RANT - Spiderman the movie (possible spoilers)

[LAUST]

<<

<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better. >>


LOL, well then you are a cartoon head and guess reading was too much for ya... Batman is terrible, wearing body armor?? I think not, All his bad guys die?? I think not,

X-men... LOL, you're a practical joker on the side huh, Wolverine is 4 1/2 feet tall, not 6 feet tall, Magneto is not an anchient old frale man and where was his force field, also he's a bad guy but he's not a monster, he would not kill people in that way. Mystique and Taod... can we please look for a worse pair of enemies to put in it? and where were the origional X-men..

Look over the stroy a little more on both of those movies, they are terrible when you stop and think about it

 

[LAUST]

<<

<<

<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better. >>



You're still missing the point. The movie was based off of the comics, not the goddamn tv show, get it? >>


Thankyou!

 

[LAUST]

<<

<<

<< WTF does the cartoon have to do with it Tuffguy? It's based on a comic book before any cartoon, yes there was some flaws in it but it's the best comic book superhero movie thats ever come out so far. >>


because the movie is very different from the cartoon. ESPECIALLY the portrayal of peter parker and spiderman.

also, i disagree. batman was much better. heck, even x-men was better. >>



NO. THE CARTOON WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMIC, HENCE DIFFERENT FROM THE MOVIE. The movie was quite true to the comic. WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. The cartoon is not true to the comic much at all. It is very flawed in its continuity with the comic. THE MOVIE WAS BASED ON THE COMIC BOOK. NOT THE CARTOON. END OF STORY. >>


another thankyou,

Edit: guess we have to cut him some slack, from his posts he's a youngin'!! watched cartoon's... wasn't around when Comics was the answer for that type of entertainment

 

[chiwawa626]

Despite what you crybabies say it was a badass movie...things dont have to be totaly accurate to be good. Also whoever said the spiderman cartoon was the ultimate deffinition of spiderman, im sure the cartoon didnt portray the comic exactly....

 

[Jfur]

<<

<< LOL, is that for real though (about Tobey's head & body)? I read that he bulked up for the role. >>


yeah. he said it during an interview. something about having a hard time matching the double's movements so that they could do the overlay. >>



I thought the overlay was the "before" scene when he was scrawny. It doesn't matter, though. Either way he is not exactly studly.

 

[TuffGuy]

<< You're still missing the point. The movie was based off of the comics, not the goddamn tv show, get it? >>


as are you. the cartoon was based off the comics ALSO. and stan lee and ditko ALSO worked on the cartoon.

if the stan lee and ditko worked on BOTH the cartoon AND the movie wouldn't you expect their vision to follow from one to the next?

they based the cartoon on the comics. they also based the movie on the comics. yet you guys are telling me that i can't compare the movie to the cartoon? what kind of fubared logic is that?

 

[lllJRlll]

<<

<< You're still missing the point. The movie was based off of the comics, not the goddamn tv show, get it? >>


as are you. the cartoon was based off the comics ALSO. and stan lee and ditko ALSO worked on the cartoon.

if the stan lee and ditko worked on BOTH the cartoon AND the movie wouldn't you expect their vision to follow from one to the next?

they based the cartoon on the comics. they also based the movie on the comics. yet you guys are telling me that i can't compare the movie to the cartoon? what kind of fubared logic is that? >>






About the only thing that the comic and the cartoon had in common was Spiderman

It was a cartoon made for kids.A whole lot of backstory was left out because it was meant to focus on Spiderman the wisecracking superhero.Each story had to be told in small 30 mins blocks so they altered and left a ton of out things to fit.

It's just silly to even think that the cartoon was even close to what the real Spider-Man story was

 

[ddjkdg]

<< I don't particularly care about inaccuracies, but I did see things I didn't like. The scenes with Peter and MJ were just plain painful. Whether they were holding true to the comic or not, they just plain sucked. They could have removed that 20 minutes from the film and added him making web shooters. If we can believe that a kid can get powers by being bit by a spider, is it so hard to believe he would have some connection to spiders that would allow him to determine a formula for web. I think this was a major screw up by the directors and producers.

Other than that, I really liked the special effects and I thought all the actors did a pretty good job with the movie. I thought the Green Goblins costume was much more fitting for a futuristic military weapon. >>



20 minutes of Peter building web shooters? Personally that would bore me to tears. The time is much better spent developing the characters and their relationships with each other. I never read the comics so I don't know exactly how he built his web shooters, but I think it would just be awkward in a movie. "Hey, check it out, I've got new super powers like precognition and wall climbing abilities, but this still sucks. I'm going to build some web shooters so I can fly around buildings." They made a good decision to have the ability built in to Spider-Man, it flows better with the rest of the movie.

 

[Nefrodite]

I thought the overlay was the "before" scene when he was scrawny. It doesn't matter, though. Either way he is not exactly studly.

it was probably the b4. tobey said he buffed up before he even got the part. he really really wanted the part apparently would be silly to body replace him for both scrawny and buff shots u know. he wasn't all that buff looking either just low fat.





20 minutes of Peter building web shooters? Personally that would bore me to tears. The time is much better spent developing the characters and their relationships with each other. I never read the comics so I don't know exactly how he built his web shooters


yup, basically how can a high school kid out think huge research corps like 3m parkers smart, not a super insane genius.



<< The only thing that really bothered me was the webs from his wrists. I liked everything else. >>

why? because of the cum shot action? jizzin all over nyc


<---dirty dirty mind...

 

[Fritzo]

<< arrrggghhhhhhh!!!!! whoever directed and produced this movie should be SHOT. whoever did the casting and whoever wrote the script whould have the balls cut off.

frigging eh. tobey maguire as spiderman? he is sooooo fvcking boring. anyone that grew up watching spiderman the cartoon will know exactly what i'm talking about. it sounds like he can't even remember the lines. he was probably smoking out between scenes in his trailer. i wonder how many people he had to blow to get the part. ugh. james franco as harry? c'mon... harry was a dork in the cartoon. he's suave in the movie. the hobgoblin? different costume and a different end to him. peter and mary jane? since when did things end THAT way between them? and since when does spiderman shoot the webs out of his wrists?!?!?!

and when did spiderman's mask ever rip in the cartoon? the scene between him and the goblin at the end. that was just RETARDED.

i feel sooooo cheated. whoever was in on the making of this movie probably never watched the cartoon and never read the comic. they should be shot. repeatedly.

oh yeah, and for the girls... that's not really tobey half-naked. it's a stunt double with tobey's head overlayed on it. >>



In other words, you went into the movie with a preconcieved version of what the movie should be like, and since the movie was nothing like you expected it to be, you didn't like it. They always make some changes to make the story more "scriptable" (they did this with Batman too). It was a great movie!

 

[Boogak]

Man, forget the Spiderman cartoon. Like someone else said, that was an adaptation geared towards kids. While I loved the cartoon cuz I got to see Spidey on TV (a frickin' apartment that has furniture that flips to reveal high-tech computers?? and these are supposed to be 3 college students??? puh-leaze!!), the movie was much truer to the comic book. Spiderman's mask gets torn up alot, especially in McFarlane's art. Overall I was pretty satisfied by the movie, me being a pretty big Spidey fan back when I was a young 'un. They got the whole Peter Parker as a geek part right, the organic web shooters was kinda lame, Green Goblin as a metallic armor thingy was weird but ok, and while the dialogue was a bit cheezy, it sounded like it was straight off the pages of a comic. While it reads fine in a comic, it sounded cheezy out loud. But this is by far the best comic to movie adaptation I've seen yet. Can't wait for the Hulk!!

 

[thawolfman]

<< I loved the movie enough to add it to my permanent movie list.

nik >>



just saw it and i gotta agree w/ nik

edit to get rid of that damn :| at the top of my post

 

[Atvar]

<< whoever was in on the making of this movie probably never watched the cartoon and never read the comic. they should be shot. repeatedly. >>



I have to save that quote. Thats a classic.

 

[Juniper]

I loved it The only part that I have criticism for is the green goblin's costume: so fake!!

 

[ThaGrandCow]

<< arrrggghhhhhhh!!!!! whoever directed and produced this movie should be SHOT. whoever did the casting and whoever wrote the script whould have the balls cut off.

frigging eh. tobey maguire as spiderman? he is sooooo fvcking boring. anyone that grew up watching spiderman the cartoon will know exactly what i'm talking about. it sounds like he can't even remember the lines. he was probably smoking out between scenes in his trailer. i wonder how many people he had to blow to get the part. ugh. james franco as harry? c'mon... harry was a dork in the cartoon. he's suave in the movie. the hobgoblin? different costume and a different end to him. peter and mary jane? since when did things end THAT way between them? and since when does spiderman shoot the webs out of his wrists?!?!?!

and when did spiderman's mask ever rip in the cartoon? the scene between him and the goblin at the end. that was just RETARDED.

i feel sooooo cheated. whoever was in on the making of this movie probably never watched the cartoon and never read the comic. they should be shot. repeatedly.

oh yeah, and for the girls... that's not really tobey half-naked. it's a stunt double with tobey's head overlayed on it. >>

Are you serious? This has got to be a "get as many responses as possible from people" thread. First off, I watched the cartoons as a kid, I also read the comic books. I can't remember him getting his mask ripped in the cartoon, but it was picture perfect to when it happened in the comics. Tobey Maguire did an excellent job, as well as the rest of the characters. Tobey did NOT have a stunt double for the part when he was half dressed. I remember seeing pics on Coming Attractions about 2 years ago that showed his progression from nothing to bulked up. He worked for 6 months straight with a personal trainer just to achieve that look. Spider-Man shoots webs out of his wrists because Sam Raimi wanted to show that his powers made him an outsider. That's why he always wears long sleeve shirts throughout the entire movie. Also, things have not ended "that way" between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. At this point he's worried that anyone connected to him will be hurt, so he's pushing her away. Have you wondered what will happen in the next movie? Let's see... As for Hary... if you were rich you would probably have a bit of self confidence, and also a sense of fashion. Probably also a personal stylist and personal trainer too. I believe Harry more as a suave guy than as a nerd. I think thats everything you hit on.

I haven't read any of the responses in this thread, just the first message, so I might be repeating some things that other people are saying. Sorry, but this is a knee-jerk reply.

Tuffguy, have you wondered why you are the only person that didn't like this movie? You couldn't have asked for a better interpertation of the movie. Yes Sam Raimi made a few slight changes: organic web shooters, Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy as 1 character, a few other things too... Those were made to make the movie flow better. I have to ask if you've ever read the comics. It seems that you only saw the cartoon and never once picked up the comic itself.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< arrrggghhhhhhh!!!!! whoever directed and produced this movie should be SHOT. whoever did the casting and whoever wrote the script whould have the balls cut off.

frigging eh. tobey maguire as spiderman? he is sooooo fvcking boring. anyone that grew up watching spiderman the cartoon will know exactly what i'm talking about. it sounds like he can't even remember the lines. he was probably smoking out between scenes in his trailer. i wonder how many people he had to blow to get the part. ugh. james franco as harry? c'mon... harry was a dork in the cartoon. he's suave in the movie. the hobgoblin? different costume and a different end to him. peter and mary jane? since when did things end THAT way between them? and since when does spiderman shoot the webs out of his wrists?!?!?!

and when did spiderman's mask ever rip in the cartoon? the scene between him and the goblin at the end. that was just RETARDED.

i feel sooooo cheated. whoever was in on the making of this movie probably never watched the cartoon and never read the comic. they should be shot. repeatedly.

oh yeah, and for the girls... that's not really tobey half-naked. it's a stunt double with tobey's head overlayed on it. >>

Are you serious? This has got to be a "get as many responses as possible from people" thread. First off, I watched the cartoons as a kid, I also read the comic books. I can't remember him getting his mask ripped in the cartoon, but it was picture perfect to when it happened in the comics. Tobey Maguire did an excellent job, as well as the rest of the characters. Tobey did NOT have a stunt double for the part when he was half dressed. I remember seeing pics on Coming Attractions about 2 years ago that showed his progression from nothing to bulked up. He worked for 6 months straight with a personal trainer just to achieve that look. Spider-Man shoots webs out of his wrists because Sam Raimi wanted to show that his powers made him an outsider. That's why he always wears long sleeve shirts throughout the entire movie. Also, things have not ended "that way" between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. At this point he's worried that anyone connected to him will be hurt, so he's pushing her away. Have you wondered what will happen in the next movie? Let's see... As for Hary... if you were rich you would probably have a bit of self confidence, and also a sense of fashion. Probably also a personal stylist and personal trainer too. I believe Harry more as a suave guy than as a nerd. I think thats everything you hit on.

I haven't read any of the responses in this thread, just the first message, so I might be repeating some things that other people are saying. Sorry, but this is a knee-jerk reply.

Tuffguy, have you wondered why you are the only person that didn't like this movie? You couldn't have asked for a better interpertation of the movie. Yes Sam Raimi made a few slight changes: organic web shooters, Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy as 1 character, a few other things too... Those were made to make the movie flow better. I have to ask if you've ever read the comics. It seems that you only saw the cartoon and never once picked up the comic itself. >>




Yup, Tobey was on Leno tonight. He said that he worked out 4 hours a day, 6 days a week for months.

Suck on that TuffGuy

 

[Nefrodite]

I loved it The only part that I have criticism for is the green goblin's costume: so fake!!


whats fake about armor that protects your head?

 

[Takhsis]

my problems with the movie follow:
Unrealistic movement during webslinging scenes. Is his body made of jello?
That guy who played spiderman. So nerdy. Too small. bad actor So not peter parker. when he had that monologue to maryjane in the hospital. i laughed and so did the entire theatre. Not believable his gestures and face was all wrong.
Green Goblin's son- needed to be more nerdy his general failure with women is what made mary jane so important of a relationship. This along with his father hunting him caused the formation of the hobgoblin.
Aunt May- not the frail old woman i expected. would have contributed to peter's need to protect her. "Is that an angel?" OMG i laughed my a$$ off when she said that.


I like these points:
The movie overall. good plot. mostly decent acting. great action scenes. awesome cgi.
Mary Jane - When she first called him "Tiger" outside of that diner and flipped her hair. Best moment in the whole movie. She = perfect mary jane really reminded me of the old cartoon at that point.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

I'm coming to this thread late, but I'll say something that hasn't been said before.

If Stan Lee had written Spider-man five years ago, instead of 40, do you honestly think the creation of Spider-man would have been due to a spider that lowered itself through a radioactive beam and then transfered all its powers to PP w/venom just before dying? Of course not! This is a modern adaptation of a great sci-fi story. Given today's current technology, using a mutated spider with DNA altering venom is actually more believable!! The characteristics of every story are heavily influenced by what our society is currently dealing with. If you ask me, having PP be able to spin his own webs makes more sense than him creating webspinning bracelets. I bet Stan Lee is kicking himself for not writing that in first place!!

As for Tobey Maguire as PP, I don't think they could have hit the mark better. I was skeptical at first, but after seeing the movie all I can say is...that boy nailed it. He put a lot of work into that role, and it shows in spades.

The Green goblin's suit (with helmet) makes perfect sense to me. Everything for that character was the result of a military project. The helmet fit in perfectly with the sled and the suit in general. This is something that all audiences, regardless of whether they had never read the comic books, would easily connect with and understand.

If I could have Stan Lee do the Spider-man comics over again, and he had a choice between the one from the 60's and this version...you better believe I'd take this version every time...change can be good too!

 

[ZeroBurn]

Originally posted by: ST4RCUTTER
I'm coming to this thread late, but I'll say something that hasn't been said before.

If Stan Lee had written Spider-man five years ago, instead of 40, do you honestly think the creation of Spider-man would have been due to a spider that lowered itself through a radioactive beam and then transfered all its powers to PP w/venom just before dying? Of course not! This is a modern adaptation of a great sci-fi story. Given today's current technology, using a mutated spider with DNA altering venom is actually more believable!! The characteristics of every story are heavily influenced by what our society is currently dealing with. If you ask me, having PP be able to spin his own webs makes more sense than him creating webspinning bracelets. I bet Stan Lee is kicking himself for not writing that in first place!!!

but they're not spinning a new storyline, they're making a film based off the original comic. the main audiance that are going to be sitting there are going to be fans of the original. when they make their adaptions that betray the original (video game, comic book, storybook, anything) they betray the fans.

believability i think is hugely a moot point- it only works for the audiance that have never experienced the original more than hearing it on the television or in conversations every now and then. we're talking about a comic book world where supervillians, aliens, and magical beings are practically the norm- arguing about details that make it more believable seem to be for vain IMHO.

radiation was the cool storybook "explains everything" fantasy, now it's moved onto genetic engineering, thus the slight change in super-spider origin. fans recognize the webshooters as another sign of peter's brilliance in using his scientific knowledge with his new found spider-knowledge. now equipped with organics, he strays farther away from the human being peter symbolizes. i've read interviews with stan lee i believe where he mentions he specifically gave peter webshooters for just that reason. besides, if you want to argue believability- what spider do you know of that shoots webbing from the tip of their arms? spider-man spitting webbing from his abdomen just doesn't seem quite as graceful.

the argument over organics will never die, it's a two sided sword, and i'm sure they knew that. give him the originals- the new audiance will go what the hell, not even 3M can do that, bs. give him organics and the old fans are up in arms at the disgrace. i would think they'd rather please the old loyal fans, but they probably also know those same fans will see the movie no matter what, so they might as well tend toward the new audiance...

 

[chickendinner]

i gave the movie thumbs down. I thought exit wounds was better

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

but they're not spinning a new storyline, they're making a film based off the original comic. the main audiance that are going to be sitting there are going to be fans of the original. when they make their adaptions that betray the original (video game, comic book, storybook, anything) they betray the fans.

believability i think is hugely a moot point- it only works for the audiance that have never experienced the original more than hearing it on the television or in conversations every now and then. we're talking about a comic book world where supervillians, aliens, and magical beings are practically the norm- arguing about details that make it more believable seem to be for vain IMHO.

radiation was the cool storybook "explains everything" fantasy, now it's moved onto genetic engineering, thus the slight change in super-spider origin. fans recognize the webshooters as another sign of peter's brilliance in using his scientific knowledge with his new found spider-knowledge. now equipped with organics, he strays farther away from the human being peter symbolizes. i've read interviews with stan lee i believe where he mentions he specifically gave peter webshooters for just that reason. besides, if you want to argue believability- what spider do you know of that shoots webbing from the tip of their arms? spider-man spitting webbing from his abdomen just doesn't seem quite as graceful.

the argument over organics will never die, it's a two sided sword, and i'm sure they knew that. give him the originals- the new audiance will go what the hell, not even 3M can do that, bs. give him organics and the old fans are up in arms at the disgrace. i would think they'd rather please the old loyal fans, but they probably also know those same fans will see the movie no matter what, so they might as well tend toward the new audiance...


I don't buy it. I think people just like things to be familiar and comfortable. It's a rare few that stray from the herd into brilliance...

 

[Moonbeam]

Somebody gave me the dvd, but I haven't watched it yet.

 

[ZeroBurn]

I don't buy it. I think people just like things to be familiar and comfortable. It's a rare few that stray from the herd into brilliance...

*shrug, i don't expect you to. you're obviously not one of the original fans i'm referring to.

 

[pulse8]

Sounds like you're comparing it too much to the cartoon.

Forgive the director and writer for think for themselves creatively.

and since when does spiderman shoot the webs out of his wrists?!?!?!

To have him make web shooters would have been irrelevant to the story and would've just made it longer.