spiderman,er manspider movie,a piece of crap film

Originally posted by Zephonim
His criticism isn't what I mind, it's that he never has anything to back up what he says, or any logice behind any of it.
Everytime Spider-Man has reappeared in any kind of pop culture the story and characters as well as other things change. Characters are changed to better fit whatever times they are in. They change to bring new people in and update fans love of the characters. If the comics stayed the same it would just get boring. They changed things in the movie, but no more than new comics changed when they first came out.

no I have backed up everything I have said many times before,you just choose to ignore it and let it go through one ear and out the other 🙄

Originally posted by kal-el
As in, Peter actually making his own webs like real spider as oppose to using web-shooters(coz he's so clever he can create a multi-chain protein polymer that scientists have been working on for years in real life but can never recreate.Oh and he's so clever he can make it a liquid that solidifies with contact from air.)Notice my sarcasm. They couldnt portray this to the world audience coz it only works in the comics.A teenager being that clever is less realistics than a teenager obtaining super-powers from a radio-active arachnid!

please dont give us this laughable logic that it only works in the comics,your not a film maker you dont know that.and also there are things in this movie that are a hell of a lot more unbeleievable than a kid creating a fluid,the film makers only used the organics and screwed up the goblin costume like they did because it was lazy film making,nothing more.they could EASLY have portrayed this to the world audience,its only a comicbook for crying out loud and there have been many many films made in the past like back to the future that are a hell of a lot more unbelieveable than a kid creating a fluid,so dont give me this they couldnt have portrayed it to a world audience stuff nonsense I am hearing because it just holds no water. 🙄

Originally posted by who?-kid
Very true.

An average film is about 120 minutes long. You simply can't satisfy all the wishes of the Spider-man fans in such a short time. Sacrifices have to be made. This guy wants more jokes, the other guy wants two different roles for Peter and Spidey, another one wants real webshooters instead of the organic ones. Then, off course, everybody has his idea of how the costume should look. And which bad guy should star in the movie. And so on, the list is endless...

I know Spider-man (I'm a fan) and I was quite happy with the film. Good acting, good costume of Spider-man, a bit of humour, great action scenes, fantastic webslinging and a story which was not too stupid ! And it featured lots of cameos from characters from the Spider-man world.

No, it could be worse. Much worse. Just look at the Hulk, or at The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or look at Batman and Robin. Or Daredevil. All examples of bad or mediocre comic-adaptations.

Daredevil was a hell of a lot better than this god awful man-spider movie was.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Mr. Parker,

I think you need to settle down a bit. Kal-el hit the nail on the head. The movie was meant for original Spider-Man fans and everyone else. The majority being everyone else. If I wasn't a fan of comics and an old fart, I would find it hard to believe a kid would be able to develop web-shooters and a web formula, in days for that matter. I could argue my point for ages, but I have better things to do. In the end, it's only a movie. I waited a decade for someone to make a Spider-Man movie... I'm not going to b!tch and moan about the final outcome.

P.S. I'm sure the next few sequels will show how incredibly smart Peter Parker really is.

your logic is as laughable as that last posters was.this movie was NOT meant for true loyal spider-man fans.it was made only for the sony producers, nobody else.that is so laughable logic to say that you would find it hard to believe that a kid could create a fluid yet you can accept many many of the other things in this movie that are far more unbelievable than that,such as norman developing a formula that gives him super strength, spiderbite tha gives him super strength,ability to climb on walls,ect,or nobody in this movie being able to put two and two togther despite the fact he demonstrated all his powers in front of everybody in the cafeteria and yet a spiderman guy shows up a couple months later swinging through the neighborhood,according to your logic,back to the future should never have been made either,thats a hell of a lot more unbelieveable than a kid creating a fluid. 🙄 or the batman movies never should have been made either,bruce wayne and alfred are the ones who construct the batcave and nobody knows about it? whatever,please you are crippling your argument here that its not believeable that a teenage kid could create a fluid but all that other stuff is believeable,that is absurd logic that holds no water at all. 🙄

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well said, mr Parker and well said gambit too. That stupid movie is only a betrayal to the comics and a total ashamed for the real spider man fans. That movie is only for the man spider fans, who would acept any kind of movie with only see a guy in a spider man costume. And as some man spider fans have said and is totally false, if peter would create organics webs for the bite of the spider, it would be FROM HIS BUTT, NOT FROM HIS WRISTS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE SPIDERS MAKE ITS WEB. And the part of the hair in the hands is totally stupid too because he uses gloves and boths. A least , people like gambit is a real spider man fan and could distinguish spider man from man spider understand that that movie and the sequel are total betrayal to the spirit of the comics and wont never be acepted by the true spider man fans.

Thank you Bakerboy.Good point.you want to talk about it being unbelievable that a kid could create a fluid and organics are better? give me a break. For every argument you have against mechanics, I have just as many if not more against organics because like bakerboy said,the webbing if he got the power to shoot it organically,the webbing would shoot out of his ass,there is just no logical reason for the webbing to be shooting out of his wrists,none at all!!!!! I mean to shoot that far great distances requiring so much pressure,the pressure would damage his blood vessels and veins he has in his wrists,thats just not plausible.also spiders dont SHOOT webbing,so there is no logical justification for him to be shooting webbing in the first place!!!!!!!! 🙄 again NONE AT ALL!!!!! 🙄

Also well made points by you Gambit,well said,that was manspider we saw just like you said.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Daredevil was a hell of a lot better than this god awful man-spider movie was.

That's your opinion, and I respect that. But Devildare, according to me, sucked.

Ben Affleck was a very average Devildare, Jennifer Garner sucked big time as Elektra and Kingpin (Duncan) didn't scare or impress me one bit. The only cool and successful character was Bullseye.

And I know you probably won't agree with me, but Spider-Man was definitely more faithful to the comics than Devildare was. And was better acted. And had great special effects (the webslinging looked tremendous!). It had more humor (a bit) than Devildare, and some of the action scenes were awesome. (The only thing I hated was the mask of you know who, but that topic has already been taken care off.)

O yeah, Spider-Man had better reviews and made more money than Devildare. These last two of course don't mean squat if you don't like the movie, but they count at least for something, I think.

Originally posted by who?-kid
That's your opinion, and I respect that. But Devildare, according to me, sucked.

Ben Affleck was a very average Devildare, Jennifer Garner sucked big time as Elektra and Kingpin (Duncan) didn't scare or impress me one bit. The only cool and successful character was Bullseye.

And I know you probably won't agree with me, but Spider-Man was definitely more faithful to the comics than Devildare was. And was better acted. And had great special effects (the webslinging looked tremendous!). It had more humor (a bit) than Devildare, and some of the action scenes were awesome. (The only thing I hated was the mask of you know who, but that topic has already been taken care off.)

O yeah, Spider-Man had better reviews and made more money than Devildare. These last two of course don't mean squat if you don't like the movie, but they count at least for something, I think.

As long as you say daredevil is better than manspider is my opinion I have no problem with that but at the same time as long as you say manspider is better than daredevil is your opinion- which you werent saying in your post,I got no problem with that either. more faithful? thats a laugh.Black Kingpin=reasonable change, organics=moronic change.more humor? yeah whatever,there was hardly anything funny in this movie except maybe that -go webs go scene which seems like that was proably the only reason they gave him organics because of some idea someone came up who knew that would be funny,yet if you are going for laughs,they could just have easily have substituted him accidently squirting the fluid in his face while testing it. 🙄 Hmm I found Garner amazing as Elecktra. you have actually made some good reasonable points here.Yes I agree the special effects were awesome, especially the oscorp building,put it takes a hell of a lot more than special effects to impress me to like a movie.The Phantom Menace had some cool special effects but that also was a horrible movie because it ALSO had a horrible story.The acting I agree was very good for the most part,the only real weak link was James Franco as Harry Osborn,Please that old laughable logic that it made so much money makes it a great movie is such a weak argument.It only made so much money because of what an extremely popular character he is,spidey is a lot more well known then daredevil is,everybody knows who spidey is,not so with daredevil and sorry,manspider had just as many bad reviews by just as many people as daredevil did.

Yes, after thinking about it, I too prefer Spiderman to Daredevil.

I liked the dark direction in Daredevil, but they kinda played up on Daredevils weakness too much. He seemed to be concentrating too hard on trying to "see", and there is no way he'd get put off by noises every time. He could see better than we could, without the need for rain. In the comics he had better senses than even Spiderman. I hated how the only way he could beat Kingpin was to make it rain. Daredevil was shown to be blind, when in the comics he was given even better "sight" because of his accident.

Did anyone ever see the 90's Spiderman cartoon which had Daredevil in a two part episode? That Daredevil was a good representation. He was portrayed as an equal to Spiderman, and he, quite rightly, is.

True, I forgot a second mistake in the Spider-Man movie (next to the mask of the Green Goblin): the acting of the guy that plays Harry Osborn. That wasn't too great, if you ask me.

Otherwise, good movie.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 🙄 Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 🙄

Shut the f*ck up already! Your little rant is getting way too old. You have made only one good point... true Spider-Man fans should be upset that they didn't stick to the original story. You, on the other hand, are taking it a little too seriously. I don't think you're a true fan, but more of a Spider-Man nut-job. Get over it!

Common, "blah, blah, blah" is a pefectly good argument to defend his opinion. It's clear that he knows just what he is talking about and has plenty of goods point to make that do nothing but support his point of view.

Another thing: what is the big deal about the webshooters being organic ?

Does that change the story ?
No. Not one bit.
The characters ?
No.
Bad guys maybe ?
Nope.
Does that change Peter Parker ?
No !!
Does that change Spider-Mans powers in a special way ?
Absolutely not.
Does it change the mood of the film ?
Lol, of course not.
Will it make a difference in future Spider-Man films ?
Certainly not.

Was it needed to change the webshooters ?
Yes, it made more sense and it shortened the film with let's say 15 minutes. Peter Parker was bitten by a radio-active spider, and his body was changed and mutated and given "spiderlike" abilities. One of the things that spiders do, is making webs, and so does Spider-Man ! Makes sense to me.

So, what's the big deal then ?

Even though that is a good point, I'd have to agree with the "Man-Spider" people on the webshooters. They were not a necessary change, and they could have been easily done.

Think about it, that bit where he was trying to use his organics on that roof, would have probably have taken as long as explaining the webshooters. A quick montage of him building the webshooters, and bam, done in less than a minute.

This is why so many people were angry with the film, because they (quite rightly) percieved a few of the "big" changes as totally unwarranted.

Back to the webshooters - Peter needn't have built them either. Uncle Ben could have been working on coagulating fluid and devised a pressurised container for it. This could have been at the beginning of the movie.

I think it's totally fair for people to hate on the film. Most people that went to see the movie, had watched the 90's cartoon (many of my casual Spidey who-only-watched-the-loyal-cartoon-friends were a little baffled by what the movie did), or read the comics at some point. The idea of Green Goblin wearing a flight suit, Spiderman having organic webbing, the lack of the famous radioactive spider are all reasons why people were put off.

I enjoyed the movie, but I know for a fact that that crazy budget could have been put to better use.

Also, to make things a little less aggravating, I kinda see the Spiderman movie as an alternate "universe" to the comics. Like how when Spiderman teamed up with five other versions of himself. Add the movie Spiderman to the list of the "alter" Spideys.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Even though that is a good point, I'd have to agree with the "Man-Spider" people on the webshooters. They were not a necessary change, and they could have been easily done.

Think about it, that bit where he was trying to use his organics on that roof, would have probably have taken as long as explaining the webshooters. A quick montage of him building the webshooters, and bam, done in less than a minute.

This is why so many people were angry with the film, because they (quite rightly) percieved a few of the "big" changes as totally unwarranted.

Back to the webshooters - Peter needn't have built them either. Uncle Ben could have been working on coagulating fluid and devised a pressurised container for it. This could have been at the beginning of the movie.

I think it's totally fair for people to hate on the film. Most people that went to see the movie, had watched the 90's cartoon (many of my casual Spidey who-only-watched-the-loyal-cartoon-friends were a little baffled by what the movie did), or read the comics at some point. The idea of Green Goblin wearing a flight suit, Spiderman having organic webbing, the lack of the famous radioactive spider are all reasons why people were put off.

I enjoyed the movie, but I know for a fact that that crazy budget could have been put to better use.

Also, to make things a little less aggravating, I kinda see the Spiderman movie as an alternate "universe" to the comics. Like how when Spiderman teamed up with five other versions of himself. Add the movie Spiderman to the list of the "alter" Spideys.

Good points Red Superfly. 👆 Thats what I have tried to explain to people for the past 3 years that the organics were NOT a necessary change and could easily have done with a two minute montage sequence.I also had the idea of him working on the fluid as part of a science project for his class and the fact he was already working on developing something like that,it would not take that much screentime to work in the mechs. This movie will do nothing but confuse the younger generation as they get older,it already is.I have run into many kids who said -DIDNT HE LIKE CREATE THE WEB FLUID THOUGH? I THOUGHT I REMEMBER IN THE CARTOONS THAT HE CREATED THE WEB FLUID,HOW COME WE NEVER SAW HIM DO THAT? the cartoon was a hell of a lot better of an adaptation to the comics much more so than this movie was.Ill take watching the cartoon-even though it had some flaws to,over that horrible movie any day of the year.

You have all good points, but I still believe that the organic webshooters are actually a good change since they haven't got the slightest effect on the story. See also my previous message.

For those who want to know my opinion (if there are such people hahaha) I never liked the idea of the original webshooters in the first place. I didn't hate them, I just learned to live with them. Don't forget the comics are about 40 years old, that's two generations, and I'm pretty sure (though I can never prove it) that if they invented Spider-Man these days, they would have done it without the mechanical webshooters.

Organic webshooters just make more sense. What is the most important feature of a spider ? Well, it makes webs ! Think of a creepy spider, and you think of a creepy web. Spider-Man has all the abilities of a spider - except sucking blood 😛 - but one of the most important things, his web, he had to create with some chemistry kit or whatever ???

No no no, he's a mutated man with "spiderlike" abilities, and producing in a natural way some kind of web should be one of these abilities.

That's all folks.

and I'm pretty sure (though I can never prove it) that if they invented Spider-Man these days, they would have done it without the mechanical webshooters

That's only because people who invent comic book characters these days have no imagination. They WOULD give Spiderman organic webbing because they are incredibly low on imagination, and would rather "power-up" their character and pump it full of super-powers.

Stan Lee, was a genius. A man bitten by a Spider - and DIDN'T get the ability to shoot webs? He did it by other means? He used his scientific brilliance to show the reader how clever he was? A Spiderman who can swing on his web way above the people of New York? It's crazy - but Stan Lee made it work, made it believable, made the character 100% concrete, made him perfect.

You cannot improve upon perfection.

Like I said, "alternate universe"............

Looks like you really thought about it, and though I'm still not convinced, it's nice to discuss something on a civilized way instead of insulting each other and using stupid arguments. It's a big difference compared to most of the other threads.

Mind you, I still favour the organic webshooters 😛.

Oh sure, I understand why they were used, the organics, it makes sense in this day and age, but give me a choice between webshooters and organics - i'd take webshooters every time, there's so much more you can do with them, in terms of abilities and story/drama.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Oh sure, I understand why they were used, the organics, it makes sense in this day and age, but give me a choice between webshooters and organics - i'd take webshooters every time, there's so much more you can do with them, in terms of abilities and story/drama.

I suppose you're right about that. Pete's webshooters would always get clogged or he's run out of fluid. That got old with me like the Superman/Kryptonite deal so I didn't mind the organics in the movie.

I haven't seen many comic book to movie adaptations that are dead on anyway. Remember that these movies are merely "based on" meaning there is room for some changes. It's easy to critique movies and say how they could have been better. I don't remember Batman having a big heavy rubber suit in the comics but I dealt with it.

Spidey gets 3 stars(out of 4) from me and I can't wait to see Spider-Man2

A WHAT? U MUST DIEEE!!!!!!!
although i agree with u in the clues but.....guy its a movie it had to have a wilde range to get profits from it so some mistake or flaws in script are aceptable...like the spider running (and problably bite anyone into spidermans ) i dont know if its still online but the scene cuted showed the jap doctor steping on it.and saying " i found it" hopefully they cuted it was a very silly thing unecessary......i have to agree with might morphing green goblin i like the costume (aceptible) but the mouth should at least move man............but im hoping harry will go nutter and wear the more acurate one.................. there´s also a big mistake in the move .after goblin attack parker saves a couple from a rock falling , well go back on tape or dvd whatever ......
1) first scene the couple were running away
2) second scene they are static standing looking up when pp trow his web
obs. this scene only the second one would be on final but the editors mistake it somehow (and so far i havent seen no one comment it) like forrest used to say "SH!T HAPPENS"