and it looks as though he is being coached into what to say like a puppet the same way the president is a puppet to the military establishment.In taped interviews before the movie first came out,whenever Raimi was asked about why they were using the organics,he would look around behind his back and off to the side and say his words carefully,it didnt take a genius to see that he was being coached in what to say.He would reply like- Well yeah the organics are in the movie-and we would roll his eyes and his tone of voice sounded as though he wasnt thrilled with the idea.According to white house aides and people close to Clinton,sometimes when Clinton would give public speeches,he was being coached into what to say to the public.He would do the same thing Raimi did,pause and look behind him as though he was listening to what he was being told to say. Happens all the time with celebritys who are not neccessary great public speakers. Well you either see he is a monster now because organics are gross and disgusting or you dont,no amount of explanation by me is going to change your mind on that.I think you will find out by the time manspider 3 comes out,that sony is not going to allow Raimi to include Gwen Stacy in a film like he wants to either.
Assuming your still around here at this site by then,that will be the definitive proof that sony wont allow Raimi to make the movie the way he wants to.Raimi said in a spring issue of wizard magazine last year that he would like to include Gwen Stacy in a sequel.Well if we dont at least see her in this next movie as a cameo or that her name is mentioned,I think its safe to say were never going to see her.The reason why we got stuck with organics is because james cameron- who has no knowledge of spider-man what soever,this movie would have been even worse if he had directed it I have no doubt.It was his lame ass idea to use them and sony wanted to keep them in there because James Cameron is such a respected film maker that they figured it would be a great idea since it was his initital moronic idea in the first place.If it had been some unknown film maker who had suggested the organics,the studio would have laughed their asses off, but like I said,since it was james Cameron,sony insisited on the idea.I believe we could have had a great spidey movie if Raimi had been allowed to make the movie the way he wanted to because the parts he HAD control over like the casting,he did an excellent job on.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Feb 11th, 2004 at 11:19 PM
I can feel glaucoma setting in after reading that. Paragraph spacing and indentation are your friends. I think you lost my attention somewhere at the first mention of Clinton. Not sure where you were going...
Aw, VengeanceGOD, you just don't have any staying power!
Mr Parker, I should have mentioned this before: one of the primary reasons they ended up using the organic web shooters is because they couldn't get the mechanical web shooter props right. I think this is partly bullshit-- the only thing that they couldn't have gotten right is Spider-Man wearing his shooters under his costume and have it look decent. They might have had him wear them over his costume, and I would have been okay with that. Seeing the web-shooters would have compensated for the lack of smoothness in the arms.
I am inclined to agree at least partially with you on your assessment that Sony-- or whatever other Powers That Be-- backed Cameron's idea. The thing is, I doubt this support for the organics would be solely based on respect for Cameron. We should note that he has some kind of writing credit that stayed in, even though Koepp is the chief credit. I think maybe they punked out on the bracelet props too easily, just decided it was too much trouble and saw they had a way out. Cameron allowed them to skip the hassle, so they did.
It pisses me off, but I can tolerate the web-shooters if that's the only monstrously deviant aspect of Cameron's screenplay to make it into the final cut. You need to read this thing, Parker. It's horrifying. He's got Peter dreaming about being a real man-spider (the same exact dream sequence from the origin story in the 90's cartoon series), waking up stuck to the bed in a mass of sticky white fluid (anyone miss the puberty metaphor?), and replenishing his proteins after an afternoon of web-shooting training by drinking a full container of milk! That is completely disgusting, and I am thankful that in the final cut, there was no display or mention of replenishing proteins or anything of that sort. They left it blissfully, inexplicably unrealistic and vague. Cameron had a scene where Flash smacks MJ around, MJ almost gets raped in the street, and Spidey stops a drunken husband from beating his wife and then gets attacked by the wife. I know that there's a scene in the movie where MJ is accosted by several scumbags in the street, but it was much less graphic and suggestive than Cameron would have it be. In his screenplay, Spider-Man has sex with Mary Jane on top of a bridge, and she doesn't look at his face when he takes off the mask. Peter was a virgin until college and maybe a good while after. We all know this. All of this adds up to Cameron's vision of Spider-Man being a very dark movie, and Spider-Man can't be a primarily dark movie. He wears red and blue tights; that makes him officially obligated to be a primarily upbeat hero in a reasonably PG-13 setting. Superman, Captain America, Spidey... they are not dark, period. I know there was a lot of dark stuff in Spider-Man, but they didn't go overboard.
Look up Cameron's "scriptment" online, and you'll see what I mean.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
Yeah Ive never read the whole thing Logan but yeah I remember hearing about it.I have no doubt the movie would have even been worse with Camerons script than it was with Koepps,that I have no doubt about.I think that script prooved Cameron has no knowledge or understanding of Spider-Man whatsoever.
thumbs down sign,Again I am not that one to blame for resurrecting this damn thread,blame Lilg,he was the kid that is insecure about criticism of this stupid movie who brought it back.
And you need to understand that such derogatory comments about other posters simply because they like a film you do not and do not agree with your creative interpretation of them is feeble and juvenile.
This thread went beyond pointess a long time ago. Closing.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Jan 30th, 2004 05:00 PM
