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.
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.
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.
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....................
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!).
Last edited by Red Superfly on Jul 19th, 2004 at 04:05 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 18th, 2004 07:26 PM
