Batman-Online.com

Back in 2017 we had a comic-to-screen analysis of Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man (2002) movie to coincide with the film's 15th anniversary, as well as the release of Spider-Man: Homecoming: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3590.0

Summer 2019 marks the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home and also happens to be the 15th anniversary of Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (2004), so now seems like as good a time as any to go back and take a look at that movie and the comics that might have influenced it.

As with the previous Raimi Spider-Man film, much of the inspiration came from the original Silver Age stories of the sixties and the Ultimate Spider-Man line that was popular at the time of the movie's production. Raimi specifically cited 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12, May 1964) and the 'Spider-Man No More!' storyline from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #50 (July 1967) as major influences:

Quote"I was thinking about a great issue of Stan Lee's Spider-Man comic book where he gets the flu. And he, for a time, is really weak. It was so human to me, I thought it was great. [...] I thought that was a unique thing that happened in Stan Lee's comics. But also there was another issue of Stan Lee's comics that I loved where he decided to throw the suit away. It was issue number 50, perhaps, his life problems had just become too great, so I think what happened was there was a synthesis of those two ideas, along with other elements I was interested in telling in this story. That's where the genesis of the loss of powers came from."

https://www.superherohype.com/features/86019-interview-director-sam-raimi-on-spider-man-2

My Spider-Man 2 DVD set includes a reprint of 'Spider-Man No More!' This tie-in comic also contains cover art for several other stories that might have influenced the movie. I'll highlight some of these issues later in this analysis.

The movie's portrayal of Doctor Octopus is also indebted to the character's debut storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14-21 (December 2001-June 2002).

Many viewers have pointed out similarities between Spider-Man 2 and the Richard Donner/Richard Lester movie Superman II (1980), but Raimi himself – while acknowledging his love of that film – has downplayed its influence:

Quote"I would say, though, that I was influenced by the Stan Lee comic books. All the ideas came out of those Stan Lee comic books, and the artists that drew them, from Romita to Steve Ditko. That's where all the ideas for the Spider-Man films came from. As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material."

https://www.cbr.com/guest-spot-rohan-williams-interviews-sam-raimi-and-rob-tapert-part-1/

The film begins with one of the best opening title sequences of any superhero movie. Comic artist Alex Ross provided the paintings that recap the events of the previous film, similar to how the opening titles of Richard Lester's Superman II recapped the events of Superman: The Movie (1978).

The first time we see Peter Parker he is riding a moped similar to the scooter he rode in the Silver Age comics. The following panel is from 'The Tentacles and the Trap!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #54, November 1967).


Early in the film Peter tries selling some pictures to J. Jonah Jameson, only for the editor to dismiss all of his photographs that aren't directly related to Spider-Man. Jameson has shown similar contempt towards Peter's work in the comics, as seen in this panel from 'Man on a Rampage!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #32, January 1966).


Peter is fired by Jameson, then immediately rehired when the editor discovers he has fresh photos of Spider-Man. This exchange was likely inspired by a similar scene from 'In the Clutches of the Kingpin!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #51, August 1967), which was the issue that followed immediately after 'Spider-Man No More!'


One of Peter's teachers at university is Doctor Curt Connors, played by Dylan Baker. Connors was mentioned in the previous movie, but this marks the first time he appears on screen. He debuted in the comics in 'Face-to-Face with... the Lizard!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #6, November 1963). As in the comics, the movie version is shown to have only one arm.


Peter's character arc in the film sees him struggling to balance the different aspects of his life. His crime fighting activities are thriving at the expense of his social, work and academic responsibilities. This reflects the storyline of 'Spider-Man No More!'

Connors informs Peter that his grades are suffering as a result of his tardiness. His teacher told him the same thing in 'Spider-Man No More!'


Peter's social life is also in trouble. Harry Osborn believes Spider-Man murdered his father, and this creates a widening rift between him and Peter, just as it did in the comics. The following scene is from 'The Dark Wings of Death!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #127, December 1973).


Peter also learns that Aunt May is struggling financially in the wake of Uncle Ben's death, and this too happened in the comics. The following panel is from 'Spider-Man' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1, March 1963).


To make matters worse, Peter discovers he is losing his powers. This has happened to him numerous times over the years. The earliest example was in the 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' story that Raimi cited as an influence on the film. In that issue, Peter was suffering from an illness that sapped him of his strength and made it harder for him to cling to walls. The untimely onset of these symptoms coincided with the return of Doc Ock, just as his loss of power does in the movie. More on this story later.

Peter's landlord, Mr. Ditkovitch, was named in honour of Spider-Man's co-creator Steve Ditko.

The main villain in the movie is Otto Octavius, aka Doctor Octopus, who debuted in the comics back in 'Spider-Man Versus Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3, July 1963). English actor Alfred Molina plays him in the film. His costume in the movie, consisting of sunglasses and a brown trench coat, reflects one of the outfits he wore in the Ultimate Spider-Man series.


In the original Earth-616 timeline Peter didn't first encounter Octavius until after the latter had already become Doctor Octopus. However in the Ultimate Spider-Man timeline they had already met prior to Otto becoming a villain, which is also what happens in the movie. In both stories Peter is introduced to Otto by Harry Osborn. The following panel is from 'Growing Pains' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, December 2000)


In Marvel Year by Year: A Visual Chronicle, Marvel editor Tom DeFalco wrote:

Quote"Dr. Octopus shared many traits with Peter Parker. They were both shy, both interested in science, and both had trouble relating to women... Otto Octavius even looked like a grown up Peter Parker. Lee and Ditko intended Otto to be the man Peter might have become if he hadn't been raised with a sense of responsibility."

The movie versions of Peter and Otto strike up a rapport that reflects Lee and Ditko's original concept for the character of Doc Ock. At the end of the film, it is their ability to relate to one another that allows Peter to reason with Octavius by appealing to his sense of intellectual responsibility.

The cinematic version of Otto has a wife named Rosie, played by Donna Murphy, whose tragic death is a major factor in his turn towards criminality. Rosie was created for the film, though she is somewhat similar to another character named Mary Alice Anders who first appeared in 'An Obituary for an Octopus' (Spider-Man Unlimited Vol 1 #3, November 1993). Mary was a scientist who became romantically involved with Otto before he became Doc Ock. Otto's mother sabotaged the relationship, which left her son deeply embittered and helped set him on the path to villainy.


The extended cut of the movie features a scene where Peter sketches an image of his own face with half of it covered by the Spider-Man mask. This image has been used countless times in the comics, often to indicate Peter's spidey sense, as seen in this example from 'The Uncanny Threat of the Terrible Tinkerer!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, May 1963).


The scene where Mary Jane refuses to pick up the phone when Peter calls, and he imagines telling her that he's Spider-Man, is similar to a scene from 'The Sinister Secret of Spider-Man's New Costume!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #258, November 1984). This issue was part of the 'Alien Costume Saga', which Raimi went on to adapt in Spider-Man 3.


In the movie Octavius creates his mechanical arms to aid in his experiments, just like he did in the comics.


This isn't a comic reference, but one of the Oscorp executives at Octavius's demonstration is played by Peter McRobbie, who would later portray Father Paul Lantom in the Daredevil TV show on Netflix.


Something goes wrong during one of Otto's experiments and he is badly wounded.


In the movie the accident occurrs during an experiment funded by Oscorp, which reflects Doc Ock's origin story in the Ultimate Spider-Man canon. Only in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics he was fused to his arms during the same lab explosion that turned Norman Osborn into the Green Goblin, while in the film the accident occurs during an unrelated experiment. But Oscorp is involved in the accident in both versions of the story.

The scene where Otto awakens in hospital and massacres the surrounding medical staff is taken from 'Doctor Octopus' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14, December 2001). In both stories he wakes to find himself lying in a hospital bed with his eyes bandaged, initially unaware that he has been fused to his metal arms.


In the comic he had been in a coma for several months before awakening, while in the movie he wakes not long after being admitted. In both stories his metal arms slaughter the surrounding medical personnel with ruthless efficiency.


The image of Otto roaming the city barefoot and shirtless is evocative of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics.


After leaving the hospital he steps into a road and is almost hit by a car. Fortunately his new arms grant him the strength to lift the vehicle into the air. The following panel is from 'Live' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #20, June 2002).


Octavius makes his way to the waterfront where he establishes his new hideout in a dilapidated warehouse. Doc Ock has had several similar hideouts in the comics, including the following example from 'Enter: Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #53, October 1967). The cover of this issue is included in the Spider-Man 2 DVD comic, making it likely it was a deliberate reference.


Following Octavius's escape, Hoffman and Jameson discuss what they should call him. Before settling on the name 'Doctor Octopus', Hoffman suggests 'Doctor Strange'. Obviously this is a nod to Marvel's Doctor Stephen Strange, who first appeared in 'Doctor Strange Master of Black Magic!' (Strange Tales Vol 1 #110, July 1963). Like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange was created by the team of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.

Jameson then instructs Peter to cover a party being held at a planetarium. Peter asks if he can be paid in advance, but Jameson bluntly refuses. The same thing happened when Peter asked Jameson for an advance in 'Nothing Can Stop... the Sandman!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #4, September 1963), which is a story Raimi referenced heavily in Spider-Man 3 (2007).

Peter has his first proper battle against Doctor Octopus while he is accompanying Aunt May to the bank. The first time they fight, Octavius incapacitates Spider-Man by grabbing his arms with his tentacles. Doc Ock also restrained Peter in this way during their very first fight in the comics, back in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.


Here's another example of Doctor Octopus restraining Spider-Man in a similar manner, this time from 'The Cycle' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #18, April 2002).


Throughout their cinematic battles, Doc Ock is repeatedly shown to endanger the lives of civilians as a way of distracting Spider-Man. He does this almost every time they fight in the comics too.

Doc Ock carries off Aunt May as a hostage. Otto and May have a complicated history in the comics and Doc Ock even tried to marry her in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #130-131 (March-April 1974), but only so he could bump her off and claim ownership of a uranium mine she'd inherited.


Spider-Man and Doc Ock proceed to fight on the side of a building, as they've done many times in the comics. The following scene is from 'The Final Battle' (Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man Vol 1 #79, June 1983), which contains arguably one of the best ever showdowns between Spidey and Doc Ock. I believe this issue also influenced the train fight later in the movie, but I'll get to that later.


Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee makes a cameo during this scene.


Later Peter has to cover the party at the planetarium. There his spirits hit a new low when he learns that Mary Jane has become engaged to John Jameson. John, played in the film by Daniel Gillies, is an astronaut and the son of J. Jonah Jameson. He first appeared in the comics in the aforementioned Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1. As far as I'm aware he was never romantically linked to Mary Jane in the comics, but I'm open to correction on that point. Instead the comic book version of John Jameson became engaged to a woman named Kristine Saunders, and this occurred around the same time that Harry Osborn was seeking revenge against Spider-Man for his father's death. The following scene is from 'The Mark of the Man-Wolf' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #124, September 1973).


Peter's relationship with Harry deteriorates during the party.


Harry appears to develop a drinking problem over the course of the film, while in the comics he developed a drug problem.

Following the party, Peter finds his powers have weakened even further and he can no longer cling to walls as well as he used to. The following panel is from 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!'


He also grows increasingly frustrated with Jameson's campaign to turn the people of the city against him. The following panel is from 'Spider-Man No More!'


Peter directly references the name of this story during his vision of Uncle Ben:

Quote"No, Uncle Ben. I'm just Peter Parker. I'm Spider-Man no more."

Following this vision, he decides to give up being Spider-Man and discards his costume in a rubbish bin. The image of his costume hanging out of the bin as Peter walks away in the background is a direct panel recreation from 'Spider-Man No More!'


Soon after, the costume is found and brought to Jameson's office at The Daily Bugle. In the movie it's brought in by a rubbish collector, while in the comic it's found by a small boy. Betty Brant is present for this scene in both versions of the story.


Jameson is delighted to have won his war against Spider-Man.


We then see newspapers announcing Spider-Man's retirement. In the movie these bear the headline 'SPIDER-MAN NO MORE'.


Jameson displays the costume on his office wall as a trophy.


Elsewhere Peter is enjoying his newfound freedom from responsibility. The plotline about Spider-Man retiring from his crime fighting career to enjoy a normal life, and in particular so he can be with the woman he loves, is strongly reminiscent of Superman II.

At one point he hears someone crying for help as they are being attacked by a pair of criminals. In the comic Peter helps the victim, but in the film he walks away and leaves him to his fate.


Although Peter doesn't help this victim in the movie, he does later save a child from a burning building. In both stories his sense of responsibility compels him to continue helping people, even though he is officially retired.

As a result of Spidey's retirement, the crime rate in New York skyrockets.


The following comparison is with a panel from 'Turning Point' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #11, April 1964).


One of the images of Spider-Man that Harry is looking at when Doc Ock visits his penthouse is a recreation of the cover art for Amazing Fantasy Vol 1 #15 (August 1962). Painted by Alex Ross, this image featured as the cover of Hero Illustrated #6 (December 1993) and was included in the Marvels (1994) trade paperback.


Peter's coffee date with Mary Jane is similar to a scene from 'The House of Luthor', the first season finale of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-97). In both stories the hero (Clark/Peter) had previously professed his love towards the female lead (Lois/Mary Jane) in an attempt to dissuade her from marrying someone else (Lex/John). The leading lady initially rejects him, breaking his heart, but later comes to realise that he is the man she really wants to be with. She then tries telling the hero this, but he interrupts her before she gets the chance and lies to her, saying that he doesn't really love her when in reality he does. Obviously this isn't a comic reference, but the scenes were so similar I thought it was worth mentioning.

The scene where Doc Ock kidnaps Mary Jane was inspired by the aforementioned 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' storyline from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12. In that issue Octavius kidnapped Betty Brant while Peter looked on helplessly. Note that this issue predated M.J.'s debut in the comics, and Betty was Peter's love interest at the time.


Peter cannot defend Betty without revealing that he is Spider-Man, and so has to feign helplessness.


Doc Ock tells Peter to get a message to Spider-Man, challenging him to meet him in combat if he wants to save Betty/Mary Jane.


By this point Peter has decided to resume his life as Spider-Man and so goes to Jameson's office to steal back his costume. He did the same thing in 'Spider-Man No More!'


Jameson is dismayed to learn of the web slinger's return.


Spider-Man then races to rescue Mary Jane from Doc Ock, just like he raced to rescue Betty in 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' The shot of Spider-Man reflected in Doc Ock's glasses as he swings towards their second battle is likely a reference to the cover of 'Doc Ock Wins!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #55, December 1967), which was one of the covers reprinted in the Spider-Man 2 DVD comic.


The DVD tie-in comic also includes the cover of 'The Commuter Cometh!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #267, August 1985), which might have been a visual influence on the train fight.


The following panel is from 'The Molten Man Breaks Out!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #133, June 1974). The cover of this story depicts Spider-Man fighting Molten Man atop a speeding train (which doesn't actually happen in the story), similar to the Doc Ock fight in the movie.


The inspiration for the train fight was likely the aforementioned Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man #79, which features a scene where Spider-Man and Doc Ock fight on a railway track. The moment in the extended cut of the film where Doc Ock holds Spider-Man in front of an oncoming train is adapted directly from this story.


The train fight also has parallels with the previously mentioned sequence in 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' where Spider-Man goes to save Betty from Octavius. In both stories, their fight ends with Spider-Man losing to Octavius and being unmasked. Raimi confirmed this issue was a major influence on the film, so these similarities are almost certainly deliberate.


Octavius delivers the unconscious Spider-Man to Harry, who finally learns that Peter is the man he blames for his father's death. Harry discovered Peter was Spider-Man in the comics in 'Danger is a Man Named... Tarantula' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #134, July 1974) after he saw him stocking up on web fluid in their apartment.


The movie's finale sees Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock in a warehouse on the Manhattan waterfront where Octavius has constructed a new fusion device. There's a somewhat similar scene in the Ultimate Spider-Man series where the two of them fight in a nuclear power plant on the Manhattan waterfront.

Spider-Man is able to subdue Octavius using his fists, as he did at the end of Doc Ock's debut story in Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.


Doc Ock is ultimately defeated when one of his tentacles penetrates a power cable linked to the machinery in his hideout. The same thing happened when Doc Ock fought Daredevil in Frank Miller's 'Arms of the Octopus' (Daredevil Vol 1 #165, July 1980).


Spider-Man cuts off the power supply before Octavius is fried, just as Daredevil did in the comics.

The last time we see Doc Ock in the movie he is sinking along with his fusion device. This recalls the ending of 'And Men Shall Call Him... Octopus!' (Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man Annual Vol 1 #1, December 1979), where Octavius is last seen being dragged down to a watery grave after one of his tentacles gets trapped in the hatch of a sinking submarine. Coincidentally, this was Doc Ock's last appearance prior to Daredevil Vol 1 #165, and Miller's comic includes a flashback to the scene of Octavius drowning.


The final shot of Doc Ock sinking also recalls the image of the explosion that first fused Octavius to his arms in the comics. The panel below is from a retelling of that scene in Spider-Man Unlimited Vol 1 #3.


It's during the showdown that Mary Jane finally realises Peter is Spider-Man. In the comics she figured this out on her own, as revealed in 'Beware the Claws of Puma!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #257, October 1984).


Elsewhere Harry discovers his father's secret base hidden in their penthouse and realises that Norman was the Green Goblin all along. In the comics Harry learned of his father's double life on the night he died. He found Norman's secret hideout in 'Shoot-Out in Central Park!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #135, August 1974) and decided to adopt the mantle of the Green Goblin so he could avenge his father. He embarks on the same quest for vengeance in the movie.


This comic ended on a cliffhanger with Harry about to don his Green Goblin costume in the following issue. The film ends on a similar cliffhanger, and fans would have to wait until Spider-Man 3 to see Harry become the Green Goblin.

The movie ends with Peter and Mary Jane finally getting together. M.J. references her pet name for Peter in the comics when she says, "Go get 'em, tiger."

And that's all I've got for Spider-Man 2. Is there anything I've missed?

Excellent work, SN! As always, you have a keen eye on the comics detail.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xL32sNUfjqgqpa/giphy.gif)

Sam Raimi's clear affection for the Lee/Ditko/Romita era is well documented, and it's a safe bet the films influences were not purely coincidental.

For me, in terms of Spider-Man movies, Spider-Man 2 remains the GOAT.

Given the more recent cinematic incarnations, it's not even close.

I would absolutely love for this film to get a theatrical re-release. Or even a Trilogy screening. I attended one for Nolan's trilogy in 2012, and would gladly do the same for Raimi's Spider-Man.

Agreed on all counts, Joker. I'm glad I'm not the only person who rates Raimi's movies above the newer ones. I've been re-watching all the Spider-Man films in the run-up to Far From Home's release, and SM2 is definitely still the best. For me, it's tied with Superman: The Movie as the greatest superhero film ever made, as well as the most charming. The whole trilogy is awesome, and even Spider-Man 3 is much better than people give it credit for. Granted, it does fall apart during the final act. But the first two thirds of the film are mostly on a par with Spider-Man 1. It also contains some of the funniest moments in the entire series.


But Spider-Man 2 – that's damn near perfect. The fusion of humour and drama is beautifully balanced, the action scenes are thrilling (the train fight has yet to be surpassed), the score is memorable (even though Elfman did rip off Claude Debussy's 'Clair de lune' and Christopher Young's Hellraiser theme), the performances are heartfelt, and the cinematography, editing and direction are all top notch. Almost every shot in the film looks like an Alex Ross painting, and the subtext about responsibility superseding personal ambition really gets to the heart of what the Peter Parker character is all about. Hopefully this thread has also illustrated just how faithful the film is to the source material.

This music video alone gets a stronger emotional reaction out of me than the entirety of Spider-Man: Homecoming, and that's a testament to the 2004 film's enduring power:


As for the more recent movies – I finally picked up the DVD of Into the Spider-Verse and watched it the other night. I thought it was good, and a lot better than Homecoming, but I didn't have the strong emotional reaction to it that most people seem to have had. The praise it's received isn't quite as hyperbolic as the adoration heaped upon Black Panther, but it's not that far off. However I did enjoy it and it made me laugh in a few places. It's probably the best Spider-Man film outside of the Raimi trilogy.

I also watched Homecoming on DVD last night. It's the first time I've watched it since seeing it on the big screen in 2017, and my opinion is the same now as it was then. It's a 6.5/10 at best. Objectively it probably is a better film than Webb's two, but Webb's take, while inferior to Raimi's, is still closer to what I think a Spider-Man story should be. Homecoming is not the worst Spider-Man film, but I think it is my least favourite. Hopefully Far From Home will be better.

Nowadays the prevalent attitude seems to be that Peter must be portrayed as a high school student/teenager at all times. I grew up reading the nineties Spider-Man comics and watching the Nicholas Hammond show and 1994 animated series, and Peter didn't look like a kid in any of those things. So it never bothered me that Maguire looked older either.


The 616 Peter graduated from high school in 1965 and was allowed to grow up. Why shouldn't the cinematic version mature as well? I don't know, maybe I just have a very outdated view of what I think Spider-Man should be.

Anyway, happy anniversary to Spider-Man 2. I saw it several times on the big screen when it first came out, and I'd go see it again if they re-released it.

And happy anniversary to the videogame as well. With all due respect to the Arkham series, the Spider-Man 2 tie-in is still my favourite superhero game. I'll have to dust off my copy and play through it again sometime this summer.

I don't regard any of the origins we've seen so far as definitive. In a lot of cases, they're not even all that great.

Raimi's origin probably comes the closest to representing Amazing Fantasy #15. He still misses the mark though. The wrestling promoter screwed Peter over by not paying him what had been promised so Peter screwed him over right back by not stopping the burglar. In AF #15, Peter's actions were completely uncalled for. He was a jerk for absolutely no reason. But in the first Raimi film... yeah, he was still slightly out of line but his point of view was pretty understandable.

That arguably changes the moral Peter should've learned from "With great power there must also come great responsibility" to "Don't seek revenge against those who have wronged you". And that's an interesting moral lesson for a character to learn. But let's face it, that's not Spider-Man's defining philosophy. The great power/great responsibility bit IS.

Raimi had a near miss with Peter's AF #15 moral. Webb completely missed it and the MCU version, afaik, hasn't even touched on the subject. So hmm.

The other two Raimi films are great, I agree. I'll even say that Spider-Man 3 gets a bad rap unfairly. Yes, it's yet another movie where the villain once again kidnaps MJ in order to lure Spider-Man out into the open. But I can overlook that stuff since each MJ kidnapping arguably has different motivations, different ramifications and different lessons learned for each other the characters.

But at the end of the day, each movie basically ends the same way and there's just no getting around that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  4 Jul  2019, 22:47
Agreed on all counts, Joker. I'm glad I'm not the only person who rates Raimi's movies above the newer ones. I've been re-watching all the Spider-Man films in the run-up to Far From Home's release, and SM2 is definitely still the best. For me, it's tied with Superman: The Movie as the greatest superhero film ever made, as well as the most charming. The whole trilogy is awesome, and even Spider-Man 3 is much better than people give it credit for. Granted, it does fall apart during the final act. But the first two thirds of the film are mostly on a par with Spider-Man 1. It also contains some of the funniest moments in the entire series.

That's high praise, SN, and you're exactly on the mark. Raimi's trilogy is highly rewatchable! SM1 was a absolute phenom of a movie in 2002, even performing better than Star Wars ... STAR WARS! SM2 was released a few years later, and widely considered the sequel that topped the much loved original. I give SM3 a hard time, due to a noticeable quality drop off, no thanks in large part to interference that has become well documented all over the internet, but thru it all, there still remains a charm to it. Which speaks volumes of Raimi's abilities as a filmmaker, the people that worked on the film, and last but not least, the cast itself.

With Spider-Verse, I still have yet to see it, but continue to hear/read good reviews about it. Including your comments. It's something I intend on checking out at some point this year. I kinda became disillusioned with Spider-Man's future cinematic efforts following Homecoming, but Sony's Venom was atleast entertaining (although that take that would have necessitated a hard R rating they were originally hyping would have been preferred), and Sony's Into the Spider-Verse was well received as well from what I've been gathering.

QuoteNowadays the prevalent attitude seems to be that Peter must be portrayed as a high school student/teenager at all times. I grew up reading the nineties Spider-Man comics and watching the Nicholas Hammond show and 1994 animated series, and Peter didn't look like a kid in any of those things. So it never bothered me that Maguire looked older either.

(https://i.postimg.cc/T3NS0JVj/New-Picture-2.png)

The 616 Peter graduated from high school in 1965 and was allowed to grow up. Why shouldn't the cinematic version mature as well? I don't know, maybe I just have a very outdated view of what I think Spider-Man should be.

You know, come to think of it, I don't believe Spider-Man/Peter Parker was ever emphasized as a high school student in any animated series based on him, until I suppose, Spectacular Spider-Man. This goes for the '60's series, the 1981 series, the "Amazing Friends" series, or the aforementioned 1990's series. Peter's high school existence was definitely a theme and backdrop in the early Lee/Ditko issues, hell the first page gives us that indication, but evidently Stan did not feel that Peter's high school years was something that was absolutely vital to his continued success and had to be maintained. As back then, Peter Parker was ageing right along with the readers. Each year that passed for the readers, passed for Spider-Man as well. He was literally ageing with the readership that followed his adventures. Of course, this aspect wasn't going to last very long, but it's interesting that Disney appears more enamored with this particular period than most.

QuoteAnyway, happy anniversary to Spider-Man 2. I saw it several times on the big screen when it first came out, and I'd go see it again if they re-released it.

And happy anniversary to the videogame as well. With all due respect to the Arkham series, the Spider-Man 2 tie-in is still my favourite superhero game. I'll have to dust off my copy and play through it again sometime this summer.

Oh yeah! Alot of good memories playing SM2 on the old PS2.

Speaking of Mysterio ... those SM2 Mysterio levels were something else. I had many a swearing session trying to complete those levels, and these memories are pretty vivid. Amazing game for sure.

QuoteAt one point he hears someone crying for help as they are being attacked by a pair of criminals. In the comic Peter helps the victim, but in the film he walks away and leaves him to his fate.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8c2h2LT2/36.png)

This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone not worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 01:43
Raimi's origin probably comes the closest to representing Amazing Fantasy #15. He still misses the mark though. The wrestling promoter screwed Peter over by not paying him what had been promised so Peter screwed him over right back by not stopping the burglar. In AF #15, Peter's actions were completely uncalled for. He was a jerk for absolutely no reason. But in the first Raimi film... yeah, he was still slightly out of line but his point of view was pretty understandable.

That arguably changes the moral Peter should've learned from "With great power there must also come great responsibility" to "Don't seek revenge against those who have wronged you". And that's an interesting moral lesson for a character to learn. But let's face it, that's not Spider-Man's defining philosophy. The great power/great responsibility bit IS.

It's true that Peter's emotional reason for not stopping the robber is different in the film, but I'd argue the underlying moral message about responsibility is still the same. Both the 2002 movie and Amazing Fantasy #15 present the idea that it's not only wrong to misuse power, but that it's equally wrong to not use it when doing so would help others. This message is repeated by Octavius in the second movie when he speaks of intelligence: "Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift. And you use it for the good of mankind." The same principle applies to power. In the first movie, Peter chooses not to exercise his power – and by extension, not to exercise responsibility – for selfish emotional reasons. In doing so, he allows a gun-toting criminal to go free without regard for the other people he might hurt. And the consequences of this irresponsible act are visited back on him in tragic proportion. In the comics his inaction was motivated by hubris, while in the movie it was motivated by spite and a desire for revenge. But in both stories we see Peter's selfish emotional drives overriding his sense of moral obligation. While the emotional context is indeed different, I'd say the moral problem – of refusing to help someone in need for personal reasons – remains the same.

At the risk of invoking the wrath of Lee/Ditko fans, I'd go further and make the argument that the movie version is actually superior to the sequence of events depicted in Amazing Fantasy #15, for two main reasons. Firstly, the film circumvents the improbable notion that the same robber from the studio would also break into Uncle Ben's house shortly afterwards. There are over a million buildings in New York City, and this guy just happens to break into the one house belonging to Spider-Man's uncle? I know it's a fantasy story and we shouldn't think too hard about these things, but it's still a massive stretch. The movie version is more plausible, as (A) it gives Ben a reason to be in proximity to the robbery at the time it occurs, and (B) it gives the robber a reason for specifically targeting Ben (a parked vehicle, unlocked, occupied by an elderly man who is unlikely to offer much resistance). This makes it even worse that Peter let an armed criminal go free, since he knew his own elderly uncle was waiting in the vicinity. And that brings me to the second reason why I think the movie version is better – it amplifies Peter's guilt.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

They almost screwed it up in Spider-Man 3 by revealing it was Sandman who actually killed Ben. But the final flashback indicates that Marko only shot him because the other guy bumped into him, so I guess the onus of guilt is still on Pete. Perhaps if Peter had stopped the gunman, then Ben would have successfully talked Marko out of stealing his car and the plot of Spider-Man 3 could have been averted too. Which means Peter is also partly to blame for Marko becoming Sandman.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into all this. Anyway, this is just my take. I agree that Peter in Raimi's movie never became the jerk he was in AF#15 (though he came close when he had the black suit in SM3). But I believe the important moral growth that Peter undergoes in the comic is still reflected in the film.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 01:43The other two Raimi films are great, I agree. I'll even say that Spider-Man 3 gets a bad rap unfairly. Yes, it's yet another movie where the villain once again kidnaps MJ in order to lure Spider-Man out into the open. But I can overlook that stuff since each MJ kidnapping arguably has different motivations, different ramifications and different lessons learned for each other the characters.

M.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

And how does Peter come into possession of these facts? He sees them summarised for him in a news report as he's walking past a shop window. This is condensed storytelling at its laziest. The whole sequence where Venom teams up with Sandman is missing too many things. When Marko first becomes Sandman we're treated to a beautiful sequence where we see him adapt to his powers. There's no equivalent scene for Brock. We see the Symbiote envelop him, and then suddenly he's fully formed as Venom. We never see him learning to use his powers or adapting to the suit. We never see the connection established between Brock's mind and that of the Symbiote. And when Venom first encounters Sandman, the latter barely reacts to seeing an alien monster slobber in his face. He just turns his back on him and walks away. It all feels too rushed.

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 07:10
With Spider-Verse, I still have yet to see it, but continue to hear/read good reviews about it. Including your comments. It's something I intend on checking out at some point this year. I kinda became disillusioned with Spider-Man's future cinematic efforts following Homecoming, but Sony's Venom was atleast entertaining (although that take that would have necessitated a hard R rating they were originally hyping would have been preferred), and Sony's Into the Spider-Verse was well received as well from what I've been gathering.

Into the Spider-Verse is worth seeing, but make sure your expectations are in check. It's not the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, any more than the recent MCU films are. But it's good. It puts a fresh spin on the material, it's nicely animated, and it contains lots of Easter egg allusions to older Spider-Man films, comics and TV shows. I don't think it's as good as Spider-Man 2, but I like it a lot more than Homecoming. And it gets bonus points for having Kingpin as the main villain.

I still haven't seen the Venom movie, but I'd like to. If you count Venom, we've now had seven Spider-Man related films in a little over three years:

1.   Captain America: Civil War (2016)
2.   Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
3.   Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
4.   Venom (2018)
5.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
6.   Avengers: Endgame (2019)
7.   Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

Apparently Holland's MCU contract ends with his third solo film, but I've heard rumours he may appear in future Sony Spider-Man movies such as Venom 2 and the Into the Spider-Verse sequel. That could be interesting.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 07:10You know, come to think of it, I don't believe Spider-Man/Peter Parker was ever emphasized as a high school student in any animated series based on him, until I suppose, Spectacular Spider-Man. This goes for the '60's series, the 1981 series, the "Amazing Friends" series, or the aforementioned 1990's series. Peter's high school existence was definitely a theme and backdrop in the early Lee/Ditko issues, hell the first page gives us that indication, but evidently Stan did not feel that Peter's high school years was something that was absolutely vital to his continued success and had to be maintained. As back then, Peter Parker was ageing right along with the readers. Each year that passed for the readers, passed for Spider-Man as well. He was literally ageing with the readership that followed his adventures. Of course, this aspect wasn't going to last very long, but it's interesting that Disney appears more enamored with this particular period than most.

A lot of fans are insistent on the younger and more comedic characterisation these days. You mentioned the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I wonder if that's partly to blame. I saw an episode of that on a plane once, and I was surprised at just how far they went with the comedy. Especially compared to the nineties Spider-Man carton, which was far more dramatic. I suppose the popularity of Deadpool might also be a factor. Everyone seems to want Spider-Man to be a fourth-wall-breaking teenage chatterbox, but as you point out, that's not how he was depicted in most of the comics or animated shows prior to this decade. I like humour in my Spider-Man stories too, but I also like a little drama and darkness.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 07:10Oh yeah! Alot of good memories playing SM2 on the old PS2.

Speaking of Mysterio ... those SM2 Mysterio levels were something else. I had many a swearing session trying to complete those levels, and these memories are pretty vivid. Amazing game for sure.

The game's depiction of Mysterio was awesome. I particularly like the mission where you find his secret funhouse lair inside an apartment building (there's a scene in Far From Home that reference the bit in the game where Spider-Man's reflections emerge from the mirrors to attack him). And then there's this memorable scene.


Such a great game. I got a free comic when I bought my copy on the first day of release. And I remember seeing this advert in the cinema when I went to see the movie.


Storyboard artist Jeffrey Henderson confirmed the fan theory that Bruce Campbell's character was meant to be Mysterio back in 2016. There's nothing to indicate this in the existing trilogy, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning in these threads, but apparently the twist would have been revealed in Spider-Man 4.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 18:46
This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

You've got a point about M.J., but I disagree about SM2 being a bad adaptation of 'Spider-Man No More!' In the movie Peter didn't resume being Spider-Man for Mary Jane's sake. Quite the opposite. He'd already decided to resume being Spider-Man before she was kidnapped by Doc Ock, and this was prompted by a combination of his experience saving the child from the burning building (which is the film's true equivalent of the scene in the comic where he rescues the man on the rooftop) and the talk Aunt May gave him about the need for self-sacrificing heroes. He then lied to M.J. about not loving her, because by that point he had chosen to prioritise his vocation as Spider-Man over the possibility of a life with the woman he loved. By the end of the movie Peter had faced up to his responsibilities as a hero and reconciled the different aspects of his life, which is what 'Spider-Man No More!' is all about.

And I'm pretty sure he was shown to derive satisfaction from helping people other than M.J. The very last scene shows him swinging off to assist the emergency services, yelling "Yahoo!" as he goes. It's pretty clear he's come to terms with his dual life by this point and is starting to enjoy being Spider-Man again.


As for letting the guy get mugged, that's no worse than the original comic where he allowed Kingpin to conduct a crime wave across the city without lifting a finger to help. In the film he was at least haunted by his decision, while in the comic he took a far more insouciant attitude towards the armed robberies that were occurring on his watch.


But I agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, chaps.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  6 Jul  2019, 17:02At the risk of invoking the wrath of Lee/Ditko fans, I'd go further and make the argument that the movie version is actually superior to the sequence of events depicted in Amazing Fantasy #15, for two main reasons. Firstly, the film circumvents the improbable notion that the same robber from the studio would also break into Uncle Ben's house shortly afterwards. There are over a million buildings in New York City, and this guy just happens to break into the one house belonging to Spider-Man's uncle? I know it's a fantasy story and we shouldn't think too hard about these things, but it's still a massive stretch. The movie version is more plausible, as (A) it gives Ben a reason to be in proximity to the robbery at the time it occurs, and (B) it gives the robber a reason for specifically targeting Ben (a parked vehicle, unlocked, occupied by an elderly man who is unlikely to offer much resistance). This makes it even worse that Peter let an armed criminal go free, since he knew his own elderly uncle was waiting in the vicinity. And that brings me to the second reason why I think the movie version is better – it amplifies Peter's guilt.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

I guess the randomness of Ben's murder is what works for me in AF #15. It is pretty long odds that Ben would get killed by the very same thief Peter allowed to escape. But for me, that's the entire point. He was always going to kill somebody. Peter was directly affected by his own inaction.

And while I understand your point about Peter's lie in SM1, the fact remains that in AF #15, Peter was a jerk for absolutely no reason whereas he was a jerk in the movie with some justification. In AF #15, Peter had a massive chip on his shoulder and his powers allowed him to act upon that. He wanted to take care of May and Ben in a negative sense and for all the wrong reasons. He was more selfish in SM1, and for no apparent reason. It's been forever since I've seen the movie but I don't remember Peter's school life being so terrible in SM1. Whereas he was rather a social pariah in AF #15.

Idk, I suppose there's room for disagreement here. But so far, I'm not satisfied with ANY of the Uncle Ben/origin stories in the films.

I see what you're saying, colors, and that's a very fair point. The AF#15 Peter was embittered in a way that none of his cinematic counterparts have been. It would be interesting to explore that side of the character if they ever do another reboot. Though I suspect the next live action reboot will probably focus on Mile Morales instead of Peter.

QuoteYou've got a point about M.J., but I disagree about SM2 being a bad adaptation of 'Spider-Man No More!' In the movie Peter didn't resume being Spider-Man for Mary Jane's sake. Quite the opposite. He'd already decided to resume being Spider-Man before she was kidnapped by Doc Ock, and this was prompted by a combination of his experience saving the child from the burning building (which is the film's true equivalent of the scene in the comic where he rescues the man on the rooftop) and the talk Aunt May gave him about the need for self-sacrificing heroes. He then lied to M.J. about not loving her, because by that point he had chosen to prioritise his vocation as Spider-Man over the possibility of a life with the woman he loved. By the end of the movie Peter had faced up to his responsibilities as a hero and reconciled the different aspects of his life, which is what 'Spider-Man No More!' is all about.

You left out the parts where Peter is discouraged from his heroic acts when he overhears that someone else in the building died. It was further insulting when the little girl ends up saving Peter from falling. He's not encouraged to be Spider-Man after the talk with Aunt May. It just perpetuated another comedy scene of him losing his power. He's not persuaded to get his costume back until Mary Jane is kidnapped who shares no thought or concern when he makes himself available for her. These problems were not in the original Spider-Man No More story. They were added just to show that Peter is a glutton for punishment, which Rami bathes him in for this movie. Makes it more Darkman than Spider-Man.

QuoteAnd I'm pretty sure he was shown to derive satisfaction from helping people other than M.J. The very last scene shows him swinging off to assist the emergency services, yelling "Yahoo!" as he goes. It's pretty clear he's come to terms with his dual life by this point and is starting to enjoy being Spider-Man again.

No, he was just happy that after all of that moping and sulking, he finally got what he wanted... Mary Jane Watson's affections. As we learn in the next movie, it wasn't worth the effort with her inability to relate with other people's problems and unfaithfulness to who she's with.

QuoteAs for letting the guy get mugged, that's no worse than the original comic where he allowed Kingpin to conduct a crime wave across the city without lifting a finger to help. In the film he was at least haunted by his decision, while in the comic he took a far more insouciant attitude towards the armed robberies that were occurring on his watch.

(https://i.postimg.cc/fWBnPHQr/asm50a.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fsz5Xj9s/asm50b.png)

There was a touch of this when he was eating that hot dog bun (no meat was obviously in it) when he saw that police car drive by. Seeing officers heading to a crime is one thing, but seeing it happen in the open without anyone else around to handle it is another.

QuoteI agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

It matters a lot to me when they outright said in the first film "this like any story worth telling is all about a girl." It was also jarring how they made it pretty clear that Mary Jane realized Peter was Spider-Man at the end of the first movie and they completely ignored that in the second with her acting surprised that he was him despite all of the obvious indications.

QuoteM.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

And how does Peter come into possession of these facts? He sees them summarised for him in a news report as he's walking past a shop window. This is condensed storytelling at its laziest. The whole sequence where Venom teams up with Sandman is missing too many things. When Marko first becomes Sandman we're treated to a beautiful sequence where we see him adapt to his powers. There's no equivalent scene for Brock. We see the Symbiote envelop him, and then suddenly he's fully formed as Venom. We never see him learning to use his powers or adapting to the suit. We never see the connection established between Brock's mind and that of the Symbiote. And when Venom first encounters Sandman, the latter barely reacts to seeing an alien monster slobber in his face. He just turns his back on him and walks away. It all feels too rushed.

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

You can blame Bryce Dallas Howard for all of this. Her being pregnant (and not realizing until filming) caused a major shift in the storyline. Mary Jane wasn't supposed to be kidnapped. It was supposed to be Gwen Stacy, which actually made sense since Eddie Brock had his eyes on her. Mary Jane was also supposed to convince Harry Osborn to forgive Peter and join him in the fight instead of the butler.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13You left out the parts where Peter is discouraged from his heroic acts when he overhears that someone else in the building died.

Your reading of that scene is the complete opposite of mine. As I see it, Peter reacted with guilt when he learned of the resident's death. It didn't discourage him from being a hero; it discouraged him from continuing with his retirement. That's why in the very next scene he's questioning his future. The death of the building's occupant was one of the catalysts that prompted him to rethink his life's trajectory and resume his career as Spider-Man. At least that's my understanding of the sequence.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13It was further insulting when the little girl ends up saving Peter from falling.

I doubt that little girl was able to lift Peter's bodyweight on her own. Sure, she was trying to help him, but I think that was more of a cute visual detail on Raimi's part than a literal explanation for how Peter pulled himself up on to the burning landing. Ultimately Peter helped himself during that scene and saved the little girl's life in the bargain. And he did it at a time when he'd lost his super powers, which makes it all the more heroic for him to endanger his life in the first place.

That entire sequence provides a sobering counterpoint to the tenement fire scene in the previous film. In the first movie Spider-Man casually leaps in through an upstairs window and gets the baby out without singeing a nostril hair. In the second film he almost breaks his shoulder trying to knock down a door, fails to leap across the gap on the landing and almost suffocates from smoke inhalation. In the first movie he had superpowers when he pulled off that rescue. In the second movie he no longer had those powers, but still gave it his all. A man who derives no satisfaction from helping others would never have risked his life like that.

The melancholy Peter experienced in the aftermath of that event wasn't derived from regret at having saved someone, but from regret that he couldn't have saved more (i.e. the person who burned to death on the upper floor).

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13He's not encouraged to be Spider-Man after the talk with Aunt May. It just perpetuated another comedy scene of him losing his power.

Aunt May gives him a pep talk about heroics, and in the very next scene he's leaping across rooftops with superhuman agility yelling "I'm back!" There's clearly a causal relationship between the two scenes, otherwise they wouldn't have been edited together in that way. So May's talk did encourage him. It wasn't the only factor, but it was definitely one of them.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13These problems were not in the original Spider-Man No More story. They were added just to show that Peter is a glutton for punishment, which Rami bathes him in for this movie

No one ever claimed the film is solely based on 'Spider-Man No More!' It borrows from other stories as well. But Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #50 does contain many of the problems Peter suffers through in the film: his grades are slipping because he doesn't have time for his studies...


...he's stressed out by Jameson's attacks on him...


...his social and romantic life is on the ropes...


...and he's worried about Aunt May (in the comic she was ill, while in the film he's concerned about her financial woes).


Another story Raimi cited as a major influence on the central plot was Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12, in which Peter faces other problems that crop up in the film. For one thing he's losing his powers and isn't quite sure why, and for another his love life is falling apart (this is the issue where he gives up his pursuit of Liz Allan and starts dating Betty).

Peter may be a glutton for punishment in the movie, but arguably he was in the early comics as well. Go back and re-read the first year of the Lee/Ditko run and you'll see him brooding, crying and second guessing himself in almost every issue. Here are just a few examples from the earliest stories.

Amazing Fantasy Vol 1 #15.


Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1.


Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.


Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #4


Artist David Lafuente, who worked on the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, described Peter Parker as a "magnet for bad luck" and I recollect Stan Lee once saying something similar. Raimi's take on the character reflects this. It may not be the Peter from the modern comics, but the characterisation still has its basis in the source material.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13He's not persuaded to get his costume back until Mary Jane is kidnapped who shares no thought or concern when he makes himself available for her.

He didn't recover his costume until after M.J. was kidnapped, but then there's nothing in the film to indicate he actually needed it during the time between the scene where his powers begin to return and the scene in the coffee shop (that interim is less than 1½ minutes of screen time, and while it's unclear how much in-universe time elapsed, it was likely less than 24 hours). And this still doesn't change the fact he'd already decided to resume his crime fighting career before M.J. was kidnapped.

It's also important to remember that while Peter's powers had begun to return (as evidenced by the scene where he's leaping across rooftops following his talk with Aunt May) they weren't yet fully recovered at the time of his coffee date with M.J. (as indicated by the fact he was still wearing his glasses). So it may not have been possible for him to web swing up to Jameson's office and recover his suit prior to that moment anyway. But even if he could have done it, it still wouldn't alter the fact that he'd already made the conscious decision to resume being Spider-Man before M.J. was kidnapped.

In 'Spider-Man No More!' Peter didn't recover his costume until the very last page of the issue, but that didn't prevent him from rescuing the old man on the rooftop earlier in the story. The exact point he steals back the costume is not as important to his character arc as the moment where he decides to resume being Spider-Man. And in the movie, that happens before M.J. is kidnapped.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13No, he was just happy that after all of that moping and sulking, he finally got what he wanted... Mary Jane Watson's affections.

He was definitely happy to be with M.J., but that happiness and the satisfaction he gets from being Spider-Man are not mutually exclusive. He thought they were earlier in the film, at which point he chose to be Spider-Man over continuing his pursuit of M.J., reasoning that the former was more important to him than the latter. But by the end of the film he'd reconciled the conflicting responsibilities in his life and discovered he could still be Spider-Man and be with M.J. And that clearly made him happy. But he didn't yell "Yahoo" upon kissing M.J. and then suddenly become depressed when he realised he had to race off and help someone. The movie ends with him enjoying himself as he swings to the rescue. His life was in balance, and being Spider-Man was a big part of that. Just as it was in 'Spider-Man No More!'

The important thing is that when Peter thought he had to choose between being Spider-Man or giving up that life so he could be with M.J., he ultimately chose being Spider-Man.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13Seeing officers heading to a crime is one thing, but seeing it happen in the open without anyone else around to handle it is another.

I think his nonchalance in the comic was worse. In the movie he lets a guy get roughed up for cash and he ignores a police siren. That's bad, but at least he doesn't look happy when he does it (apparently veggie hot dogs can only go so far in soothing his conscience). In the comic he ignored an entire crime wave, knowing full well that it was happening as a consequence of his retirement. He chose not to respond to an armed robbery that he could have helped defuse, which I'd argue is worse than failing to respond to an unarmed mugging. In the comic he even goes so far as to list the terrible consequences of the robbery before smiling as he decides not to do anything about it. That's more callous than anything he does in the film.

And again, it's important to remember that the movie Peter had the additional disincentive of having lost his powers at that time, which means he might not have been physically capable of helping those people even if he'd wanted to. That's not the case with the comic book version, whose inaction was purely a matter of will.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13You can blame Bryce Dallas Howard for all of this. Her being pregnant (and not realizing until filming) caused a major shift in the storyline. Mary Jane wasn't supposed to be kidnapped. It was supposed to be Gwen Stacy, which actually made sense since Eddie Brock had his eyes on her. Mary Jane was also supposed to convince Harry Osborn to forgive Peter and join him in the fight instead of the butler.

That's interesting. I've not heard this before. I'm surprised they didn't just recast the role and reshoot her scenes. At any rate, it's yet another reason why they should have cut Gwen from the film and used Betty instead.

QuoteYour reading of that scene is the complete opposite of mine. As I see it, Peter reacted with guilt when he learned of the resident's death. It didn't discourage him from being a hero; it discouraged him from continuing with his retirement. That's why in the very next scene he's questioning his future. The death of the building's occupant was one of the catalysts that prompted him to rethink his life's trajectory and resume his career as Spider-Man. At least that's my understanding of the sequence.

That entire sequence provides a sobering counterpoint to the tenement fire scene in the previous film. In the first movie Spider-Man casually leaps in through an upstairs window and gets the baby out without singeing a nostril hair. In the second film he almost breaks his shoulder trying to knock down a door, fails to leap across the gap on the landing and almost suffocates from smoke inhalation. In the first movie he had superpowers when he pulled off that rescue. In the second movie he no longer had those powers, but still gave it his all. A man who derives no satisfaction from helping others would never have risked his life like that.

The melancholy Peter experienced in the aftermath of that event wasn't derived from regret at having saved someone, but from regret that he couldn't have saved more (i.e. the person who burned to death on the upper floor).

This sequence should have been like the moment in the original story where Peter realizes for sure that even in his weaken state (which is very inconsistent with him just only running out of webbing to his strength not being at full capacity), he does make a difference in people's life. There was no need to have that word that there was someone else who dies anyway. It just added another burden for Peter to keep sulking until Mary Jane gets carried off by Doc Ock.

QuoteI doubt that little girl was able to lift Peter's bodyweight on her own. Sure, she was trying to help him, but I think that was more of a cute visual detail on Raimi's part than a literal explanation for how Peter pulled himself up on to the burning landing. Ultimately Peter helped himself during that scene and saved the little girl's life in the bargain. And he did it at a time when he'd lost his super powers, which makes it all the more heroic for him to endanger his life in the first place.

Aunt May gives him a pep talk about heroics, and in the very next scene he's leaping across rooftops with superhuman agility yelling "I'm back!" There's clearly a causal relationship between the two scenes, otherwise they wouldn't have been edited together in that way. So May's talk did encourage him. It wasn't the only factor, but it was definitely one of them.

One of the problems with Rami is that he can get carried away with stuff like this. It creates the cringeworthy moments of the series. He can't just let Peter get a word of encouragement from Aunt May without a scene following it where he suffers. There's stories where he liked to torture Bruce Campbell through his character of Ash The Evil Dead movies just because he was jealous that he was handsome. Maguire got treated very similarly where it makes me feel that Rami wanted to focus too much on making life way too miserable for him. I always wondered if Maguire had enough of this in the first film and didn't want to go through it again and initially cited back problems on Seabiscuit as to why he didn't want to return for the sequel. They eventually coughed up more money and he signed on.

QuoteNo one ever claimed the film is solely based on 'Spider-Man No More!' It borrows from other stories as well. But Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #50 does contain many of the problems Peter suffers through in the film: his grades are slipping because he doesn't have time for his studies...

(https://i.postimg.cc/PryGjYXV/grades.png)

...he's stressed out by Jameson's attacks on him...

(https://i.postimg.cc/hvWvgs71/30.png)

...his social and romantic life is on the ropes...

(https://i.postimg.cc/t44KCJ7q/gwen.png)

...and he's worried about Aunt May (in the comic she was ill, while in the film he's concerned about her financial woes).

(https://i.postimg.cc/GmgZBRsk/may.png)

Another story Raimi cited as a major influence on the central plot was Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12, in which Peter faces other problems that crop up in the film. For one thing he's losing his powers and isn't quite sure why, and for another his love life is falling apart (this is the issue where he gives up his pursuit of Liz Allan and starts dating Betty).

Peter may be a glutton for punishment in the movie, but arguably he was in the early comics as well. Go back and re-read the first year of the Lee/Ditko run and you'll see him brooding, crying and second guessing himself in almost every issue. Here are just a few examples from the earliest stories.

Amazing Fantasy Vol 1 #15.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HshJBJqR/af15.png)

Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xvwpjsr6/asm1.png)

Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg0sGKCz/asm3.png)

Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #4

(https://i.postimg.cc/50bj68zY/asm4.png)

Artist David Lafuente, who worked on the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, described Peter Parker as a "magnet for bad luck" and I recollect Stan Lee once saying something similar. Raimi's take on the character reflects this. It may not be the Peter from the modern comics, but the characterisation still has its basis in the source material.

A constant problem in adapting comic material to film is that you lose the ability to show the internalize thoughts of the character. Spider-Man was heavy into that. Even though you would see instances where Peter was sulking or crying, you could see that despite being down hearted, he could think and rationalize his feeling bring himself out of that feeling. That was a powerful part of the character to me. It also let the reader feeling like he was Peter's only friend during these moments. It's not needed in the new Marvel Studios films since they gave him plenty of friends to talk to.

QuoteHe didn't recover his costume until after M.J. was kidnapped, but then there's nothing in the film to indicate he actually needed it during the time between the scene where his powers begin to return and the scene in the coffee shop (that interim is less than 1½ minutes of screen time, and while it's unclear how much in-universe time elapsed, it was likely less than 24 hours). And this still doesn't change the fact he'd already decided to resume his crime fighting career before M.J. was kidnapped.

It's also important to remember that while Peter's powers had begun to return (as evidenced by the scene where he's leaping across rooftops following his talk with Aunt May) they weren't yet fully recovered at the time of his coffee date with M.J. (as indicated by the fact he was still wearing his glasses). So it may not have been possible for him to web swing up to Jameson's office and recover his suit prior to that moment anyway. But even if he could have done it, it still wouldn't alter the fact that he'd already made the conscious decision to resume being Spider-Man before M.J. was kidnapped.

In 'Spider-Man No More!' Peter didn't recover his costume until the very last page of the issue, but that didn't prevent him from rescuing the old man on the rooftop earlier in the story. The exact point he steals back the costume is not as important to his character ac as the moment where he decides to resume being Spider-Man. And in the movie, that happens before M.J. is kidnapped.

That's the impression they gave with the story they told and was constructed far too conveniently to have Peter only get back into full capacity until he's got Mary Jane to save. Spider-Man 2 isn't the only film to do this, which is just more of a shame toward the main actress who's only there to be kidnapped and saved. I know Dunst wasn't happy at all when she learned in the third film she would be the one being kidnapped again.

QuoteHe was definitely happy to be with M.J., but that happiness and the satisfaction he gets from being Spider-Man are not mutually exclusive. He thought they were earlier in the film, at which point he chose to be Spider-Man over continuing his pursuit of M.J., reasoning that the former was more important to him than the latter. But by the end of the film he'd reconciled the conflicting responsibilities in his life and discovered he could still be Spider-Man and be with M.J. And that clearly made him happy. But he didn't yell "Yahoo" upon kissing M.J. and then suddenly become depressed when he realised he had to race off and help someone. The movie ends with him enjoying himself as he swings to the rescue. His life was in balance, and being Spider-Man was a big part of that. Just as it was in 'Spider-Man No More!'

The important thing is that when Peter thought he had to choose between being Spider-Man or giving up that life so he could be with M.J., he ultimately chose being Spider-Man.

Again, Rami can't leave a good ending like that alone. He's gotta show Mary Jane with a sullen face that was probably the same one that John Jameson had when he realized that he wasn't getting married. This doesn't help her character at all and makes us question the validity of this character being Peter's true love.

QuoteI think his nonchalance in the comic was worse. In the movie he lets a guy get roughed up for cash and he ignores a police siren. That's bad, but at least he doesn't look happy when he does it (apparently veggie hot dogs can only go so far in soothing his conscience). In the comic he ignored an entire crime wave, knowing full well that it was happening as a consequence of his retirement. He chose not to respond to an armed robbery that he could have helped defuse, which I'd argue is worse than failing to respond to an unarmed mugging. In the comic he even goes so far as to list the terrible consequences of the robbery before smiling as he decides not to do anything about it. That's more callous than anything he does in the film.

And again, it's important to remember that the movie Peter had the additional disincentive of having lost his powers at that time, which means he might not have been physically capable of helping those people even if he'd wanted to. That's not the case with the comic book version, whose inaction was purely a matter of will.

Peter's "nonchalance" at least gave him a moment where he wasn't burden by responsibilities and he had a right to be happy. It did eventually hit him when he faced it dead on instead of just walking away like everyone else. Rami's idea of Spider-Man is that his life sucks no matter what. Again, this is more like Darkman who has a lot more going against him than Peter Parker.

QuoteThat's interesting. I've not heard this before. I'm surprised they didn't just recast the role and reshoot her scenes. At any rate, it's yet another reason why they should have cut Gwen from the film and used Betty instead.

Surprised you didn't know that. It was pretty widely publicized when it was being made that changes had to be made and further fueled the backlash against it, but it was the highest grossing of the series anyways. It's a shame that Betty Brant was just a glorified extra in these films. Again, just more misguided direction from the filmmakers to make Mary Jane the one and only love for Peter when he really had a slew of girls around him.

Quote from: Kamdan on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 03:03This sequence should have been like the moment in the original story where Peter realizes for sure that even in his weaken state (which is very inconsistent with him just only running out of webbing to his strength not being at full capacity), he does make a difference in people's life. There was no need to have that word that there was someone else who dies anyway. It just added another burden for Peter to keep sulking until Mary Jane gets carried off by Doc Ock.

What I took from that stuff was that Peter had to want to be Spider-Man again. Strangers in danger, pep talks from family, even his own guilt weren't enough. He wanted to become Spider-Man again with his mind, but not with his heart.

Doc Ock kidnapping MJ solved for that. Peter was able to truly save the day after that. Plus, victory in Spider-Man 2 didn't come from vanquishing Doc Ock so much as redeeming him.

With great power there must also come great responsibility. And sometimes, compassion is the greatest power of all.

One reason I reject the notion that only MJ's peril restored Peter's drive to be Spider-Man is that he continued being Spider-Man after the day had been properly saved. I think that instead, Peter discovered actual fulfillment from being Spider-Man which had heretofore eluded him.

To those who think that MJ was the crypto-villain of the trilogy though... well, she's very often not presented in a flattering light, there's no denying that.

Peter gave up his former life and ACCEPTED heroism wasn't his responsibility anymore. He knew his powers weren't working, or at best weren't reliable, so his confidence was at rock bottom. I don't see it as being a coward, but rather a self-doubting human being. Life literally changed for Peter overnight, so even if he was nostalgic about his former heroics, he knew he couldn't do it anymore. He lost confidence in all areas of his life.

This is a man who gained a muscular frame after waking up one morning. He didn't work out for those abilities. He doesn't know what it's like to be a badass without superpowers or the costume. Memories of being a superhero don't count for much when current day reality bites.

Peter notices someone is getting beaten up – he doesn't like what he sees, but can he resolve the conflict without endangering himself? Hard to say. The sirens go past while he's eating a hotdog, but he's just another civilian who can't keep up. So he goes about his day.

The will to be heroic eventually becomes too great, as shown when he enters the building fire to save lives. But he has to work his way up to that mental place, which I find emotionally believable. Lives are still lost as a result, however the fire rescue proves he can still be a hero without the powers. On the flipside it reinforces the idea he's a shadow of his former self. But even that isn't the final trigger to begin his return.

When Peter lost his powers he also lost his spark for life. He came to accept a mundane existence in exchange for something less chaotic. But by remaining in the background he found himself unfulfilled. He had to emotionally grow from square one to earn those powers back and truly claim them as his own. He had to know he was genuinely loved and needed before anything seriously changed. The core of the film is Peter's emotional healing.

Peter was abused as Spider-Man AND Peter, but those who mattered in society appreciated his existence, or came to appreciate him again – Aunt May's speech was a big factor in that regard. However as colors said, the capture of Mary Jane sealed the deal.

Life is all about confidence and trying to create a window of opportunity, no matter what it is you're seeking. You might be wanting a job interview, or in Peter's case, your soul mate. Failure to get that opening leads to constant longing. By the time MJ kissed him, Peter knew he had an opening for love, and he had to literally fight Doc Ock to reclaim the prize. That was natural motivation so Peter made it happen. Peter's hope was rekindled through strong positive emotions.

Do we accept our current lives as unchangeable, or do we seek to do something about it? I've found that having a reason for living excites the soul, it's just the difficulty in finding that reason and then making it happen. Peter found his reason, whereas before he was trying to be happy when he wasn't. Life is hard and three dimensional. SM2 shows that perfectly. I'd say it's my favorite superhero film of all time, and that goes with the Raimi trilogy.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun,  7 Jul  2019, 00:13
You left out the parts where Peter is discouraged from his heroic acts when he overhears that someone else in the building died. It was further insulting when the little girl ends up saving Peter from falling. He's not encouraged to be Spider-Man after the talk with Aunt May. It just perpetuated another comedy scene of him losing his power. He's not persuaded to get his costume back until Mary Jane is kidnapped who shares no thought or concern when he makes himself available for her. These problems were not in the original Spider-Man No More story. They were added just to show that Peter is a glutton for punishment, which Rami bathes him in for this movie. Makes it more Darkman than Spider-Man.

Yeah, that's been a long running narrative when it comes to Spider-Man's history. Ups and downs. Moments of bliss, moments of pain and sorrow. A complicated super hero life, and at times, an even more complicated private life. Not only for himself, but also for those around him. That's not exclusive to Dark Man, but a decidedly reoccurring theme straight from the source material. 

QuoteNo, he was just happy that after all of that moping and sulking, he finally got what he wanted... Mary Jane Watson's affections. As we learn in the next movie, it wasn't worth the effort with her inability to relate with other people's problems and unfaithfulness to who she's with.

I always took the relationship, as presented in SM2, as a parallel of two people, essentially, denying themselves of who they are and what they want, and considering that a life of being content would be forever fulfilling. Not only in the theme of Peter's decision to quit Spider-Man, but also Mary Jane's choice in being engaged to John Jameson. Being content is one thing, denying who you truly are and/or having to make a difficult decision, especially if it's not an easy one, due to complicated feelings and emotions is quite another.

Cause, you know, let's not forget that it was much more than just Peter sulking and getting what he wants in the end. Raimi makes it pretty clear throughout the film that both want one another, but due to circumstances and events, both were pushing the other away. Plus there's that little scene with Mary Jane & Peter in the web, with Peter making the tough choice to reject Mary Jane's romantic advances (not the first time this happened) due to Peter finally accepting, and not denying anymore, that Spider-Man is something he cannot simply give up. Spider-Man was a commitment Peter would refuse to walk away from anymore. He did not try to persuade her to accept the situation, but rather gently pushed her away again, after having openly pursued her, due to this now unwavering commitment.

Could Mary Jane have then taken the easy route of living a life of content, and luxury being married to John Jameson the astronaut? Absolutely. However, she too ultimately made the tough decision to choose the road less traveled, which was going to be a decidedly harder and more complicated relationship with Peter at the end of SM2. Following Spidey's blissfully swinging around the city at the conclusion of SM2, there is a lingering shot of Mary Jane non-verbally looking on as the film fades to black, indicating to the audience that she's painfully aware this decision she just made in her relationship with Peter is going to be anything but easy and undemanding. Brilliant decision on Raimi's part.

QuoteIt matters a lot to me when they outright said in the first film "this like any story worth telling is all about a girl." It was also jarring how they made it pretty clear that Mary Jane realized Peter was Spider-Man at the end of the first movie and they completely ignored that in the second with her acting surprised that he was him despite all of the obvious indications.

One could also argue that Mary Jane had a very strong suspicion that Peter was Spider-Man in SM1, but nothing that actually confirmed it. Some people need absolute confirmation. Having only a sneaking suspicion just doesn't ultimately cut it. A classic comic book trope if there ever was one. There was also the scene where MJ purposely recreates the now iconic kiss from SM1 with John Jameson. Clearly hoping against hope that perhaps John was infact Spider-Man. It's another non-verbal shot, but the dishearted look following this kiss is written all over her face. Another indication that her then-current path was going to be anything but fulfilling in the long term.

Both Peter & MJ make bad decisions in SM2, equating them both as imperfect people, both persuing and pushing the other away, then finally coming together at the end following all the trials and tribulations. But that's a underlying theme in SM2 to be perfectly honest, isn't it? Making tough decisions, even if it's stands in contrast to your own personal needs and ambitions. Peter did. Mary Jane did. Harry Osborn did. Even Doc Ock.

I wouldn't go so far in saying that Raimi's Spider-Man is my definitiive Spider-Man, but if we're talking strictly the live action cinematic films we have thus far, yeah, I don't see SM1 & SM2 being topped anytime soon. Especially in light of what we've received over, say, the past decade.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 12:42There was also the scene where MJ purposely recreates the now iconic kiss from SM1 with John Jameson. Clearly hoping against hope that perhaps John was infact Spider-Man. It's another non-verbal shot, but the dishearted look following this kiss is written all over her face. Another indication that her then-current path was going to be anything but fulfilling in the long term.

Huh.

I guess I thought she kissed John like that to see if she'd get the same thrill as when she kissed Spider-Man like that. And as predictable as it was to her, no, she didn't get the same thrill. Hence, the disappointment.

When she moved in to kiss Peter just before Ock's attack, she was essentially trying the same thing on him, kind of.

Yours is an interesting take though.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 19:12
Huh.

I guess I thought she kissed John like that to see if she'd get the same thrill as when she kissed Spider-Man like that. And as predictable as it was to her, no, she didn't get the same thrill. Hence, the disappointment.

When she moved in to kiss Peter just before Ock's attack, she was essentially trying the same thing on him, kind of.

Yours is an interesting take though.

Then again, it could just be me looking too deep into things.

I just always took it as an act of MJ trying, or wanting, to convince herself of something she knows beforehand probably isn't true. Even if John essentially fits the ideal classic mold of what a (super)hero would be.

There's some terrific analysis going on in this thread.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 19:12

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 12:42There was also the scene where MJ purposely recreates the now iconic kiss from SM1 with John Jameson. Clearly hoping against hope that perhaps John was infact Spider-Man. It's another non-verbal shot, but the dishearted look following this kiss is written all over her face. Another indication that her then-current path was going to be anything but fulfilling in the long term.

Huh.

I guess I thought she kissed John like that to see if she'd get the same thrill as when she kissed Spider-Man like that. And as predictable as it was to her, no, she didn't get the same thrill. Hence, the disappointment.

When she moved in to kiss Peter just before Ock's attack, she was essentially trying the same thing on him, kind of.

Yours is an interesting take though.

I'd not thought about this scene too much before either, but The Joker's take is interesting. Jameson presents his son John as a contrast to Spider-Man, just like he did in the original comics. John is a legitimate hero, while Spidey is the disreputable vigilante. This is somewhat similar to the contrast between Batman and Dent in The Dark Knight. M.J. can't have Spider-Man, so she gravitates towards the next best thing. In the scene where she kisses John on the couch, she's clearly comparing him with Spider-Man. In the next scene she's meeting with Peter to tell him that he's the one she wants to be with.

The scene where she recreates the inverted kiss with John is the moment were M.J. discards the fantasy of the unobtainable hero that is Spider-Man – against which John is a less desirable but more obtainable 'next best thing' – in favour of the more flawed and realistic prospect embodied in Peter. She tried doing this at the end of the first film, and when she couldn't have Peter following Norman's funeral she ended up becoming involved with another 'hero' in the form of John. Or perhaps John represents the midway point between Spider-Man and Peter? Did M.J. at one time perceive Flash Thompson as a hero as well? If so, there's a clear pattern in her choice of men prior to Peter.

It's a bit like Lois Lane abandoning her pursuit of the perfect man, Superman, in favour of the flawed everyman that is Clark Kent. In that sense, John is very much a stand-in for Spider-Man and the fantasy he represents in M.J.'s mind. A fantasy that she then rejects. Of course in the end she gets Peter and Spider-Man, but she didn't know they were one and the same when she met with Peter in the coffee shop.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  8 Jul  2019, 10:00Life is all about confidence and trying to create a window of opportunity, no matter what it is you're seeking. You might be wanting a job interview, or in Peter's case, your soul mate. Failure to get that opening leads to constant longing. By the time MJ kissed him, Peter knew he had an opening for love, and he had to literally fight Doc Ock to reclaim the prize. That was natural motivation so Peter made it happen. Peter's hope was rekindled through strong positive emotions.

Failure is one of the central themes in Spider-Man 2. All three of Raimi's movies deal with the idea of responsibility in the face of trying circumstances. Spider-Man 1 is about dealing with power. Spider-Man 2 is about dealing with failure. Spider-Man 3 is about dealing with success. All three things can be equally corrosive to the human soul if they're handled in an irresponsible manner. Peter has to learn how to deal with these experiences in order to transition from the boy he is at the beginning of the first film...


...to the man he's become at the end of the third.


If we look back over all the different stages of his journey, we can see the challenges he went through, the missteps he took along the way, and the various people he might have turned into. That's quite a character arc. By comparison, the MCU Peter has undergone very little growth or development across the span of five films. His status might have changed slightly, and he might have grown a smidgeon less naïve and excitable, but he's still basically the same guy at the end of Far From Home that he was in Civil War.

But Maguire's Peter learned new things and continued growing across all three films in the trilogy. There are actions he'd take in one film that he wouldn't take in the next because his attitude and worldview have changed. For example, in the first two films he puts M.J. on a pedestal because he thinks he's unworthy of her, but by the third film his confidence has grown to the point of arrogance and he starts taking her emotional needs for granted. In the first film he's willing to abuse his powers to make a quick buck at the wrestling match, but after learning the folly of such irresponsibility he spends the second movie struggling financially in the pursuit of honest pay. In the first Spider-Man film he never forgives Ben's killer and shows no remorse when he dies, but by the end of Spider-Man 3 he's able to forgive Marko and let go of his anger, because by that point he's experienced firsthand how easy it is to get drawn into the darkness. All of these changes reflect the organic growth of his character.

There was a time when I was resentful that Raimi's Spider-Man 4 never got made. But in retrospect, I'm glad the series ended when it did. For one thing, Sony probably would've screwed it up. But for another, Spider-Man 3 serves as a fitting conclusion to the stories of Peter, M.J. and Harry and offers closure to the entire saga. Compare that with the Iron Man, Thor or Captain America trilogies, which have open-ended finales that lead into the next Avengers movie without providing any real closure. Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy tells a complete story with a beginning, middle and end, just like Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy did. And unfortunately that's becoming an increasingly rare thing in the age of shared universe CBMs.

You know, comparing the two different cinematic incarnations of Spider-Man we have received since SM3, I can't help but have a huge curiosity in how a SM4 or a followup Raimi trilogy (SM4-SM5-SM6) would have turned out if Raimi were left to his own devices? However, I agree with SN 110% that Sony probably would have found a way to much it all up somehow.

It's really a shame, but the ending to SM3 does indeed feel like a rightful conclusion to the entire series, and I agree that it might have actually worked out for the better for the series to end this way. One thing I like about SM3's ending, is how much it's in contrast to the previous two films endings. Rather than continue on with the theme of a grand finale with Spider-Man swinging around New York, SM3's ending is alot more tender and solemn. Right down to Mary Jane's nightclub singing, "I'm thru with Love", to Peter arriving, holding his hand out, and non-verbally asking MJ for a slow dance, to them slow dancing closely together with the final closeup of Peter's face evoking strong, but quiet emotions. If I had to interpret them, I would say that they are feelings of euphoria, devotion and feeling at peace he only gets when he's with MJ. About the best comparison, in my mind, I could make, is the ending of the original 1976 Rocky with Adrian telling Rocky she loves him, with Rocky's non verbal response being that of quiet, but pure jubilation.

As much as I would have loved to have seen more Spider-Man films under Raimi's direction and cast, I don't know if this particular conclusion could have been matched. There's just a certain sense of finality about it that makes it very appropriate that SM3's ending, concludes this Spider-Man's story arc.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 16:43Failure is one of the central themes in Spider-Man 2. All three of Raimi's movies deal with the idea of responsibility in the face of trying circumstances. Spider-Man 1 is about dealing with power. Spider-Man 2 is about dealing with failure. Spider-Man 3 is about dealing with success. All three things can be equally corrosive to the human soul if they're handled in an irresponsible manner. Peter has to learn how to deal with these experiences in order to transition from the boy he is at the beginning of the first film...

I've been criticized for making similar observations. I viewed Peter as rather dismissive of MJ's troubles in SM3. He never really listened to her. Things were going pretty well in Peter's world and he didn't seem to have much time for MJ and her drama.

One could argue that MJ treated Peter in a similar way in SM2. But I think the difference there is that Peter wasn't giving MJ any real evidence that he wasn't a total screw up. In SM3, they've both laid all their cards on the table and Peter simply has less of an excuse.

It kind of makes it understandable that MJ got close to Harry before pulling back in regret. Harry was offering her a support system that Peter simply wasn't at the time.

Far from being a criticism, I really appreciate the mature fashion in which these relationships are developed. MJ and Peter take turns looking like jerks to the audience and it really shows a lot of faith on Raimi's part that he trusted viewers to not eventually completely turn on the characters.

And honestly, that's really why I think we might've dodged a bullet with Raimi leaving the franchise. A new trilogy would've needed to tell its own story and it's open to debate how much character development was left in the tank for Peter and MJ. Then again, it's only implied that they came back to each other. Maybe there were new directions to go in. But I enjoy the ambiguous note that SM3 ends on. You can view the dance as a new beginning for the couple... or you can view it as each of them closing the door on the other in a tender, sensitive way.

Still, I don't see what more could be said with those iterations of the characters that's truly groundbreaking. Maybe it really was time for a reboot.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 18:55It's really a shame, but the ending to SM3 does indeed feel like a rightful conclusion to the entire series, and I agree that it might have actually worked out for the better for the series to end this way. One thing I like about SM3's ending, is how much it's in contrast to the previous two films endings. Rather than continue on with the theme of a grand finale with Spider-Man swinging around New York, SM3's ending is alot more tender and solemn. Right down to Mary Jane's nightclub singing, "I'm thru with Love", to Peter arriving, holding his hand out, and non-verbally asking MJ for a slow dance, to them slow dancing closely together with the final closeup of Peter's face evoking strong, but quiet emotions. If I had to interpret them, I would say that they are feelings of euphoria, devotion and feeling at peace he only gets when he's with MJ. About the best comparison, in my mind, I could make, is the ending of the original 1976 Rocky with Adrian telling Rocky she loves him, with Rocky's non verbal response being that of quiet, but pure jubilation.

The Rocky comparison is a good one. That scene was definitely a solemn note to end the trilogy on, but it also felt appropriate. Notice that SM3 is also the only movie in the trilogy not to feature a variation of the sixties TV theme over the end credits. I know at the time it wasn't intended to be the final entry in the series, but it works well as one. It's the end of the Green Goblin saga that began in the first film. A fourth movie would have marked the beginning of a totally new saga.

I've just been reading up on the deleted scenes from Spider-Man 3, and it sounds like this is another one of those films that would seriously benefit from an extended cut. Many of the problems with the third act could be fixed using deleted footage. There are numerous fan edits out there, as well as an authorised Editor's Cut that was quietly released in 2017. I haven't seen the Editor's Cut yet, but I gather that it still omits many of the deleted scenes and is streamlined to the extent of being 2 minutes shorter than the theatrical cut. I suppose that's one way to go, but I'd prefer to see an extended version with the missing scenes restored. I won't list all the deleted scenes here, but I will just highlight a few that would help improve the movie's third act.

Instead of the awkward first meeting between Venom and Sandman, there was originally a different sequence of events. Firstly there was this scene, where Marko takes on the form of a sandcastle so he can see his daughter in a park.


Following this there was to be another scene in the park where Eddie tracks down Sandman using his new Venom senses and tells him that his daughter can be cured provided he can raise the money for the treatment. Eddie then offers to front the cash if Marko will help him kill Spider-Man.


This would have made it clear that Marko didn't actually want to kill Spider-Man but was only doing so to help his daughter, which is more consistent with his motivation throughout the first half of the film. By contrast, the theatrical cut makes Sandman look like a vengeful killer and doesn't offer any explanation for why he suddenly relents during the final battle. So why does he relent?

Well, after Marko first becomes Sandman he was meant to visit a character named Dr Wallace, played by Adrian Lester. Wallace was then meant to show up during the finale, having collected Marko's wife and daughter from their home, and persuade Captain Stacy to let them on to the construction site. The wife and daughter would have gone up in a lift and arrived just in time to stop Marko from killing Spider-Man.


They tell Marko that his daughter's condition is incurable and beg him to stop. There would then follow a conversation between Sandman and Spider-Man where Marko reveals what happened with Ben and Peter forgives him. They have a similar conversation in the theatrical cut, but this one would have happened earlier in the finale and in a different location, with Marko's family present. So Sandman definitely got short changed in the theatrical cut.

Eddie and Gwen also had some extra scenes. There was one where Eddie goes to see Gwen at her house after losing his job and she dumps him. Then there was a scene of him wandering the streets despondently before ending up in the church. Gwen and Captain Stacy were both meant to be present during the finale, and Gwen would have had a larger presence at Harry's funeral. It sounds like her subplot would have received some closure in the final act. Instead the theatrical cut has her abruptly vanish after the jazz club scene only to reappear very briefly at the funeral.


Then there's the conversation between Harry and the butler. Apparently this was originally intended to be a hallucination and there would have been at least one earlier scene to foreshadow this. So the idea was that the butler wasn't really there, but rather was a manifestation of Harry's conscience trying to make him confront the truth about his father. Kind of like Matt hallucinating about Fisk in Daredevil season 3. There was also an alternate scene of Peter asking Harry to help him save M.J., as well as an earlier scene where M.J. visits Harry and asks him to forgive Peter before Venom kidnaps her.


So Harry's volte-face made more sense in the original script and was built up to more gradually, and the plot hole about the butler knowing the truth regarding Norman was eliminated entirely.

The good news is that all of the scenes I've mentioned here were shot, so the footage is out there somewhere. I maintain that the theatrical cut of Spider-Man 3 is still a decent film and that the first two thirds are solid, but with a little careful editing that final act could be significantly improved and the picture as a whole elevated to a higher standard. Hopefully Sony will do it at some point.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 19:37I've been criticized for making similar observations. I viewed Peter as rather dismissive of MJ's troubles in SM3. He never really listened to her. Things were going pretty well in Peter's world and he didn't seem to have much time for MJ and her drama.

One could argue that MJ treated Peter in a similar way in SM2. But I think the difference there is that Peter wasn't giving MJ any real evidence that he wasn't a total screw up. In SM3, they've both laid all their cards on the table and Peter simply has less of an excuse.

It kind of makes it understandable that MJ got close to Harry before pulling back in regret. Harry was offering her a support system that Peter simply wasn't at the time.

Far from being a criticism, I really appreciate the mature fashion in which these relationships are developed. MJ and Peter take turns looking like jerks to the audience and it really shows a lot of faith on Raimi's part that he trusted viewers to not eventually completely turn on the characters.

There's definitely a role reversal in SM3. In the second movie Peter is attacked by the press, loses his job, has to give up his dreams, watches the person he loves drift towards someone else, keeps his pain to himself so as not to burden his friends, and is comforted in the final scene by M.J. In the third movie M.J. is attacked by the press (the theatre critics who trash her performance), loses her job (she gets fired from the musical), has to give up her dreams (at the start of the film she's acting on Broadway, and by the end she's back to waitressing like she was in the first movie), watches the person she loves drift towards someone else (Peter and Gwen Stacy), keeps her pain to herself so as not to burden her friends (she doesn't tell Peter she was fired because she doesn't want to ruin his big day), and is comforted in the final scene by Peter.

Even before the Symbiote amplified his aggression, Peter was already becoming arrogant. The success had gone to his head, and in shedding much of his insecurity his ego went too far in the opposite direction. Nowhere is this more evident than in the scene where he tells Gwen to kiss him, knowing that M.J. is watching, and in the scene at the restaurant where he's planning on proposing. Mary Jane is trying to tell him something important, but he keeps turning it around and making it about himself. It's not until the jazz club scene, where he actually hits her, that he has his moment of clarity and recognises that the problem lies in his attitude and not hers. Then he finally admits he was putting his own needs ahead of M.J.'s: "You said a husband's gotta put his wife before himself. I'm not ready."

And this ties into one of the other main themes in Spider-Man 3, which is forgiveness. "Well, you start by doing the hardest thing: You forgive yourself." Almost every character in the movie is on a journey of contrition. Harry and M.J. both forgive Peter, and Peter himself forgives Marko. You could also say that Peter and Marko forgive themselves, since both characters are wracked with guilt by the end of the film and both are looking for absolution. The one character that proves incapable of forgiveness is Brock, who persists in his vendetta against Peter until the bitter end. I like how both Peter and Eddie end up taking refuge in the church, albeit for very different reasons, and just as one becomes free of his demons the other becomes possessed. That feels more like something you'd expect from a Daredevil story than a Spider-Man adventure. That's probably why I like it.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 18:55As much as I would have loved to have seen more Spider-Man films under Raimi's direction and cast, I don't know if this particular conclusion could have been matched. There's just a certain sense of finality about it that makes it very appropriate that SM3's ending, concludes this Spider-Man's story arc.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  9 Jul  2019, 19:37And honestly, that's really why I think we might've dodged a bullet with Raimi leaving the franchise. A new trilogy would've needed to tell its own story and it's open to debate how much character development was left in the tank for Peter and MJ. Then again, it's only implied that they came back to each other. Maybe there were new directions to go in. But I enjoy the ambiguous note that SM3 ends on. You can view the dance as a new beginning for the couple... or you can view it as each of them closing the door on the other in a tender, sensitive way.

Still, I don't see what more could be said with those iterations of the characters that's truly groundbreaking. Maybe it really was time for a reboot.

There could be some clues to what Raimi's fourth film might have been like in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Into the Spider-Verse heavily references the Raimi films, right down to using audio samples of Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben and recreating various iconic scenes from the trilogy. Including this:


Amongst the iterations of Spider-Man that feature prominently in the film is an out-of-shape middle-aged version who is divorced from Mary Jane. Apparently the filmmakers considered approaching Maguire to voice him, but finally decided against it. While this isn't literally the Raimiverse Peter, he does bear some obvious similarities to him. I've read online speculation that this Peter's divorced status was inspired by what would have happened in Raimi's SM4. This may not be true, but I've heard that the script by James Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross began with Peter and Mary Jane married, only to end with them divorced because Peter cheated on M.J. with Felicia Hardy. Supposedly Raimi was unhappy with this script and disliked the way it made Peter seem like a jerk (especially after he'd already gone through his jerk phase in SM3). He felt it needed a lot of work, but Sony had already announced a release date and wouldn't give him an extension. And that's why the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with the reboot.

I get the impression Raimi took the backlash against SM3 very personally. The movie wasn't a failure by any means, but there was certainly a lot of negativity surrounding it, and I don't think Raimi had ever experienced criticism on that scale before. His next project, the horror comedy Drag Me to Hell (2009), was very much a return to his roots. That movie is him taking a break from Spider-Man to show what he's capable of doing when the studio isn't interfering in his work. There was no way he was going to make Spider-Man 4 unless he knew he could knock it out of the park, and Sony were never going to allow him the freedom he needed to accomplish that. So things really did turn out for the best, both for Raimi and the fans.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 10 Jul  2019, 21:51Amongst the iterations of Spider-Man that feature prominently in the film is an out-of-shape middle-aged version who is divorced from Mary Jane. Apparently the filmmakers considered approaching Maguire to voice him, but finally decided against it. While this isn't literally the Raimiverse Peter, he does bear some obvious similarities to him. I've read online speculation that this Peter's divorced status was inspired by what would have happened in Raimi's SM4. This may not be true, but I've heard that the script by James Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross began with Peter and Mary Jane married, only to end with them divorced because Peter cheated on M.J. with Felicia Hardy. Supposedly Raimi was unhappy with this script and disliked the way it made Peter seem like a jerk (especially after he'd already gone through his jerk phase in SM3). He felt it needed a lot of work, but Sony had already announced a release date and wouldn't give him an extension. And that's why the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with the reboot.

I originally deleted a few extra remarks I made. But since you kind of touch on them above...

One reason I was infuriated by OMD was that Marvel has spent all these decades telling us that Spider-Man is the "relateable" superhero. And yet, a common experience among Millennials (the upper spectrum of whom were in their mid-twenties when OMD came out) was coming from a broken home. And here was Peter in a seemingly happy and stable marriage. If Peter is Mr. Identifiable and if the writers obviously wanted the Spider-Marriage ended (which they clearly did), why not write in Peter and MJ getting divorced in the comics?

The older I get, the less I believe in Peter and MJ as a couple anyway. I just have a tough time seeing it these days. So why not tackle a truly challenging subject without clean and easy answers for readers to puzzle through? OMD as written is such a cheap, no-fault copout that I despise it even more now than I did when it first came out back in 2006 or 2007 or whenever.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 10 Jul  2019, 21:51I get the impression Raimi took the backlash against SM3 very personally. The movie wasn't a failure by any means, but there was certainly a lot of negativity surrounding it, and I don't think Raimi had ever experienced criticism on that scale before. His next project, the horror comedy Drag Me to Hell (2009), was very much a return to his roots. That movie is him taking a break from Spider-Man to show what he's capable of doing when the studio isn't interfering in his work. There was no way he was going to make Spider-Man 4 unless he knew he could knock it out of the park, and Sony were never going to allow him the freedom he needed to accomplish that. So things really did turn out for the best, both for Raimi and the fans.

Quite true. I'll never completely forgive fans for how they ripped SM3 apart. I'd be the last guy to argue that SM3 is perfect. But still, I enjoy it a damn sight more than Superman II AND I'M A SUPERMAN GUY!

Very frankly, Raimi had earned more loyalty from Sony than he was ultimately shown when it comes to SM4 (before the plug was pulled). The best thing for Sony to have done after SM3 was put the franchise on hold for maybe three or four years and allow the principals to explore other projects and recharge their creative batteries a little bit before coming back for another trilogy.

I think you could argue based on SM3 as a finished product that Raimi needed a break after SM2 and he never got it. After TDK, Chris Nolan seems to have had virtually unlimited freedom with TDKRises. In fact, some bigwig from WB made it very clear circa mid-2010 that as far as WB was concerned, Nolan could take as much time to develop a third Batman film as he thought was necessary. I forget the guy's name but you could tell that the last thing WB wanted to do was upset the apple cart with Nolan. Whether or not that was the right policy, that was still the policy.

But it looks like Sony became more and more hands on and dictatorial with Raimi as time went by in spite of the fact that he had repeatedly proven himself. Very strange way to maintain relations with the talent who make these films. But it's become clear in recent years what a dumpster fire Sony is.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  6 Jul  2019, 17:02It's true that Peter's emotional reason for not stopping the robber is different in the film, but I'd argue the underlying moral message about responsibility is still the same. Both the 2002 movie and Amazing Fantasy #15 present the idea that it's not only wrong to misuse power, but that it's equally wrong to not use it when doing so would help others. This message is repeated by Octavius in the second movie when he speaks of intelligence: "Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift. And you use it for the good of mankind." The same principle applies to power. In the first movie, Peter chooses not to exercise his power – and by extension, not to exercise responsibility – for selfish emotional reasons. In doing so, he allows a gun-toting criminal to go free without regard for the other people he might hurt. And the consequences of this irresponsible act are visited back on him in tragic proportion. In the comics his inaction was motivated by hubris, while in the movie it was motivated by spite and a desire for revenge. But in both stories we see Peter's selfish emotional drives overriding his sense of moral obligation. While the emotional context is indeed different, I'd say the moral problem – of refusing to help someone in need for personal reasons – remains the same.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

I'm not gonna argue whether it's better or not. But Sam Raimi seemed to have a similar mindset, to me, based off of what he says in the commentary for SM1:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

I think similarly about it not erasing the responsibility lesson.

Quote from: Silver NemesisM.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

The Harry scene, as far as I know would've played out differently, where MJ, who hadn't been captured in this version, would come to Harry and talk to him. I think the line that was in one of the trailers would've been in this scene, where MJ says: "We've all done terrible things to eachother, but we have to forgive eachother or everything we ever were will mean nothing."

I'm not sure if the butler scene would've remained or not though, but with a different context. But also I think the point of Harry helping isn't necessarily that he 100% accept the truth that his dad killed himself, but more that he'd rather help his friends than obsess over revenge. Though also I think someone who cared about Harry would have a hard time telling him that his dad was insane and became the green goblin and tried to kill his friends and killed himself. And after hearing, Harry could start to think Peter was being truthful before when he told him that his dad killed himself, as I think it's not likely for someone to grab the glider and hit Norman with it.

As was already told to you, Gwen was going to be kidnapped instead of MJ. I think the idea of it being Betty could've been interesting, but I also think Gwen can also serve as a parallel in a way to MJ, with connection to Eddie paralleling Peter. And I actually like her in the movie. I can see your point about many moving parts though.

While I think breaking into 2 parts could've been interesting, as far as I understand it, Sam Raimi was essentially told to do Venom for this movie. And the Gwen shift apparently came in midway through production. And the original version of the script was apparently going to have Vulture and Sandman originally, but supposedly Sam was told to do Venom instead.

Quote from: Silver NemesisInto the Spider-Verse is worth seeing, but make sure your expectations are in check. It's not the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, any more than the recent MCU films are. But it's good. It puts a fresh spin on the material, it's nicely animated, and it contains lots of Easter egg allusions to older Spider-Man films, comics and TV shows. I don't think it's as good as Spider-Man 2, but I like it a lot more than Homecoming. And it gets bonus points for having Kingpin as the main villain.

I think it's better than MCU's Spider-Man in ways.

Quote from: Silver NemesisA lot of fans are insistent on the younger and more comedic characterisation these days. You mentioned the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I wonder if that's partly to blame. I saw an episode of that on a plane once, and I was surprised at just how far they went with the comedy. Especially compared to the nineties Spider-Man carton, which was far more dramatic. I suppose the popularity of Deadpool might also be a factor. Everyone seems to want Spider-Man to be a fourth-wall-breaking teenage chatterbox, but as you point out, that's not how he was depicted in most of the comics or animated shows prior to this decade. I like humour in my Spider-Man stories too, but I also like a little drama and darkness.

I think similarly with this and it's an issue I've had with the MCU Spider-Man movies. Not necessarily darkness, but more some heaviness. The character doesn't have to mope to develop the weight on the character more.

Quote from: Silver NemesisBut I agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

I'm not sure if that's more selfish than marrying someone and consumating that marriage and living with them until they decide to leave them. How does she string Peter along anymore than Peter himself does by trying to woo her with poetry and asking her out to eat with him, while she's engaged?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  6 Jul  2019, 17:43I guess the randomness of Ben's murder is what works for me in AF #15. It is pretty long odds that Ben would get killed by the very same thief Peter allowed to escape. But for me, that's the entire point. He was always going to kill somebody. Peter was directly affected by his own inaction.

And while I understand your point about Peter's lie in SM1, the fact remains that in AF #15, Peter was a jerk for absolutely no reason whereas he was a jerk in the movie with some justification. In AF #15, Peter had a massive chip on his shoulder and his powers allowed him to act upon that. He wanted to take care of May and Ben in a negative sense and for all the wrong reasons. He was more selfish in SM1, and for no apparent reason. It's been forever since I've seen the movie but I don't remember Peter's school life being so terrible in SM1. Whereas he was rather a social pariah in AF #15.

Idk, I suppose there's room for disagreement here. But so far, I'm not satisfied with ANY of the Uncle Ben/origin stories in the films.

Peter's reason was wrong. There's no justification in him taking revenge.

Peter was made to chase the bus as the busdriver laughed at him along with the students and kept going. He was messed with by Flash in that movie too. This girl wouldn't let him sit down next to her, a guy told him he was lame, someone tripped him.

Peter's action was more evil than selfish, like in the comics. It was a purposeful, vindictive action he made with malice of forethought. The only sympathy comes from us thinking we might do the same thing, but we'd all equally be just as much in the wrong too. And I think Sam Raimi agrees based on what he says in the SM1 commentary:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  5 Jul  2019, 18:46This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

I'd say the point of that scene is similar. He walks away and I think we're supposed to get that he feels guilty about and I think that leads into the fire scene.

Truly devious nature? She doesn't marry him and goes to the person she actually does care about at the end of the day. For all intents and purposes she's not trying to hurt the guy as far as I think we're supposed to get. Should she wait for Peter, whose rejected her?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul  2019, 23:52
One reason I was infuriated by OMD was that Marvel has spent all these decades telling us that Spider-Man is the "relateable" superhero. And yet, a common experience among Millennials (the upper spectrum of whom were in their mid-twenties when OMD came out) was coming from a broken home. And here was Peter in a seemingly happy and stable marriage. If Peter is Mr. Identifiable and if the writers obviously wanted the Spider-Marriage ended (which they clearly did), why not write in Peter and MJ getting divorced in the comics?

The older I get, the less I believe in Peter and MJ as a couple anyway. I just have a tough time seeing it these days. So why not tackle a truly challenging subject without clean and easy answers for readers to puzzle through? OMD as written is such a cheap, no-fault copout that I despise it even more now than I did when it first came out back in 2006 or 2007 or whenever.

Agreed.

OMD was a horribly executed story in removing the marriage between Peter and Mary Jane in the comics, and I don't really feel as if time has eased or lessened the negative impact that story had on the readership now more than a decade ago. I seem to recall that the Editor in Chief was quite open about his intentions on getting Peter & MJ split up for years prior to OMD. I  mean, didn't Marvel even attempt to make Peter a widower by having MJ supposedly die in a freak airplane accident or something to that effect?

For some reason, I guess making Peter a widower or divorcee was just taking things too far. So let's just have him make a deal with, essentially, the devil and pretend the marriage never happened.... A truly brilliant idea from those involved. I don't think anyone was shocked when the marriage was undone, but more disenfranchised on HOW it was undone.

The marriage to me, was something I could take or leave. By the time I became a regular reader, the marriage had been in place for a number of years already, and it wasn't something that I found particularly off putting as a then-new reader. Course the time frame I became a new reader couldn't have come at a more controversial time; Clone Saga, Ben Reilly is Spider-Man, revamped villains, no Peter Parker is Spider-Man, John Byrne's Chapter One, ect. However, thanks to reprints, Masterworks, and reading some of the older stuff, I was fully aware of the previous eras of Spider-Man. Which helped me get a better understanding of the character, since the then-current stuff was so in flux. For me, the most "Identifiable" Spider-Man ever really got, as a kid discovering this stuff, was the Lee/Ditko era of Spider-Man. Which isn't a knock on other writers/artists, it's just that era was the apex, thanks to the Marvel Method of having Ditko illustrate the entire book, and Lee providing dialogue after the fact, and no other subsequent collaboration has ever again reached those heights.

Mmm. Reread this thing. And I'm not seeing a reference to Amazing Spider-Man Annual #01.

The reason this is significant is because I think that annual provided the inspiration for Peter occasionally losing his spider powers because of the weight of his responsibility. Virtually the exact same thing happened on page 06 of the annual.

Meaningless Trivia: That annual is also the earliest example I've ever seen of an in-story full page splash with Spider-Man duking it out with Electro. There may be something earlier than that which I've never heard of though.