One betrayal more in man spider 2, doc ock wont be myopic

Yeah that's what I've been trying to say. I like the different versions. It's as though nobody is even reading what we are typing.

The organic webbing never bothered me (I was only a bit down when I realised I wouldnt see web shooters because of it), only the Goblin costume made me slightly angry. It frustrated me because I like Willem Dafoe and thought his role was made even harder with that infernal suit, and it could have been so much more, that's the sad truth.

Certainly any frustration I had towards the movie pales in comparison to the frustration over swearing foul-mouthed people I encounter here because of simply posting an opinion.

So yeah, I HOPE, I REALLY DO HOPE that Spiderman 2 is going to be as freakin' awesome as the trailer makes it out to be.

The new Spider-Man looks so much better..action packed, and not so much lovey dovey bullshit..A fast paced action flick, the way Spider-Man should be. Even in the comics they never had that long sections on Mary Jane.

The new one looks WAY better then the first. I can't wait for it to come down, but I'm just hoping it's not a let down like the first one was after I watched it more then once..

And even though Doc Ock doesn't have the goggles, he looks pretty awesome with the sunglasses I think.

Max, if people like Spider-Man just for the movie then thats okay, they are still true fans of the whole thing. Come to think of it, who IS a true Spider-Man fan? if you were then wouldn't you have everything of Spider-Man you can find, have read all the comics and seen every episode? which one of you can honetly say you've done all those things? none of you can. If people just like it for the movie then thats fine. They're still fans of the whole Spider-Man thing. So everybody just chill or I will report this thread.

OK I thought we got back onto the discussion here - there's no need for the police any more 🙄

First of all, to freddy vs jason, dont act so childish like that, you are the one who should behaving like a man and not like a kid insulting someone for only posting a opinion about a movie. Second of all, as superfly have said very well, this is only a site to discuss about movies, not a war. But what i wanted to say, and i repeat, that this movie and the sequel are total betrayal for the character as the 70s tv series were. And for the trailer of man spider 2, i think that this movie will be as bad or even worse than the first man spider movie. Because i really suspect that once again, spidey wont say any wisecrack and wont be funny, he will just as in the first movie, and with those organics from hell again. Plus , mary jane is looking again as gwen stacey and not as mary jane, even she has blonde hair in the movie, that is just stupid. And there arent no sense for make mary jane more as gwen, because if you want mary jane , put mary jane, but if you want gwen, put gwen, but please raimi and sony, dont mix the two characters because that is just plain stupid and with non sense. If gwen would appear in one of the sequels, she will have mary jane's personality? please, give me a break. For not mention the way that they are ruining doctor octopus just as the ruined the green goblin in the first movie with the good scientist with evil tentacles and an evil chip as their reasons to be bad and being manipulated for harry osborn. Please, this man spider 2 will suck in the same way that the man spider 1 sucked.

This better cool down or it will be closed.

im pretty sure we r calm kes so u should just stop trying to threaten people about reporting this forum cus we rnt doing anything bad just a simple discussion and debate

Damn Big Brother. Always ruining our good time.

Alirght, the costume sucked yes, but I think it had some good points to it. I don't think they could have made a mask like in the comic. I don't think it would have worked, like how they changed Batman's and Wolverine's masks.
The mask had good aspects, I liked how the eyes slid up and how you could see his mouth under the screen. Also, the actual shape of the mask was mad from a mold of Willem Defoe's face. They took his face and warped it to make the Goblin.
One point I can agree with is the fact that making pumpkin bombs would not have been tough, not that he used the bombs much at all.

Actually Bakerboy I'm a girl. Also I'm not acting childish, I'm just aware that things are getting a little out of hand.

Originally posted by Cyclops
Seeing as in this is my last day on KMC, I will say only this and hope it is taken to heart by all those who read it. It rings true for more then just the Spider-Man movies.

Hating a comic book, or even just book, based movie because it does not hold 100% true to the original telling of said story is dumb. Look at the LOTR movies. Those who have read the books first noticed a lot of changes, but I still liked the movies. They cannot stay 100% true to the comics for Spider-Man, or the first movie would have been an 8-part movie.

I agree with you a little, there was some unnecessary changes made. I, for one, hated that Spider-Man had organic webbing. Web Cartrages was one of his weaknesses. Just look at the 1990's cartoon.

"Oh, no. Out of webbing! No captured bad guys?!"

And look at X-2... where was Collosus (sorry about spelling, I am typing a little quick.) accent? He isn't Russian anymore? But, it is the little details like the aforementioned that allow us to nit-pick, which can be fun.

However, speaking as a Spider-Man fan from birth, you cannot speak on behalf of everyone that is a Spider-Man fan, because I did like the first movie. I thought it was the best it could have been.

Also, if you disagree with me, I probably wont care because this is my last day at KMC, pending Vampiree lets me leave.

Amen to all of that! My point exactly!!!

I don't think they could have made a mask like in the comic. I don't think it would have worked, like how they changed Batman's and Wolverine's masks.

Ever seen The Mask with Jim Carrey? In that film everybody thought he was wearing a rubber mask (and not some crazy powerful magical thing). It worked for that film, it would have worked easily for the Green Goblin, especially since they cast Dafoe, who has characaturistic features anyway.

Batmans mask wasn't far removed, and it still served it's purpose. He still looked like Batman. Green Goblin didn't look like Green Goblin.

Wolverine regularly left his mask behind/took it off anyway. He didn't need to conceal his identity. People knew who Wolverine was before they even wanted to know who he was. Green Goblin needed to hide his identity.

Therefore, the changes in Batmans and Wolverines suits were EXPECTED, and that was why nobody cared. Nobody expected to the Green Goblin to change into an action figure, because everybody thought that the Goblin costume was feasable enough, given the context of Normans deranged psyche, to be easily converted into a something on-screen.

It was a total foul-up.

The mask idea from "The Mask" would only work on few people. I think one problem with doing that would be that while Defoe is an incredible actor, he might not have the ability to do the facial kind of thing like Jim Carrey.
Also, while they did change it, and it didn't look too hot, remember; he had on a kind of battle armor which was part of the project he was working on. That was just another one of those parts added for modern audiences. He needed the mask as part of his defenses.

Zephonim, no matter what you say, it's not a valid/good argument.

The goblin costume was horrible and no matter what you say will make anyone here change their minds that it sucked, and could've been better. And saying that doing the Green Goblin the way he should've been done couldn't be done is a huge lie, and could easily be done now-adays.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I agree with you guys; the costume sucked ass. I'm just trying to give possible reasons to justify why they did it how they did. Don't get me wrong, I wish they had done old school with the purple elf boots and the pumpkin bombs. I guess the reasons I'm giving are more to try to convince myself than anything else.
Even though the costume sucked, I think Willem's performance was good enough to make up for the fact that the costume was so aweful.

Even though the costume sucked, I think Willem's performance was good enough to make up for the fact that the costume was so aweful.

It sure did. I have to agree with that - but imagine how much BETTER it could have been had they just thought with something known as "common-sense".

The Goblin costume, the organic webbing and the Radioactive spider being replaced with a super-angry-biting-super-spider were all things I kinda ignored, like water off a ducks back, but with each time I watched the movie, I grew angrier and angrier as to why these things were done. The organic webbing I can live with the most (although a quick 30 second sequence during his designing of the costume would have been easy - too many people try to convince themselves it was a good idea), but the Goblin costume was a severely missed opportunity, and I seriously cannot imagine how much better the movie would have been, in both the fans eyes and the critics eyes, had the Goblin remained true to the source material.

I kow you're trying to rationalise the Goblin suit Zephonim, and I get your point, but the fact that it was Oscorps "weapon" is not valid or realistic in the slightest. The fact that he went to the bother of making a GOBLIN SHAPED HELMET means that he must have been capable of making a proper costume. Did Oscorp intend on having Goblin-headed soldiers flying around? No, they didn't. This is why the reason as to why the Goblin costume was "made more realistic" is a crack - because it was still unrealistic anyway. If it was unrealistic after the changes - then why not just use the unrealistic ORIGINAL costume?

Also, the radioactive spider thing is just as annoying. The reason why we don't see loads of Spidermen was because there was ONE (now very dead) radioactive spider. It was a million to one chance that it became radioactive, and just before it died it instinctively bit Peter. THAT would have made more sense than having one (of many) gene spiders bite him

The helmet was not made 'goblin shaped'. It waw just a set of goggles. Only after Osborn stole it did he shape it like the goblin helmet. Plus, the whole thing behind the weapon proget is why he changed himself into the Goblin.
You hit the nail on the head. The spider was the point in the movie that bothered me the most. If you read a previous post (that was more than likely shut down by the powers that be) I adrees that same thing.
Think about this though; the comic was written in a different time. Back in the 50's radiation was a big thing. Everyone was worried about THE BOMB and such. Stan Lee has said many times in various interviews that he makes up these things that don't exist. In the coic they are doing an exeriment that involves firing radioation in a room full of people. They would all be mutated, biten by a spider or not. I agree that how they did it sucked (he could have at least killed the spider) but I think they were going for something more realistic than how it happened in the comics.

Actually, we could say it was radioactive - it may have had radiation induced to the DNA to make it become the super-spider, who knows eh?

I just found it wierd that they took what was one of the most famous bits about Spiderman (everyone must know that he was bitten by a radioactive spider by now - everything from Dexters Lab to The Simpsons has made fun of it at one point or another) and changed it, for no good reason.

Every reason for changing it so far hasn't been good enough IMO.

The thing is, was that the Spider was a centerpiece for the experiment. They were testing on it, and had loads of them. They would have found out (and by the movies logic they could still) about it being able to grant its victim amazing spider powers eventually. In the comics there was no risk of that, because the spider died and the subject was closed, Peter, because of this, also had trouble removing his powers because it was such a "freak" occurence, and he got stuck with them.

In the movie, if he wants to remove his powers, he has plenty of research material to swipe due to them actually doing research and creating from scratch, these amazing spiders. The comic book was far more interesting because Peter had to try and unravel the mysteries of his superpowers himself, in order to understand them.
Plus, I just liked the whole idea of closure. I don't like the fact that Mary Jane could become Spider-Woman, or that a random-scientist could get bitten by the exact same spider. The spider is also portrayed as an aggressive SOB who just randomly bites people in the movie, whereas the comic book spider bit out of instinct from its fatal poisoning. This means, there's a good chance that those other fourteen spiders, along with the one that bit Peter and RAN AWAY (WTF?) would just randomly bite people, because they seem to do it for fun.
For the record, I, as a movie fan, would have no trouble understanding the fact that a radioactive spider (given special neogenic rays) would have the ability to pass on its powers before it died.

Originally posted by Freddy_vs_Jason
Max, if people like Spider-Man just for the movie then thats okay, they are still true fans of the whole thing. Come to think of it, who IS a true Spider-Man fan? if you were then wouldn't you have everything of Spider-Man you can find, have read all the comics and seen every episode? which one of you can honetly say you've done all those things? none of you can. If people just like it for the movie then thats fine. They're still fans of the whole Spider-Man thing. So everybody just chill or I will report this thread.

i'm not saying i like the movie, it was ok but its what made me like spider-man. oh and i do have all the spider-man comics, and toys i can get my hands on, thats way i think i am a true fan.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Actually, we could say it was radioactive - it may have had radiation induced to the DNA to make it become the super-spider, who knows eh?

I just found it wierd that they took what was one of the most famous bits about Spiderman (everyone must know that he was bitten by a radioactive spider by now - everything from Dexters Lab to The Simpsons has made fun of it at one point or another) and changed it, for no good reason.

Every reason for changing it so far hasn't been good enough IMO.

The thing is, was that the Spider was a centerpiece for the experiment. They were testing on it, and had loads of them. They would have found out (and by the movies logic they could still) about it being able to grant its victim amazing spider powers eventually. In the comics there was no risk of that, because the spider died and the subject was closed, Peter, because of this, also had trouble removing his powers because it was such a "freak" occurence, and he got stuck with them.

In the movie, if he wants to remove his powers, he has plenty of research material to swipe due to them actually doing research and creating from scratch, these amazing spiders. The comic book was far more interesting because Peter had to try and unravel the mysteries of his superpowers himself, in order to understand them.
Plus, I just liked the whole idea of closure. I don't like the fact that Mary Jane could become Spider-Woman, or that a random-scientist could get bitten by the exact same spider. The spider is also portrayed as an aggressive SOB who just randomly bites people in the movie, whereas the comic book spider bit out of instinct from its fatal poisoning. This means, there's a good chance that those other fourteen spiders, along with the one that bit Peter and RAN AWAY (WTF?) would just randomly bite people, because they seem to do it for fun.
For the record, I, as a movie fan, would have no trouble understanding the fact that a radioactive spider (given special neogenic rays) would have the ability to pass on its powers before it died.