Everytime anyone releases a new comic series, a videogame, or a TV show they always make changes to some imporant aspect of whatever character they are focusing on. It's the way that these new reincarnations are able to stand apart from the original. Sam Raimi says over and over again in the new DVD tha just came out that he made the changes he did to make sure that the movie would be different from the original comic, that he wamted the story to be translated and retold for a new generation of fans. Think how stagnent and boring the comic woulod have gotten if it hadn't been able to change over the years.
__________________ Using the great power, ignoring the great responsibility.
I understand what you're saying but Hollywood has been adapting our favorite heroes for years and we have very little input on what they do to them as sad as it is. As far as Batman and Robin goes, Joel should have stuck with the formula that Burton and Keaton created but that's another story Hollyweird gave Batman and Robin huge rubber nipples!!!! Now tell me what true batfan enjoyed that I don't like to grin and bare it but then again I don't like to pay taxes either
__________________ There are worse things out tonight than vampires......................................................like me.
For a real Spider-Man film he MUST HAVE WEBSHOOTERS! And he must NEVER check that they are full or if he has enough WEB FLUID because running out of FLUID at EXACTLY THE WRONG MOMENT is what makes SPIDER-MAN the great work of art that we love.
When will all you bozos realize that until they make a TRUE HONEST SPIDER-MAN movie and set the origin of Spider-man in 1962 (because that's when PP became Spidey as any REAL FAN knows) all these movies will be MAN SPIDER DROSS!!! YEAH! Any film that shows Peter in the present day better make him 42 Years old. Any TRUE spider-fan would agree with me that sticking %100 to the COMIC CONTINUITY is the only way to go.
I DEMAND that they make a Spider-man movie set in 1962 - and rather than plot the thing out they should just have a series of 20 minute segments where he goes to school, gets picked on, worries about Aunt May, fights some bad guy with an animal theme like the vulture, rhino, scorpion, octopus, meercat etc and then sell the photos to the daily bugle.
They should have 4-5 of these repeated segments over and over in each of the first 6-7 movies to RESPECTFULLY REFLECT the BIBLE. Sorry I meant to say the COMIC!
THIS and ONLY THIS will satisfy the TRUE SPIDER-MAN FANS!!!
YEAH. DAMN ! ! !
Only they can miss out the part where he goes to an alien dimension and a bug crawls up his ass and becomes his black costume because ANY TRUE SPIDER-MAN FAN knows that's just DUMB.
Those are some cool hopes and dreams but too bad Hollyweird doesn't care about people like us that much
With all you said about staying true to comics and looking at your avatar, what did you think about the Bat films (from Keaton to Clooney). Are you wearing the latex suit or the true to comic book spandex,kevlar and nomex?
Oh dont even get me started on the batman films.thats what I dont get,I complain everybit as much about how hollywood screwed up batman by making the worst casting choice in comicbook history-pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald short runt michale keaton for tall,muscularhandsome,full set of hair bruce wayne but at least in the batman section when I complain about tim burtons batman movies and how they are over rated and not any where near as good as poeole make them out to be,I dont hear smart a$$ remarks like get a life over there like I do hear,go figure.
I still haven't heard Spiderman movie haters rant on what I would actually accept as a great reason to hate the crap out of this movie. Personally, I liked it, but here goes:
Shut the f*ck up about the goddamn webbing already. Fine, he could have had scenes with suspense, he could have mixed chemicals with his web cartriges, understood, but i have read several people(who claim that they are "real spiderman fans" say "he is the true character with the webbing, they totally messed up Peter Parker's character up with organics"...blah blah blah blah blah. What the F*CK?!? Any Spiderman fan with an IQ higher than 90 will say that you are WRONG. Spiderman's TRUE character is an adolescent loser who was thrust into having these amazing powers, and learning what to do with them by using his brain. Have all of you forgotten "With great power there must also come great responsibility"? Forget about the small outward and shallow changes Hollywood felt they had to make because they wanted more money(those greedy f*cks. though, you can't really blame them. blame pop-culture)
First off, in the movie, Parker was horribly unfunny. In any Spiderman comic, Parker is funny and quick witted. In the movie, Jameson was the funniest character, which is a damn travesty. Second, i agree with the Mary Jane thing, they did an oh-kay job, but they should not have tweaked her personality(thats right, "tweaked", she wasn't made into full blown Gwen Stacy you whiny b!tches, she was still MJ at the core of the character). They probably should have made Gwen his girlfriend anyway, wasn't it her who was thrown off a bridge? i seem to remember reading the Spiderman 30th anniversary, with her in the place of Mary Jane.
Primary points: They did a great job with the whole "great power, great responisbility" theme, but they horribly ruined Parker's outward behavior.
Secondary Points: my only nit-picky complaints about this move are that they didn't use a radioactive spider, and instead used the genetically enhanced spider, and that Goblin's costume was lame. DaFoe literally saved that role from being induced to the Hall of Shame, which holds such atrocities as the 1989 version of The Punisher, that lame ass Captain America movie, and Judge Dredd.
Apparently, some of you need to brush up on your literary terms, such as "character", "premise" and "theme"
__________________
Last edited by Mr. Sandman on Jun 8th, 2004 at 09:52 PM
damn for the last freaking time,you dont want to hear complainst about the movie dont come post on this thread.any person with logic and common sense would know they totally betrayed his character with the organic webbing,that isnt the true representation of the character of peter parker,give me a freaking break,boy your grasping at straws saying his character wasnt betrayed.the lenghths you will go to to try and apologize for this movies shortcomings is unreal.just because we dont ignorantly accept all these huge major changes like organics like you so blindly do does not mean any spiderman fan iwth an iq over 90 would know this movie totally betrayed his character with the organics. boy you dont have the slightest clue saying they did not make character into gwen stacy,they totally made her character into gwen stacy,she was hardly MJ at all.get real.
the only reasonable thing you have stated at all in this post is that peter was not funny as spiderman at all.I wonder who helped you with that one because the reast of everything else you said was a bunch of mindless nonsense.
ugh. fine. complain all you want. just realize that complaining doesnt make you a true spiderman fan. realizing what Stan Lee made Spiderman about, does.
First off, you worry way too much about his physical aspect. they did a fine job with his character. Understand that they HAD TO MAKE CHANGES. Organic webbing is, for the most part, an acceptable one, and if you think it isn't, they already made the movie. deal with it. Try getting your web shooter fix from the comics and the cartoon series. They introduce the web shooters in Spiderman 2 anyway(or so i heard). also, people such as yourself point out EVERY flaw, just so you can make yourself out to be the "ultimate" fan and boost your ego. also understand that none of hollywood gives a shit about what you and your little friends have to say. go ahead, send them your petition, they will save a bit of money on toilet paper. 400 million dollars says they are doing a good job. Of course, opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one, and they all stink.
don't make me get out my damn comic collection. i hate digging through my crates(i really need a system or something). Mary Jane came from a home with an abusive father. this was portrayed correctly in the movie. Gwen Stacy had a police officer father. notice: NOT in the movie. Mary Jane fell in love(most likely it was just a crush) with Spiderman first, then Parker. correctly portrayed in the movie. Gwen always hated Spiderman, because she thought he was responisble for killing her father. Oh look at that, not in the movie either. Mary Jane, through Peter, became stronger emotionally towards her father, well, we haven't gotten to that part in the movies yet. Mary Jane was distant at first from Peter due to her friends, then develops a stronger relationship when he gets his powers. also correctly portrayed in the movie. I'm still not sure about the bridge situation, have to look into it. Gwen Stacy felt sympathy for Peter and then began actually liking him, maybe even loving(dunno bout that, she died before you could really tell), now this IS in the movie.
I always thought they should have had Gwen in the movie anyway.
In any case, if you want a better Spiderman movie, make one.
also, what do you mean "damn for the last time"? notice this is only my third post in the whole spiderman forum.
__________________
Last edited by Mr. Sandman on Jun 9th, 2004 at 02:19 AM
There are not many persons on this forum who are willing to understand this, but you're one of them. When translated into a big budget flick, literature characters ALWAYS differ from the original ones. Always, always, always...
I read dozens of books that were turned into a film, and with the exception of Lord of The Rings (just a few unimportant changes characterwise, nothing more), I can say that NONE of the characters in the books were like I had imagined when I saw them on the big screen. Not one bit, and I'm not even talking about the altered stories.
So I wasn't surprised at all that minor changes were made. Don't care that much about the original webshooters but granted, Peter Parker/Spider-Man should have been more funny. Maybe in the next one ? What do you say, mr. Raimi ?
Well said. It's easy to criticize. "They should have done this, they should have done that..." pfff...
Like it's easy to show us a comic character that exists for more than 40 years, with millions of fans (with each their own opinion about Spider-Man) and with sometimes a very inconsistent writing - in some comics, Spider-Man can be cool and dark, in others, he's just a clown or a sidekick...
Not easy at all. THE Spider-Man does not exist. But maybe I'm not a TRUE Spider-Man fan.
I agree 100%. noone is pleased by the same things, because everyone has their own opinions. to please EVERY Spiderman fan, they'd have to make 10 versions of the same movie(at least)
Not trying to turn this into a Bat thread at all. I don't think I could derail this thread if I started talking about Peter Pan instead of Parker It's just that i'm a serious Batfan more than I am a Spider-Man one. When I saw your post about webshooter accuracy and such, I noticed that you looked a bit like the latex Batboys from the last 4 movies. I figured if you hated the idea of organic webshooters, you'd absolutely despise seeing Batman in a latex suit with rubber nipples. Personally I didn't mind the rubber suits (Hated the nips though)and I know i'm a true Bat fan.
Thats all
__________________ There are worse things out tonight than vampires......................................................like me.
I only hope this will stop everyone trying to verbally suffocate each other, me included, by being a good film.
I agree, Parker needs to be funny. I'm sure I read somewhere that Sam Raimi will be upping the one-liner quota in this next movie.
Let's hope there's some more "Did your husband make it for you", and less "....................(staring into blank space)"
From the trailer it looks like Pete's on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster ride, which I'm all for.
I hope J.J. keeps printing libel about Spiderman and gets everyone to mistrust him. I'm sure everyone curled their toes when pretty much ALL OF NYC came to help Spiderman on the bridge. Spiderman is a "controversial" character to the NYC people, as Aunt May says "He's not Superman you know"
Also, I'd like to see more of Flash Thompson - I loved the whole deal with him bullying Parker, yet Spiderman was his hero, and he turned from a nasty bully, into an admirable character who would always say "Spidey is a hero don't believe the papers" and cool things like that.
I do have a serious issue with a rumor i heard about Spiderman 2.
OK, im assuming everyone heard that they are introducing Venom(which, until the movie comes out, is also just a rumor, but a very likely one), seems like an alright idea to me.
What is going to piss fans off most is that(ok, this is just a rumor) that Jameson's son will be bringing the suit from space, and that he will be Venom. webbing, Spidey's personallity, Goblin's costume, and the genetically enhanced spider are one thing, but destroying Venom's origin is another. I sincerely hope this rumor is false, and that they bring in Eddie Brock.
I totally agree with you. I doubt the rumor is true though. I do think that JJJ's son will most probably bring the symbiote from space. I liked the way they introduced Venom in the FOX Spider-Man cartoon series. I don't think they have much choice. They can't really explain it any other way, IMHO.
__________________ The Internet... not just for porn anymore.
They know they can get away with messing with the Goblin costume, and the webshooter thing - but I think even THEY will draw the line at having JJJ's son as Venom!
I couldn't help but laugh at such a "spoiler". Honestly, some people can be so gullable, and they start spreading this crap and when enough people start beleiving it, it's suddenly a fact!
No, I think this has been a case of chinese whispers on the net.
I think it was intended to come across that Venom's SYMBIOTE will latch itself onto JJJ first, then Peter. Nobody so far has said that Venom is a villain. Venom doesn't exist until the symbiote and Brock combine.
There's every chance this rumour has some truth to it. The Venom SYMBIOTE (Not Venom himself) could, and should, be in the next movie.
Even in the light of these rumours, there's still an even stronger rumour that it'll be The Lizard as THE VILLAIN - and the Venom symbiote (on Peter probably) and Eddie will be in it for the ride.
They are reportedly doing six Spiderman movies right? Why on Earth would they exhaust the three main characters in the first three films; Green Goblin, Dock Ock and Venom? What a waste. It's basic business sense if they leave fans WAITING for Venom. By merely having the symbiote and Eddie in the thrid film, you can ensure people will go to see the next, because everyone knows Venom will be in it.
Also, whos to say Venom's symbiote will come from space?
They deemed The Green Goblin to be too "freaky" and "out-there", so they changed him. They thought a radioactive spider was also "too far fetched" and changed that. WHY WOULD THEY GO AND PUT AN ALIEN IN THE MOVIES AFTER ALL THIS?
This is exactly the reason WHY you don't f*** with the original material. You dig the hole bigger and bigger while shooting yourself in the foot with a 12-Guage. They messed with the Goblin, they messed with Spiderman's origin, and now they are going to NEED to mess with Venom's origin, for fear of looking like a bunch of hypocrits.
"We thought the Goblin needed to be more realistic, but we thought a freakin' Alien that can morph like putty is realistic enough".
A guy dressing up in a freaky Goblin costume isn't as realistic as something that is essentially a 50's B-Movie "It came from outer Space" premise? They knew Venom would have to be one of the movie villains some day - so why did they try and "re-imagine" everything for the sake of "realism" - when the WHOLE IDEA of Venom is completely bonkers?
I wouldn't surprised if Venoms symbiote is just some bio weapon gone wrong. How many fans will THAT p*ss off?
If he's an alien, the fans will get even more angry over the fact they changed the Goblin and the radioactive Spider for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL! If he's an alien, then obviously they should allow ANYTHING!
Good work, Sony. One way or another, you're kinda screwed.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Jun 10th, 2004 at 02:04 PM
Jun 8th, 2004 12:36 AM
I don't like to grin and bare it but then again I don't like to pay taxes either 
Attachment: 
It's just that i'm a serious Batfan more than I am a Spider-Man one. When I saw your post about webshooter accuracy and such, I noticed that you looked a bit like the latex Batboys from the last 4 movies. I figured if you hated the idea of organic webshooters, you'd absolutely despise seeing Batman in a latex suit with rubber nipples. Personally I didn't mind the rubber suits (Hated the nips though)and I know i'm a true Bat fan.
webbing, Spidey's personallity, Goblin's costume, and the genetically enhanced spider are one thing, but destroying Venom's origin is another. I sincerely hope this rumor is false, and that they bring in Eddie Brock.
