Herr Logan
Critical Bastard
I can say for sure that Spider-Man isn't even close to the worst comic book movie of all time. Mr Parker, have you seen the first Captain America movies, the first Punisher movie, and Superman 3? I personally thought Spider-Man is the best of all the recent comic book movies, but I'll also be the first to count off the many flaws in the film.
I would--and have-- go to see a Spider-Man film I thought would be terrible, if only just so I could complain in detail about how badly they fumbled the ball. I would see it, but not necessarily approve of it.
Spider-Man impressed me, because I went in with low expectations. Looking back, the mistakes they made really grate on my nerves.
The organic web-shooters were a terrible idea concocted by James Cameron, who wrote an atrociously inappropriate script for the movie. Thankfully, they didn't use it, but they kept the web mutation. I hated this, but in the movie I didn't mind it as much as I thought I would because they drew so little attention to it. The only advantage to having organic web shooters that I think was worth considering is the bulkiness of his costumed wrists. This way, no need to explain why his wrists are smooth as in the comics but there are supposed to be bracelet-gadgets there. I still would have preferred the real deal, but I found much more disturbing mistakes in the film.
I hate the fact that so many people saw Peter do Spidey-type things and also take off his mask, and then 3 months later, no one thinks to identify the new vigilante in town as the kid who was doing triple somersaults in public. This was inexcusable on the writers's part. Peter keeps his identity secret as much as possible, period.
Spider-Man should definitely have gotten more lines. Peter Parker's dialog was atrocious at times and he should have had much less personal disclosure than he did. Most importantly, Spider-Man is a smart-talking alter ego for the shy and unpopular Peter, and he should have shot his mouth off like a machine gun. Instead, he said almost nothing, and when he did speak, his jaw didn't move. Even the cartoon Spider-Man's jaw moved.
Norman Osborn was brilliantly acted. The Green Goblin was horribly costumed--although if they were going to use that awful suit, I respect that they had a valid reason for Osborn having access to it. The military connection was a realistic touch. Still, the costume was unforgivable. The Goblin is *supposed* to look fruity and ridiculous. That's why he's so scary when he actually does something really nasty to Spidey's life. You don't see it coming. The character of the Green Goblin was completely underdeveloped. So the Goblin took out Norman's opposition for him. Great. Now what? Why is he still active? What are his goals? I know he was insane, but the comics Goblin was, too, and he had goals. He was out to become the kingpin of New York by taking over all the gangs. They should have at least tried to mimic this in some form in the film.
Mary Jane's character was portrayed incompetently. Where's the bubbly, partying, vivacious MJ that Peter met? Oh, wait, let's make her the girl next door and have Peter pine over her since age six. How absolutely hackneyed and uninteresting. The dialog between those two was beyond sickening and a waste of screen time. I could have been laughing at battle-scene quips or Parker's comedic bad luck, instead of squirming at the cheesy drivel coming out of the talented but underused Tobey Maguire. And Spidey saves MJ 3 times? 4 if you count the lunch room scene? That's a predictable and novice way to write the story. It sounds like another thing stolen from Superman (the whole Lois Lane syndrome). The ending was too heavy-handed. Mary Jane would never say "I love you, Peter Parker" like that this early in her life. She's not that type of person. They could have made the point clear without making it so heartbreaking, but at least it is true to the spirit of Spider-Man: Parker broods at the end of the issue and feels sorry for himself.
And the ending CGI sequence was the best scene for me. If you pay attention to the way he web-swings throughout the movie, you'll see that's his evolution. He starts out clumsy and scared, gets better at it, and by the end, he is swinging exactly the way comics Spidey would. Such an awesome visual, I swear. Okay, back to bitching.
Mary Jane was used as the main love interest because Ultimate Spider-Man and the cartoon feature her as a recognizable love interest. I understand they felt the need to have her so prominently in the film to appeal to a broad audience that doesn't know Spidey chronology. I would look past this if there was a valid way to pull of having the Goblin as the villain and MJ as the love interest if the Goblin is supposed to die in the first film. There isn't.
The show a montage of people commenting on Spider-Man. Why isn't Flash Thompson here singing Spidey's praises? That's the best thing about Flash-- the big oaf loves Spidey and hates Peter. Flash was miscast and portrayed incorrectly. I didn't want him to have a big part, just one that had impact.
I'm too tired to think of more things to ***** about. Anyway, I thought Spider-Man was better than X-Men 2, which I liked. Keep in mind that while Parker's webbing shouldn't have been a physical mutation, Raimi didn't bring the same attention to this disgusting phenomenon that Cameron would have. I read the script/treatment he wrote. It's hideous. Count your blessings they let Sam Raimi do this thing instead.