# [OT] Spider-Man...who's interested? (possible spoilers)



## Tom Cashel (May 3, 2002)

I've got tickets for the show tonight at 7:30.  It's getting pretty good reviews, even in the _New York Times._  I'm psyched.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (May 3, 2002)

Salutations,

Bah- critics exist to be scorned and ignored.

Heh, I am excited- I am heading to the theater with my boss right after work. 

Ahh, it is a good time to be a geek.

FD


----------



## Bronn Spellforger (May 3, 2002)

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!















.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.


I heard he doesn't create his own web shooters! Lame!  Not gonna see it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 3, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *Heh, I am excited- I am heading to the theater with my boss right after work.  *




Ha! I can top that! A big group of us _including_ my boss are gonna catch the 3PM matinee!


Wulf


----------



## Ashtal (May 3, 2002)

I've got my advanced ticket for this afternoon's 3:50 PM showing.

Does that tell you anything?


----------



## hong (May 3, 2002)

Ashtal said:
			
		

> *I've got my advanced ticket for this afternoon's 3:50 PM showing.
> 
> Does that tell you anything?  *




That you're still unemployed?


----------



## Desdichado (May 3, 2002)

I'll be seeing it as a matinee today as well: as early as 1:30 or 2:00, though (playing every half hour at our nearest theater!  )


----------



## IceBear (May 3, 2002)

Bronn Spellforger said:
			
		

> *SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What's easier to believe - a 15-year old kid that gets bitten by a spider and gains all the powers of a spider, including webspinning, or a 15-year old kid that gets bitten by a spider and gains all the powers of a spider EXCEPT webspinning, and then goes an makes mechanical webshooters and whips up the web formula in his chemistry set?

I've been a spiderman fan for over 25 years, and while the second option works in the comics, I don't see modern audiences (many of which aren't spidey buffs) buying that a 15 year old kid (no matter how smart he is) could make webshooters.  If it were so easy, everyone would have a set 

I believe it's your loss for not going to see it, I'm there at 7:30 tonight.

IceBear


----------



## Crothian (May 3, 2002)

One of those great movies were the GF actually asked me to take her.  Like she needed to twist me arm.  I'll be going in a couple of hours.


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

SPOILER
.
.
.
.


> Icebear:
> What's easier to believe - a 15-year old kid that gets bitten by a spider and gains all the powers of a spider, including webspinning, or a 15-year old kid that gets bitten by a spider and gains all the powers of a spider EXCEPT webspinning, and then goes an makes mechanical webshooters and whips up the web formula in his chemistry set?




I was gonna say the same thing... why would he be able to gain all other abilities, but have to make his own web? never made any sense.

Oh yeah, and I believe he is in college, and not a HS kid.  Last time I checked, his scholl has chemistry labs with generators and radioactive isotopes with doctors as professors... my HS had colege drop outs teaching us....

And then, if he REALLY got the powers of a spider, then why is the webbing coming out o his hands?  last time I checked, a spider spun its web out of its arse...


----------



## IceBear (May 3, 2002)

I think he's in college in the movie too, but I think in the comic he started out as a 15 year old HS student.

IceBear


----------



## Tom Cashel (May 3, 2002)

Sodalis said:
			
		

> *
> And then, if he REALLY got the powers of a spider, then why is the webbing coming out o his hands?  last time I checked, a spider spun its web out of its arse...  *




LOL..._that'd_ go over well...

Please post spoiler-free reviews this afternoon....this evening...


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

I know that the comic has a lot of holes, but hey! its a comic- and the gathering of loyal fans arent really that strict about the realness of a story (we do play DND after all) 

anyhoo-Peter is a photographer for a major metropolitan newspaper- something a 15 year old cannot do- except nowadays- a kid can become a movie critic...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 3, 2002)

Sodalis said:
			
		

> *And then, if he REALLY got the powers of a spider, then why is the webbing coming out o his hands?  last time I checked, a spider spun its web out of its arse...  *




That's the part that really bothers me (yes, I am BOTHERED by the fact that he doesn't make his web shooters, so insert your 'Comic Book Guy' reference here).

Cause from what I understand, the webs come out of his wrists, BUT-- get this-- he has to make a pair of web shooters anyway to control and direct the webbing!!!

AUUUUUUGHHGGGH! Why screw with it? WHY!?


Wulf


----------



## Ristamar (May 3, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's the part that really bothers me (yes, I am BOTHERED by the fact that he doesn't make his web shooters, so insert your 'Comic Book Guy' reference here).
> 
> ...




Yeah, I thought that was pretty stupid, too.  I have no idea why they had to make such an odd change.

The other thing that bothers me is the fact that Willam Defoe wears that thick armor-like mask as the Green Goblin.  The guy has a perfect face structure for the Green Goblin...  why cover with that bulky thing?  Why couldn't they just use makeup or a softer, more form-fitting mask, so he'd retain his natural look?  Bah.

Anyway, nitpicks aside, I think it'll be good, and I'll probably go see it this weekend.


----------



## Ashtal (May 3, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That you're still unemployed?  *




LOL!  *kicks hong in the tush*

Yes, I am still unemployed.  HOWEVER, all my employed buds are seeing it with me at the same time. 

'Sides - you never know!  I might have picked up shift work! 

But, alas no.

If I had, I'd be running out to pick up Deities and Demigods!!!


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

> Ristamar:
> The other thing that bothers me is the fact that Willam Defoe wears that thick armor-like mask as the Green Goblin. The guy has a perfect face structure for the Green Goblin... why cover with that bulky thing? Why couldn't they just use makeup or a softer, more form-fitting mask, so he'd retain his natural look? Bah.




yeah- they tried to do too much with the costume.  All they had to do- as per the comic book- was place him in a purple costume (like batman's) and a green cloak.  

As for the face, they could have made something like the Joker- latex fitting mask that accentuated certain features- but the human look is still there for emotional and acting purposes.

the costume is what irked me the most- but the rest of the movie will make up for that... i hope

edit:
i know this is just a pesonal opinion that will never really go anywhere, but I was thinking more along the lines of Christopher Walkin for the GG.  he has that badass look, and also the mentality and the voice....

Iam not saying anything about DeFoe, I love his work and all, but I just saw Walkin in that part....


----------



## Dr Midnight (May 3, 2002)

I've got my tickets for the 7:30 show. 

It's reminiscient of Dec. 18th last year around this time, when all indications were pointing to greatness. I can't wait. 

Organic web-shooters don't bother me at all. Green Goblin's armor does... Just nit-picking though. 

Man oh man. I just can't believe that they made the spidey costume look as good as they did... and I can't believe they got web-slinging RIGHT. I'm reading a lot of "this is the best comic movie ever made" reviews, and if they can top Superman (which it looks like they just might), I'm going to fall on the floor spasming and frothing.


----------



## Talath (May 3, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ha! I can top that! A big group of us including my boss are gonna catch the 3PM matinee!
> 
> ...




Ha, I can top even that! Me and three of my friends are going to see it tonight for free!


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

> Wulf Ratbane:
> Ha! I can top that! A big group of us including my boss are gonna catch the 3PM matinee!
> 
> Talath :
> Ha, I can top even that! Me and three of my friends are going to see it tonight for free!




Hah, I can beat that... I will see it tomorrow so i dont have to wait in line... the crazy people are gone and the die hard fans are blurting out the best part sof the movie... 

and best of all... oh never mind...


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 3, 2002)

Can top all of those. Saw it over a week ago. 

I started a thread back then, posted a review and I'll say what I said then again:

_You'll believe a man can swing!_

Really! It's great! The GG costume looks horrid, but the GG still looks scary. 
Willem Dafoe is perfect for the part (I wasn't sure about him as Osborn when he was cast, but he rocks!).


----------



## Fiery James (May 3, 2002)

Hey guys,

I saw it on Wednesday night.  Yes, there are some tweaks and changes to the way things work, and some modifications to the costumes - but, at the end of the day, it all works.  It's a lot closer to the comic origins than, say, X-Men was.

Sure, I wish the CGI stuff was slightly better (it's still really good, but they haven't hit 100% yet), but there aren't any 20-minute long scenese of pure CGI, so that's not a problem.  I can take a 10-second slightly-off Spider-Man.

Now, I'm one of those people who doesn't settle for ok movies - I can't just enjoy the "popcorn"-ness of a flick and overlook any problems that a movie has.  I'm extra tough on films.

But, I really liked it!  I think Tobey does a great job - the discovery and growth of his powers are fantastic, and the human moments in Spidey's life have emotional impact.

Plus - there are some real laugh-out-loud moments in it.  Funny stuff that's intended to be funny.

It certainly does the job that it sets out to do - begin a Spider-Man franchise.  And it does this job well.

It's probably my favourite super-hero movie ever.  Well, maybe Superman 2, but close...

- James


----------



## Aaron L (May 3, 2002)

If Peter DID grow spinnarettes from the mutation, wouldn't he grow them in his...uh, rear?  I mean, he grew the contact pads on the ends of his limbs, not on his nose, why would the spinnarettes be different?  

I'm still seeing this movie and will enjoy it if it's good!  Sam Raimi said he was fully aware of what the web shooter change meant.  He is a Spider-Man fan.  The fact that it was a conscious decision by a fan and not some stupid goof up by a clueless suit, makes it pretty much acceptable for me!


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (May 3, 2002)

Saw it this morning.  The most outstanding thing was the acting.  It's good.  No, it's better then that.  I honestly could buy into the characters as real people which isn't something I expected from a comic book movie.  To start naming names would require the cast list.....

I'm not sure if it's better than Batman, but it's close.   Blows Superman out of the water and shows X-men what it could have been if it could dream.

Mmm.....next summer.....The Hulk.   Yummy.


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

> Devoutly Apathetic:
> I'm not sure if it's better than Batman, but it's close. Blows Superman out of the water and shows X-men what it could have been if it could dream




nice to know you loved it that much- but i seriously doubt it was sooo good as to blow superman out of the water.  If SM was made today and it was what it was- then Yes i will agree with you.  

But keep in mind that SM was made 25 years ago (1978)- some of the people on these boards arent even that old... and it was a  great movie- even by today's standards.  

Christopher Reeves was a mature actor, Lois lane needed a lil makeover- but as a whole- it was a ground breaking movie that I can watch over and over again without saying it sukked... unlike some other movies who will remain unnamed.

But i will reserve my judgement til after i see it... glad to know you liked it tho-


----------



## Crothian (May 3, 2002)

Spider is the second best super heores movie every.  Nothing will ever beat Superman.  Superman might be dated in technique and special effects, but it was awsome.

But this thread is about Spidy, not Sups.  The acting was great, William Defoe was the best in this movie.  I really liked this movie.  It was a good character based mopvie.  THe special effects were good, but they took a back seat to the story.  I wish Hollywood would do that more often.

Any news on a sequal?


----------



## Fiery James (May 3, 2002)

*Sequel*

Production on Spider-Man 2 is set to begin March 2003, from what my sources have told me.

After seeing the movie, I had a lot of thoughts about the appeal of Spider-Man.  Now, I've always been more of a DC boy myself, and a Batman fan in particular, but after seeing this movie --

Well, it'd be a LOT more fun to be Spider-Man than Batman, wouldn't it?  

I mean, to be Batman, you've got to spend years of intense training perfecting so many little aspects... not to mention that you're totally messed up in the head and strive religiously to impose order on your life and the world around you.

To be Spider-Man, you feel a little queasy for a bit, go to sleep a dork, and wake up buff with powers!!  Spider-Man's psyche is a lot more normal (well, for someone just entering adulthood) - but his life is a lot more out of control.

Anyway, Spider-Man seems like the easier option, so he's currently my "if I were a superhero" daydream to get me through work...

Also, I think Superman 2 was better than Superman, but that's just me.  There were actually a lot of little bits in Spider-Man that reminded me of Superman 2. Touches of humanity in the hero...

Danny Elfman seems to only have written one score, though.  I kept waiting for Batman to show up! 

- James


----------



## Black Omega (May 3, 2002)

I can always recognize an Elfman score, so I can see your point there.

For me Batman holds up much better as a superhero movie.  Superman was amazing for the time but it's horribly dated now and I don't just mean special effects.  Too much of the movie screams '70s'!, something Batman avoided.

I'm going out to see the movie tonight.  Should be fun.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (May 3, 2002)

I went and saw it this afternoon and it was awesome!

The only problem for me was the band of kids who wouldn't SHUT UP sitting above me in the theater.


I'm going to see it again, hopefully with a more respectful audiance.


----------



## Sodalis (May 3, 2002)

if you are looking to see the movie without people screaming, then you better wait a couple more days.  It is opening day and for the next three days (at least) there will be freaky fans, and die hard addicts goignt o see the movie.  They will be screaming at the special effects, the characters and teh villains- and every allusion to any other source be it movies, comics or just jokes- they will laugh, gasp and cry...

Or at least that is what i hope will happen when i see it...


----------



## Replica (May 3, 2002)

Just saw it.  What a great, fun movie.  There were even a few cheesy comic book lines.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (May 4, 2002)

Regarding GG's costume.....

[POSSIBLE SPOILER]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IIRC, the rationale behind the armor was that (a) the glider was the key focus, while the suit was a flight suit, & (b) the appearance of the helmet as the Goblin's face is more or less for psychological warfare.  I think they were trying to go for something a bit more plausible (esp. for a 2-hr movie) rather than have Osborn just invent the GG costume.


----------



## Sodalis (May 4, 2002)

makes sense, but completely unacceptable....

the GG is a physical manifestation of inner hatred.  to have him cheapened by a power Ranger ostume is just bad planning on their part... 

they will have to cancel opening day and redo the entire movie....


----------



## Desdichado (May 4, 2002)

I'm glad they did GG's costume they way they did.  Face it, folks, nobody wants a movie that _looks_ like a comic book: they are two different media of expression and what works for one simply does not for the other.

If _Lord of the Rings_ hadn't opened six monthes ago, this would have been the best movie I'd seen in at least a year and a half.  And the end so totally screamed: "Come see the sequel!!"

And despite the fan's outcries, Old Toby (not the hobbit "leaf" grower) was perfect as Peter Parker -- which is really what he has to play, not Spidey himself.

One interesting touch: when the old webhead was swinging, he made a lot of poses that absolutely screamed of the Todd MacFarlane influence.  Of course, Todd was always my favorite Spidey artist...


----------



## Dr Midnight (May 4, 2002)

Just three things Joshua said that I have to jump at-



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *I'm glad they did GG's costume they way they did.  Face it, folks, nobody wants a movie that looks like a comic book: they are two different media of expression and what works for one simply does not for the other.*



I'll make the obvious point- then why does the SPIDER-MAN costume, which _looks_ like a comic book, work so well? Ugh, body armor...



> _And despite the fan's outcries, Old Toby (not the hobbit "leaf" grower) was perfect as Peter Parker -- which is really what he has to play, not Spidey himself._



I kinda agree with all that, and I suppose it lines up with what Spidey was supposed to be about, but I never got the feeling that he was Spider-man. He played the part, and played it well, but I never felt like he was the guy under the mask. I looked forward to seeing the stuntman and not having to think about Tobey.



> _One interesting touch: when the old webhead was swinging, he made a lot of poses that absolutely screamed of the Todd MacFarlane influence.  Of course, Todd was always my favorite Spidey artist... _



I cannot think of a suitably humorous and sarcastic way to express my disbelief. At the risk of sounding like Dr. Midnight, king opinionated comic art snob: McFarlane is a hack. 

A hack who could buy and sell me several times, sure, but his art is overrendered, overrated crap.

My thoughts on the movie- I'm oddly cold right now. I wanted to go in and suck it all in and come out screaming the proclamations, but I felt too often like I was slushing through congealed grease to get to the good stuff. Maguire, Dunst, blah. Power Ranger armor bad. DaFoe, the J.J. guy, PERFECT. Spidey-style effects- fighting, s-sense, swinging, webs, fantastic. The humor and feel of the film, great. Goblin vs. Spidey, classic. 

I dunno. I'm still ingesting, but the overall feeling isn't half what I was looking for.


----------



## PenguinKing (May 4, 2002)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> *I cannot think of a suitably humorous and sarcastic way to express my disbelief. At the risk of sounding like Dr. Midnight, king opinionated comic art snob: McFarlane is a hack.
> 
> A hack who could buy and sell me several times, sure, but his art is overrendered, overrated crap. *



He said _absolutely nothing_ about McFarlane's talent or lack thereof as an artist - he merely said McFarlane was his favorite Spider Man artist.  Is there _anything_ you can feasibly argue with in that statement?  Are you trying to tell him that McFarlane is _not_, in fact, his favorite Spider Man artist?

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Dr Midnight (May 4, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *He said absolutely nothing about McFarlane's talent or lack thereof as an artist - he merely said McFarlane was his favorite Spider Man artist.  Is there anything you can feasibly argue with in that statement?  Are you trying to tell him that McFarlane is not, in fact, his favorite Spider Man artist?
> *



That would be some feat. I'd love to convince the people that bought the Burton Planet of the Apes DVD that they don't like the movie.


----------



## Tom Cashel (May 4, 2002)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's the part that really bothers me (yes, I am BOTHERED by the fact that he doesn't make his web shooters, so insert your 'Comic Book Guy' reference here).
> 
> ...




First comment, true.  But not all that distressing in the movie.

Second comment, totally false.

And it was a great movie!


----------



## coyote6 (May 4, 2002)

I liked it. 

FWIW, I noticed no webshooters -- but he had to practice to get good at shooting & swinging, which was absolutely great. 

The movie's Peter Parker was a senior in high school when he got bit (by a genetically engineered 'super spider' rather than a radioactive spider -- it's the 21st century, nobody's afraid of nukes any more; biotech is the boogeyman now ). 

The movie itself seems to cover about 6-8 months of time, which I liked. A lot of movies with "origin stories" seem to cram too much stuff into a short period, for no good reason.


----------



## Oni (May 4, 2002)

WAAAA-HOOOOO!!!!


----------



## hong (May 4, 2002)

Sodalis said:
			
		

> *makes sense, but completely unacceptable....
> 
> the GG is a physical manifestation of inner hatred.  to have him cheapened by a power Ranger ostume is just bad planning on their part...
> *




You've been digging out those Cliff's Notes again, haven't you Sodalis? I can tell.


----------



## Elaer (May 4, 2002)

*Doc Midnight...*

To be politely argumentative…
Could you please define what you mean by a hack?   Because I wish to defend Mr. McFarlane’s work, however, before I start an inadvertent flame war (you never know where Peter David might turn up), I want to know what position I am opposing, and if I really disagree with it.  Also, are we referring to his work on the Spiderman titles in general, on Spiderman (the series), on Spawn, or just in general?


----------



## Sodalis (May 4, 2002)

> hong:
> You've been digging out those Cliff's Notes again, haven't you Sodalis? I can tell.




hmmm- if there were cliff's notes fro a comic book, would it be any shorter? i mean a comic book is a medium that in and of itself is as little wording as possible and the pictures speak for itself.  now if you condense the statements even more, you have a flip book... and I would be surprised if someone got a complex story like GG out of a flip book-

But then again, most comic books rae just flip books- you walk into a store, flip through them- and walk out... 

edit:
as for Todd McFarlane, i respect him as an artist. He did after all got me started in collectin Spidey comics.  His manipulation and contortion of the classic spidey made it seem so much more interesting than just the flat swinging spidey of Stan lee.  

But when taken as a whole, he is no where near as talented as some of the other artist sout there- Jim Lee is an awesome artist that received little acclaim for his work.  The cartoon completely hakked his WildCATS to shreds while the toys were about as good as the cartoon. 
 McFarlane is just better at marketign and where he sells his name to- that is why his cartoons (spawn) is so much better and also his toys.  

eh- to each their own though.  If you are saying he is your fav spidey artist, I agree.  But if you say he is your fav artist, then I would have to respect tjhat but tell you that there are plenty of better ones out there...


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 4, 2002)

Here you go.  My review, cut-and-pasted from my Live Journal.

(And for the record, there were no mechanical web-shooters of any sort in the movie...)

-----------------------

Folks, this is, without a doubt, the most comic-bookish of all comic book movies.  More than Superman, Batman, or X-men, this was a comic book come to life.  The camera angles, the blocking, _everything_.

We'll start with the few complaints I have.

There were a few scenes where the dialog just didn't work.  It was mostly in the "emotional" scenes between Peter and MJ.  It was choppy, it didn't flow, it was written like a speech rather than natural speaking, and the actors didn't seem like they were comfortable with it.

Other than that, my only problem was...

Well, other than that, there _were_ no problems.

The actors were perfectly cast.  Toby Maguire _is_ Peter.  Willem Dafoe is...  well, Willem Dafoe is just _scary_.  He played the part _perfectly_.  The mirror scene--you'll know when you see it--is _freaky_.  He even made the "armor" version of the Green Goblin outfit work, and I had my doubts about that going into this movie.

Sam Raimi was the perfect director for this movie.  I can't think of a single objection I had to the directing.

Oh, and the guy who played JJJ--damn, he had that part _down_.

The effects were excellent.  Yes, some of the CGI was obviously CGI, but you know what?  That doesn't matter.  We know that CGI can't do humans 100% perfectly yet.  The point isn't that the CGI should look flawlessly like real people, the point is that it should look damn good for CGI.  And it did.  If that's not good enough for you, I point you to Ray Harryhousen movies like Clash of the Titans as a reminder of how far effects have come.

In terms of loyalty to the source material, this one's as close as they come.  Compared to this, X-men took _massive_ liberties.  Everything here comes right from the comic.

Yes, some details are changed.  The spider is altered genetically, not with radiation.  Peter's webs are organic, not from a device he built.  If this sort of thing bothers you, don't see this movie and go curl up in your parent's basement.  It works.

This _is_ the Spider-man movie we've wanted.  Go see it.


----------



## Methinkus (May 4, 2002)

*dont get mad, im just saying. . . .*

REAL   BIG    SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I know I’ll be going against the crowd with this one, but I can’t hold it in a moment longer . . . . what a dissatisfying piece of garbage! (note: I am not a Spiderman fan, I have nothing against it but I expected to see a good movie, and I didn’t)

Sweet merciful invisible-man-in-the-sky, I sat in that theatre for two hours waiting for Spiderman to grow some nuts to go with his webshooters and get with the girl – the sexy, sexy now red headed Kirsten Dunst – and what do I get for it?  The big gay spider copout.  The whole theatre erupted with noise when the credits rolled by, and it wasn’t clapping.  I’d like to say something constructive, but I just can’t do it right now.  Bad.  BAD!  Naughty movie!

How dare they string me along with Peter Parker boo hooing and not wooing for two hours and in the end when she confesses her love he sighs and walks away like a big gay nothing.  Peter Parker is a homosexual.  (I’m really just frustrated, I don’t mean this and I have nothing against alternative lifestyles, but I heard harsher words yelled out at the end anyway)  The INTRODUCTION to the movie called it a love story, and all I get in the end is a blatantly out of character move from the protagonist so that we’d all feel that much more inclined to go to the freaking sequel.

Another thing that bothered me, did anyone else find people laughing at the absolute wrong moments?  As Peter pours his heart out to MJ in the hospital next to his aunt – you know, the whole “I talked to spiderman and told him about you . . . .” thing – most of the people in the audience started laughing.  It happened again as MJ confessed her true feelings at the end, it seemed like the mere mention of the word “love” sent a shiver of laughs or chuckles through the audience.  Is love dead?  Can a love story not be taken seriously anymore?  This bothered me because despite my dissatisfaction with the ending I thought the acting was spectacular and I don’t see why it wasn’t taken more seriously.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 4, 2002)

Sigh.

You do realize that Peter had no choice but to walk away, right?  That's what the whole big voiceover speech about "everyone he loves get hurt because of him" was about.  Entirely in character, entirely appropriate, and entirely the right ending if you wanted to take the love story seriously.

There are enough cheap tricks in Hollywood, designed to make people come back for the sequel.  But when something actually fits the story, let's give them some credit, you know?


----------



## Methinkus (May 4, 2002)

> Sigh.






> You do realize that Peter had no choice but to walk away, right? That's what the whole big voiceover speech about "everyone he loves get hurt because of him" was about. Entirely in character, entirely appropriate, and entirely the right ending if you wanted to take the love story seriously.




Of course I recognized their little attempt at legitimizing his decision, but I still feel like I was cheated in the end.

Don’t sigh at me; I take issue with that sigh.  I have the right to state my opinion on these boards and have it taken seriously, your little “sigh” was rude and it implies that you consider my thoughts no more valid than a small child’s.  Like I just need to have the plot explained to me and I’ll be quiet again.


----------



## Agamon (May 4, 2002)

*Re: dont get mad, im just saying. . . .*



			
				Methinkus said:
			
		

> I know I’ll be going against the crowd with this one, but I can’t hold it in a moment longer . . . . what a dissatisfying piece of garbage! (note: I am not a Spiderman fan, I have nothing against it but I expected to see a good movie, and I didn’t)
> 
> [/B]




Well, I agree with the first part of your first sentance there.  Somebody kinda missed the whole underlying point to the movie.  And, no, it wasn't Pete getin' MJ in the sack.  It was, briefly put, that with great power comes great responsibility.  Half the movie was Spidey trying to save people close to him, so he did the responsible thing.

I guess if all one gets out of the movie was "lotsa action, big fight, hey, why doesn't he get the girl?" then, I guess on that shallow level, it makes no sense.

I'm sure in one of the sequals, I'm guessing the second one, MJ will find out Peter is Spider-man, and he'll have no choice but to accept her into his life (especially since it's what he really wants anyway).

Oh, and that movie kicked a whole lotta butt.  Go see it if you haven't.


----------



## hong (May 4, 2002)

Besides which, all the best romances end in tragedy.

http://www.whysanity.net/monos/casa.html


----------



## Agamon (May 4, 2002)

Methinkus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course I recognized their little attempt at legitimizing his decision, but I still feel like I was cheated in the end.
> 
> *




Attempting to legitimize???  You make it sound like the writer didn't want Pete and MJ to get together in the end and had to wrack their brains for a reason!  Hoo-boy.  (that's one up from a sigh, btw)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 4, 2002)

Methinkus, chill.  Don't take "sigh" so personally.

The fact is there were a few people--not many, but a few--in the audience at the theater I went to who really didn't get it.  If I'm impatient with people's reactions to the ending, it's not directed solely at you, but at least partially at them.  (They also wouldn't shut the hell up during the movie.)

There's also the fact that if you knew the character, you'd realize instantly that there was nothing else he could.  (That's also not to be taken personally.  It's just a comment.)

I guess part of the "sigh" is that I don't understand where you're coming from.  If you don't like Spider-man, why go see the movie?


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (May 4, 2002)

JJJ was played (excellently) by J.K. Simmons. He played Commandant Siskel in the movie The Ref, and does a great job on Law & Order as Dr. Skoda the psychologist.

I get annoyed when film makers muck around with stuff that doesn't need fixing, but I like the organic web shooters. They just make more sense to me, as does the genetically altered spider.
If anyone ever wanted to find the comic book spiderman, all they'd have to do is chemically analyze his webs, and then track down the moron buying 100 galons of those chemicals every month. Bye Bye secret identity...

Great movie!



			
				Methinkus said:
			
		

> *
> Like I just need to have the plot explained to me and I’ll be quiet again. *




I don't think anyone got their hopes up too high on that front.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 4, 2002)

Whoo ho!  It was incredible.  At 12:15 in the middle of the night, a packed theatre full of people cheering and loving it.  Including and especially me.  And hey, if you haven't seen it yet, make sure you stay until the end of the credits, so you can enjoy the very last perk of the movie.  

But wow, I loved it.  The audience cheered at the end, cheered at the end of the bridge scene, cheered at the very end of the credits.  All in all, it was a very cheery movie.

And since we've already had some big spoilers, I suppose it can't hurt to have a few more, but just in case

.

.

.


.

.

.

.

I'm just amazed at how well it was handled, _especially_ the ending.  That shows a lot of integrity to promote the ideals of the character rather than giving in to the typical movie urge to provide a pure happy ending.  Hell, for a while, I almost thought they'd let Mary Jane end up like Gwynn Stacey, which shows that the movie was telling an emotional dramatic story, rather than doing the same-old same-old.

I wholly recommend it.


----------



## Talath (May 4, 2002)

I went in to the theater with high expectations

I left fulfilled, knowing thaty Spider-Man surpassed all my expectations. This movie is the real deal, and what a deal it is.

I love this movie. Plain and simple.


----------



## Ashtal (May 4, 2002)

*Re: dont get mad, im just saying. . . .*



			
				Methinkus said:
			
		

> * (I’m really just frustrated, I don’t mean this and I have nothing against alternative lifestyles, but I heard harsher words yelled out at the end anyway) *




If you know it's inappropriate, don't post it with an apology - just don't post it at all.  I don't care how much harsher you COULD have been, or how others were.

Don't do that again.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (May 4, 2002)

Well I saw Spider-Man last evening with a group of friends.  All in all I was very impressed by the movie.  Sometimes the CGI effects were a bit off, but nothing horrible.  I was impressed by McGuire's Parker, but I was amazed by Willem Dafoe's Osborne and Green Goblin.  I could feel the madness flowing from him.  This is something I will see again, seeing as I will have to take my Nephew to see it.


----------



## JDeMobray (May 4, 2002)

I was amazed by how good this movie was.  

The supporting cast was almost perfect, particularly Willem Dafoe and J.K. Simmons. (I could have done with a better Uncle Ben, but what the heck.)   Did anyone else catch Stan Lee's cameo during the Festival sequence?  Cool.  

Tobey Maguire was abso-tively perfect for Peter Parker.  The first sequence where he's screwing around with his powers got and extremely positive response from my theater.  

I had thought that the Armored Goblin would look crappy, but Dafoe (or his stuntman) actually can move around just fine in the suit, act naturally and not seem overly made-up.  I'm looking at you while I say that Jack Nicholson.

As for the ending:  Peter Parker is always miserable.  His personal life is always a mess.  I don't know why either, but that's how the character is in the source material, and it only makes sense that as true to the comics as the movie tries to be that he ends up miserable there too.


----------



## Black Omega (May 4, 2002)

I'll start off by admitting I'm something of a micbook fan but I don't read Spiderman.  I really haven't much ever.  I've seen him from guest appearances in other books and he's so iconic I know some about the character just because you can't avoid it.

That said, I liked the movie.  There are points the CGI just doesn't work, as people have mentioned.  But the Goblin Suit worked fine for me, Spiderman's evolution was great fun.  The first try at webswinging, getting used to his powers and just having fun with them.  the inevitable angst.  I was a little dissatisfied over the fate of the guy who attacked Uncle Ben, but it's a minor quibble.  There was some excellent use of the webslinging that worked better in the movie than it would in the comic, like punching someone, snagging them with them web before they land and pulling them into another punch.

The ending was a pleasant surprise.  Peter Parker didn't really get the girl, which was the appropriate ending, and very unlike most Hollywood endings which require the hero get the girl.  A big part of why that worked for me is that you can tell MJ is figuring out the Parker-Spiderman connection.  THis also fulfilled the 'The girl must learn the hero's ID' requirement in every hero movie, but it was done in a cool, it makes sense way.  Unlike too many times in the Batman movies.   And it softened the blow for MJ because she would understand more.

I was less pleased with the final Spiderman-Goblin fight.  Way to typical Hollywood, though still fun.


----------



## sfgiants (May 4, 2002)

*Spidey spoilers contained within*

Give me a break. Some of the posters on this thread seem a little confused. I would expect that most of them have never read a spiderman comic. A shame. This was one of the best movies of the year. It captured spiderman' essence and origin perfectly and was a heck of a lot of fun. I loved it. My only complaints were the Macy Gray sequence (just silly, and not needed), and the scene with the NY citizens tossing garbage. Not needed. Otherwise, it was awesome.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 4, 2002)

What's the Macy Gray sequence?

And according to my girlfriend, Peter Parker is both incredibly cute and adorable when he's just himself, and dead sexy when he's topless.  Go Tobey!


----------



## sfgiants (May 4, 2002)

*Macy Gray*

There is a sequence in the carnival scene in which the Goblin first meets up with spidey. Macy Gray is performing...Bad idea. Just as bad as all the prince music in Batman. For whatever reason these types of things bother me. I guess I am just strange


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 4, 2002)

*Wow...*

So apparently, one of Spider-man's superpowers is "Crushing all previous records beneath his red-socked heel."

The movie made $41.4 million _opening day_.  Not weekend, which isn't even close to over yet.  _Day_.

The previous opening day record, set by Harry Potter, was $32 million and something.

Sheesh.  It's an amazing thing to contemplate, but it's possible that Star Wars may not be the biggest opening of this summer.  (Okay, not likely.  But possible.)


----------



## Cedric (May 4, 2002)

Spider-Man was awesome...

He's a hero...
He's Peter Parker...
He's in love...
He's confused...
He's a geek...
and...
*HE KICKS ASS!!*

Cedric


----------



## SHARK (May 4, 2002)

Greetings!

Just got back from seeing Spider-Man with my wife. Great movie! I thought it was cool how he gradually learned how to use his new-found abilities, and his humbleness was just right, too. Defoe did an *EXCELLENT* job as The Green Goblin! Damn, that body armour of his was just awesome! Who couldn't like that cool glider that he flies around on? That thing rocked!

Kirsten Dunst did a fine job as well. She's good at playing a cute girl with simple, down-to-earth values. The movie rocked! My wife really liked it as well! It brings back many cool memories of all the Spider-Man comics that I used to read as a kid. It makes me want to look into collecting comics again! It was just a great time. I highly recommend Spider-Man.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Mojo (May 4, 2002)

*Yeah baby!*

Saw it last night...and loved it.

They got everything right.  The organic webshooters make so much sense that I'll bet if Stan Lee were to do it all over, they would have been included in the original story.

And they did a good job of setting up possible sequel stories: The Lizard, Harry Green Goblin, The Hobgoblin perhaps.

At times the "emotional" scenes seemed a bit strained, but that might have been the stress of a theatre packed with kids, some of whom could not shut up (why do parents insist on bringing small children to a PG13 movie?  Ones that talk loudly at inappropriate times? )

All in all, a good flick, and one I'll see again...


----------



## Richards (May 4, 2002)

I just got back from seeing it with my two sons, and I enjoyed it.  I was a little leery going in because of some of the changes I'd heard about (as a long-time comic book collector - as in "I have been collecting comic books for more years on the this Earth than not" - and there's a sobering thought, huh?) and a big-time Spidey fan, I wasn't thrilled when I heard that Peter was going to be generating webs from his own body, but you know what?  It didn't bother me in the least.  I also prefer the accidental bite from a radioactive spider - call me a purist - but I think they did a good job with the genetically-enhanced super-spider bit as well.  My biggest disappointment was the look of the Green Goblin armor [insert Power Rangers reference here], but then I've never really been that big a fan of the Green Goblin anyway, so it didn't bother me too much.  (Can you imagine if they used the real - and by "real" I mean of course the comic book version - costume for the movie?  Let's face it, that would look equally silly.)

My main concerns were that they would do the Spider-Man costume justice - which they did, excellent job - and that they'd do a good job on the characterization of Peter Parker and company - which they did.  (Loved that JJJ!)  

I also liked the fact that they put in a lot of touches that probably didn't matter to the average viewer, but meant a lot to long-time fans.  The fact that Betty Brant was there at the Bugle, even if she didn't play much of a role in the movie.  The Albert Einstein poster in Peter's bedroom.  The mention of "Eddie" at the Bugle.  (Surely this is Eddie Brock?)  

All in all, I thought they did a great job of keeping the spirit of the comic books.  I look forward to the sequels no doubt already in the works.

And next time, I imagine we'll probably get a new villain.  Any guesses?  I for one think Doc Ock would make for a great movie villain - I'm sure the special effects department would have a ball with the metal tentacles - or, failing that, maybe Electro.  My sons are hoping to see Venom, but I think there's too much backstory to do Venom justice without doing a complete rewrite on his origins.

I just hope they don't go the way of the Batman films and decide to cram multiple villains into each movie.  That, in my opinion, was a really bad idea.

Johnathan


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 4, 2002)

There's a minor spoiler below, so read at your own risk.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Okay, they mentioned several potential villains already.  The "Eddie" reference at the Bugle.  The whole "I was late again and Doctor Connors fired me," line.  (For those who don't know, Doc Connors is the Lizard.)  And of course the lead-in to Harry becoming the next Goblin, whichever one they go with.

But I think I might have found one more.  It struck me very much while watching the movie, but they never named the character, so I want you other Spidey fans to tell me if I'm reading too much into this.

Think back to the scene at the Quest Industries bunker, when they're testing the military exo-suit.  Right before the test begins and the GG shows up, the general is speaking to a man who is, at least presumably, part of the Quest Board, and also part of its scientific team.

He man has brown hair, in a vaguely bowl-like cut.  He wears glasses.  He's a little round about the middle, without being drastically overweight.  He's working with powered exo-skeletons.  And we don't know for sure that he died in the Goblin's attack, although it was a pretty hefty explosion.

So, am I reading too much into this?  Or have we seen a glimpse of the good Dr. Otto Octavius?


----------



## Wolfspider (May 4, 2002)

It's worth noting that Roger Ebert also questions Peter Parker's sexuality in his review of the film:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-spider03f.html


----------



## Ashtal (May 4, 2002)

That bit he added at the end was TOTALLY out of context.

When I first read it, before seeing the films, I took the line to be a bit more old fashioned: that here's a guy who is in love with this girl-turned-woman, and he's not just out to 'do' her.  

After seeing the movie, I know now that he's said it for two very good reasons:  One, she's still kind of with Harry, and there's a lot of associated guilt there over the Goblin's death. Two, everyone he's cared about has been put in jeapordy, and he's doing this to protect her.

Again, though: (mod hat on) The comments in the previous part of the thread were still inappropriate. (mod hat off) Ebert's comments just seem like he took the comments out of context, as if the whole movie never happened.  The way he mentions it, I sort of imagined the scene taking place in the high school, with MJ clearly in the know that Parker likes her, and is in a way teasing him about it and he answered honorably.  Certainly not the scene as it happened in the film.

Though as of late, Ebert's reviews have become increasingly negative and overly critical, IMO.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 4, 2002)

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know what to think of the comments or Ebert's review.  I will agree, however, that Ebert is getting a bit crotchety.

In any case, I agree that the previous comments were innapropriate.  I didn't mean to rehash them and certainly don't agree with their tone; I just thought that it was interesting that Ebert brought up a similar point (although less crudely presented).  I wonder if this is going to become a common complaint about the movie?


----------



## PenguinKing (May 4, 2002)

Richards said:
			
		

> *My sons are hoping to see Venom, but I think there's too much backstory to do Venom justice without doing a complete rewrite on his origins.*



Not really - tho' they'd need at least two movies to do it.  They'd have to run the Eddie Brock/Peter Parker rivalry as a subplot simultaneously with the "alien costume Spider Man" story in one movie, then do Venom in the sequel.

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Desdichado (May 5, 2002)

I know the thread has long since passed this by, but dude: Jim Lee hasn't gotten the credit he deserves for his WILDCats and associated toys?

You do realize that before Jim Lee went off to co-found Image comics he was just about the biggest name in the industry, right?  In my mind, Jim Lee fell to hubris: he was a great artist, but he forgot to play to his strengths.  He really didn't have any business creating another comic book company, writing a comic book, creating comic book characters, etc.  He should have just stuck to drawing.  Back when he and Marc Silvestri were both doing X-Men mags: man, those were heady days to collect comics.  But Image Comics always suffered from being extremely pretty but fairly vacous mags, IMO.

And yeah, I do love MacFarlane's work.  Although I haven't bought comic books in ten years or more, I'll probably keep my Spidey's 299 and 300 forever!  And I loved him on The Hulk as well: anyone else catch that preview?  Apparently with Jennifer Connelly as Betty ...er, whatshername.  I don't just say he's the best Spidey penciller ever: he's one of my all-time favorites in comics period.  Although Jim Lee on the X-Men is right up there with him.


----------



## Desdichado (May 5, 2002)

Oh, and although I agree that Venom would make a kick-ass villain in a later Spidey movie, how can they really do that without making the Secret Wars movie first?


----------



## AFGNCAAP (May 5, 2002)

Just saw the movie... utterly loved it.  I was very impressed by the movie.  I wonder what the movie was like before a lot of the necessary editing due to the events of Sept. 11.

[SPOILERS]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I noticed the Eddie Brock & Dr. Curtis Connors references in the movie, though I think I need to see it again if there is a Doc Ock reference.

At first, until I actually heard the character's name, I thought that the bald man in the wheelchair could have been Adrian Toomes, aka the Vulture.  Also, I didn't hear the exoskeleton-developing company's name, so I didn't know if it was a hidden Stark Inc./Iron Man reference until the scene at the Quest proving grounds.

I wonder whether Harry will be the 2nd Green Goblin, or if he'll be behind the Hobgoblin (either as the man behind the mask, or as the financial backer behind the Hobgoblin, since Harry's just inherited Oscorp).  Venom will be a hard character to do, though I think the "camouflaging spider" ability reference might be a hint as to how a movie Venom may come about (since the symbiote had a sort of camouflage/shapechange ability as it is).

Hopefully, it'll either be Doc Ock or the Lizard (I'm hoping for the Lizard) for the sequel.  Hoever, it sounds like there's plans for a 3rd movie.

Personally, if possible, I'd like the 3rd movie to cover the Sinister Six.  They're a key element of the Spidey "mythos" if you will, & it'd make for some very cool fight scenes, IMHO.

I'm looking forward to the Hulk as well, esp. since I got to see the trailer for it today.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (May 5, 2002)

*It Was Great!!!!*

It was Amazing... it was Spectacular... it was the *BEST* Comic movie yet!  But I'll admit that I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was a little kid, so I'm a little biased, but I thought is was better then Superman but that is IMO.

I wasn't wild about the organic web-shooters because the making of the mechanical shooters showed what a genius Peter Parker is but you know what... the organics worked for me.

I didn't like GG's armor at first but it worked well in the film.  I wish that the torso would have been purple but like I said it worked.

Tobey was perfect for the part.  Defoe was great.  And Kirsten, who I was worried was not right for MJ, worked extremely well.  They were great in their roles.

My only problem with the film and this is a nitpick mind you was (spoilers)...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He was without his mask too many times, as an example: 1. when he was collecting his money after his match, 2.his confrontation with the robber, and 3. the rain fight scene.  But other then that it was a darn good, great movie and a lot of fun.  I can't wait for SM 2.  There was and I'm sure there will be again a countdown clock on Spidermanhype.com.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 5, 2002)

*In a word: AMAZING!*

It was great! Like others here I had only minor nitpicks, such as the web-shooters: It's necessary to demonstrate Peter's genius, and we don't get that in the movie. 

I was also constantly worried about Peter blowing his secret ID. His "bad day" at school would have made it obvious to anyone, from the webs to the fight with Flash.

But these really are minor nitpicks. Spidey has always been my favorite comic book hero, and this movie WAY exceeded my expectations.

I plan to see it again and again! 


Wulf


----------



## noretoc (May 5, 2002)

Just got back from it.  The only thing I didn't like was the emotional scenes seemed to drag on.  I like action, and story, but I think the hand holding and the staring wass just a tad bit too long.  Otherwise it was AWESOME.  I even liked the slo-mo fighting bits, better than I liked em in Matrix.  They were short and just enough to show the difference in his perception.  
Jameson was awesome, and they did a great job on the acting.  I really thought that was a kid learning how to swing on webs.

(edit: Man, where did I learn to type)


----------



## Decado (May 5, 2002)

I just got back from taking my girlfriend to see the movie. We both loved it. I thought all the characters were done very well. Tobey really played Peter and Spidey very well, right down to the witty banter. I was initially bothered when I heard that his webs were going to be a natural ability instead of the web shooters, but it worked very well. I think I am going to see this one again before it is released on DVD. 

Does anyone know if Tobey did the voice of Spiderman in the PS2 game? It sounds very much like him.

Great movie, go see it!!

Decado


----------



## wrabbit37 (May 5, 2002)

I looked around for Stan Lee during the movie, but I couldn't find him.  Does anybody know exactly where to look to see his cameo?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 5, 2002)

When the parade/festival is being attacked, for one flash you see Stan Lee look up in surprise.  Old guy, gray hair, and glasses (sunglasses I think).  It's just before the board of directors gets zapped.


----------



## Breakstone (May 5, 2002)

I greatly enjoyed this flick.

Some things I enjoyed/didn't enjoy:

SPOILERS AHEAD
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Enjoy:
- Osborn's Split-Personality scenes.
- Spider-Man's swinging
- The costume-creation scene
- Spidey-Sense!
- Norman figuring out Spider-Man's identity at the dinner table
- McGuire as Peter Parker
- Pretty much all other casting, at that
- More live action than CGI
- Jamison. Awesome job with that. "I only trust my barber!"
- Green Goblin's "Oh." before being impaled by his own glider
- Great story

Didn't enjoy
- CGI was a bit clunky at times
- Green Goblin's costume
- Hm...
- That one crying kid in the audience
- Um...
- At the end, I was a tad bit dissapointed. But then I thought about it, and said, "Woah..."


Again, great movie!


----------



## SteelDraco (May 5, 2002)

*That was a great, FUN movie*

wrabbit37: Stan Lee appears only very briefly, during the attack upon the OsCorp party. He's on the left side of the screen, close shot but very brief. Something is collapsing behind him, and he and a kid are falling forward. You have to be watching for it and not blink to catch it.

I went out to see Spider-Man with my buddies tonight. That was a great movie. Some thoughts, mostly in reply to other posters.

SPOILERS AHEAD!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Problems first, since it's better to start with the bitter. 

The GG didn't look that good. Obviously, it's hard to translate a goofy-looking comic book character to the big screen, but I think it could have been done better. OsCorp's work for the military provides a fine explanation for all the goodies he has - powered armor, the glider, the Goblin-bombs. However, I don't think it was necessary to do both powered armor and the enhancement drugs. The drugs, glider, and bombs are what allow him to compete with Spidey, not his armor. I would have preferred a more organic-looking Goblin, so that you could see Dafoe beneath the mask. He does a good enough job looking crazy that an emotionless mask that keeps us from seeing his face is a waste of potential. Also, I wasn't a great fan of Dafoe's evil laugh. The Goblin does a mad cackle, not a sinister mastermind-esque villain laigh. I didn't think his voice was quite right for the Goblin, either. Then again, I'm a big fan of the 90s Spidey cartoon.

I thought it was a bit sloppy that Quest wasn't Stark Enterprises. All the comic-book geeks that are going to see this movie would have gotten a good chuckle if the powered armor that the GG blew up was a prototype Iron Man suit. It would have fit in perfectly with the continuity, not cost any more, and given insiders another funny tidbit.

I did think that some of the emotional scenes were a bit drawn out. Directing that sort of thing just isn't what Raimi's good at. Of particular note are the scene in Peter's backyard with MJ and the final scene at Osborne's funeral. Good stuff, but I think it would have been better if it moved along a bit quicker.

You didn't get to see how smart Peter is. It's an important part of his character, and I thought it wasn't developed quite as much as it should have been. In the comics, him building the web-shooters helps show this, which wasn't in the movie. I don't care about the mechanic/organic thing, I just would have liked to see his intelligence shown as an important part of what makes him Spider-Man. Maybe spider-tracers, or something similar?

Okay, that's all the real problems I had with the movie. Now on to the good stuff...

Casting. Wow. This movie was damn near perfectly cast. Maguire does an excellent job as Parker. Dunst is similarly good as MJ, though she's not how I've ever pictured her. Willem Dafoe is just creepy as Osborne/GG. Of particular note were the mirror scene and the rooftop scene when Spidey's been drugged. Even the fairly minor roles, such as Uncle Ben and JJJ, were great. JJJ was just great in every scene he was in - stole them, in fact.  Harry could have been a bit more sympathetic; he comes off as awfully superficial in the movie, IMO.

The fight scenes were very good - Raimi always does a good job with these. In particular, he incorporates the supernatural into fight scenes well. That fight scene with Flash Thompson was excellent. Where the camera goes to slow motion, and Peter dodges, then looks around in confusion in the time it takes Flash to throw a punch? Solid gold. I was also amazed by the very brief fight scene where he foiled an armored car robbery - the one witht he camera? He took out five guys in the space of a breath or two, and he LOOKED LIKE SPIDER-MAN doing it. He just didn't move like a normal human being would. It wasn't just super-fast martial arts, he hopped around, flipping and throwing people. Great stuff.

All the little comic references were great. Eddie Brock was mentioned. JJJ was PERFECT, and that was Robbie Robertson sitting next to him. The allusion to Harry becoming the next Green Goblin was excellent. Pete even mentions Dr Connors (The Lizard). The Comic Book Guy inside was giggling with glee throughout this movie. I would have liked to see Octavius show up, but that's just me.

I could say more, but that's enough. This was a great, fun movie, and an exellent adaption of the spirit of one of the most important titles in comics. You should go see it if you haven't.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 5, 2002)

*Re: That was a great, FUN movie*



			
				SteelDraco said:
			
		

> *I would have liked to see Octavius show up, but that's just me.
> *




See one of my posts a little ways up from yours.  I think Octavius _did_ show up, although it's just a theory of mine...


----------



## PenguinKing (May 5, 2002)

*Re: That was a great, FUN movie*



			
				SteelDraco said:
			
		

> *The GG didn't look that good. Obviously, it's hard to translate a goofy-looking comic book character to the big screen, but I think it could have been done better.*



My only comment is that if they'd gone with real actors instead, the complaint would merely change from "the CGI is too obvious" to "the stunt-doubles, wire-work, camera tricks, and superimposed backdrops are too obvious" - it's a no-win scenario.  Given that, I think CGI was the right choice - if you have to sacrifice a modicum of verisimilitude _anyway_, do it in a way that lets you get away with going all-out. 

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## SteelDraco (May 5, 2002)

*So, a sequel?*

Ah, some follow-up thoughts about a sequel. Obviously, they're going to be making one - it's already in the works, in fact. So, who should they go with for the next villain?

Doc Otto Octavius - A great bad guy. He would kick ass and look cool doing it. It'd give us a chance to see the scientist side of Parker, which I think is something that the movie lacked. He's Peter gone bad - someone who uses their power for their own gain, rather than for the betterment of all mankind. He starts out as an idol of Spidey's, so you get some emotional conflict going there. Probably my top pick for villain for the second movie.

Venom - You'd have to rewrite his backstory to avoid doing the Secret Wars, of course. The 90s cartoon did this pretty well; they could do something similar. In that, the symbiote was brought back from space, and merged with Spider-Man when he saved some astronauts after a crash. Problem is, the movie would have a long period without a primary bad guy, while SM is slowly realizing that his new suit is doing bad things to him. After he gets rid of it, you've got Venom, but what to do during that low period? Hmmm.

The Lizard - I think this would be cool. Another Jekyll/Hyde story, like the Green Goblin, so I doubt this will be what they go with next. Still, it would be cool to see Spider-Man going through the sewers of New York, fighting mutant lizards before finally meeting the big Lizard himself. Connors is another role model of Spider Man, too.

The Kingpin - The Kingpin is an important part of the Spider Man mythos, but he's hard to do as a villain. The thing is, he needs some kind of super-henchman to go after Spider Man, as he's no match for the wall-crawler himself. Rhino, Electro, and Scorpion have always filled this role quite nicely. A good basic plot would be if we start with some kind of increased criminal activity. SM fights against it, getting hints that something is directing it. Kingpin creates (Scorpion) or hires (Electro, Rhino) to get rid of the interference in his plans. They duke it out, and then SM tracks Kingpin down and brings him to justice. 

Harry the Green Goblin or the Hobgoblin - I think it would be a poor choice to do this with the next movie. There are a wealth of good villains out there, and going with essentially the same one for the next movie would sort of cheat the moviegoing audience, IMO. 

There are, of course, many others they could do. Kraven the Hunter, Morbius, Mysterio, the Secret Wars, and more all spring to mind. I think these are the top contenders, though. I'd prefer to see Doc Ock or the Kingpin. Thoughts?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 5, 2002)

I doubt you'll ever see Kingpin as a villain in a Spider-man movie, at least in this current incarnation.  (Maybe if they do a brand new Spider-man series in 25 years, you'll see it then.)

Why? Kingpin is the villain in the upcoming Daredevil movie, and I don't see them cross-pollinating, as it were.


----------



## Acmite (May 5, 2002)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *There's a minor spoiler below, so read at your own risk.
> 
> .
> 
> ...




I caught this too, and I agree:  It looks like Doc Ock.  I totally missed the Eddie reference, though.

Great flick!  But really, could Sam Raimi lead us astray?

I don't know about you guys, but in addition to Doc Octopus and the Lizard, I'd like to see The Sandman.  Electro was just a petty criminal, and his powers have been done before (Storm, that crappy Mutant X show, etc) so I'd understand it if the Sony folks stayed away from it and focused on a more "marketable" villain.  Oh, and it'd be cool to see Black Cat (Felicia Hardy) make an appearance.

But already I see a dangerous trend developing in the early rumours about the second movie:  The rumours are that BOTH Connors and Octavious are major opponents in the second flick.  I was talking to Cor Azer about this, and we both agree that this was the major downfall of the Bat franchise:  too many villains change a potentially good movie into a "name that famous guy!" crapfest.  

I say, focus on one villain (like the GG), stay true to the core of that character (like they did in this one), and let Sam Raimi hold the reins!


----------



## Acmite (May 5, 2002)

*Duh!*

Duh!  How could I forget the Scorpion in my above posts?  Definitely one of my faves (all the way back to the old 60s cartoon and comics when I was a kid  ~  15 years ago, I'm 23 now).

I'd love to see Scorpy in the next flick!


----------



## SteelDraco (May 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: That was a great, FUN movie*



			
				PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *
> My only comment is that if they'd gone with real actors instead, the complaint would merely change from "the CGI is too obvious" to "the stunt-doubles, wire-work, camera tricks, and superimposed backdrops are too obvious" - it's a no-win scenario.  Given that, I think CGI was the right choice - if you have to sacrifice a modicum of verisimilitude anyway, do it in a way that lets you get away with going all-out.
> *




I didn't actually have a problem with the CGI. That was fine. Most of the transitions between CGI and guy in a suit were offscreen, so nothing looked really weird. I had a problem with the costume design of the Goblin. It was overly constraining, and prevented us from seeing the actor that was (theoretically) underneath.


----------



## Welverin (May 5, 2002)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> * Sheesh.  It's an amazing thing to contemplate, but it's possible that Star Wars may not be the biggest opening of this summer.  (Okay, not likely.  But possible.) *




SW opens on a Thursday, which could throw things off.



			
				SHARK said:
			
		

> *It brings back many cool memories of all the Spider-Man comics that I used to read as a kid. It makes me want to look into collecting comics again! It was just a great time. I highly recommend Spider-Man.*




I suggest Amazing Spider-Man by J. Michael Straczynski and John Romita Jr. and Ultimate Spider-Man by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley. ASM is the original Spidey and USM is an alternate version. Both of which you can read for free at Marvel?s dotComics, ASM is in the members section (which is free and thus a little baffling).



			
				Decado said:
			
		

> * Does anyone know if Tobey did the voice of Spiderman in the PS2 game? It sounds very much like him.*




Tobey and Willem both contributed original dialogue to the game.



			
				Richards said:
			
		

> *I also liked the fact that they put in a lot of touches that probably didn't matter to the average viewer, but meant a lot to long-time fans.  [SNIP]  The Albert Einstein poster in Peter's bedroom.*




Definitely cool. The friend I saw it with spent the entire movie looking for references to future villains, one of which I believe no ones mentioned yet (don?t remember the name however).

As for the Einstein poster, did anyone else notice the D&D Adventure Game poster in Peter?s room?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 5, 2002)

Also, he had a . . . I forget which set of Magic the Gathering, but he had a Magic Poster too, I think.


----------



## Breakstone (May 5, 2002)

He also had the periodic table of elements poster.  

Abotu the game- Bruce Cambell voiced the tutorial for the video game. Quite a funny guy...


----------



## Henry (May 5, 2002)

How can a movie that p***es you off make you enjoy it an hour later? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

The Peter/MJ funeral scene had me bummed for an hour after the end of the movie. Later, when I realized that was the way it had to end, for Peter anyway, the rest of the movie kicked in, and I found myself liking it immensely. My wife (a non-comic book fan) enjoyed it greatly, as well.

I liked all the movie's little touches, and all of the CGI was well-done in my opinion. For all the complaints about it not following real-world physics (such as in Roger Ebert's column), I have to say that it followed the comic-book physics, and that's all that mattered. If critics were worried about Spider-man swinging a little TOO fast and casual, they must have been absolutely livid when Mary Jane falls from Spider-man's reach and  falls a good 50 feet before catching the side of the cable car, WITHOUT wrenching her arms out of their sockets.

About the goblin's mask: did everyone catch the reference to where Osborn got his idea for the mask from? I LOVED his mirror conversation. True wacked stuff.

I loved the usual cast of characters that usually show up in a "Raimi" production - it's one of those little "hallmarks" you find.

Now, if only waiting for the 10th and the 16th weren't such a pain! I WANT MY STAR WARS!

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and I lok forward to seeing a sequal. Hopefully, the cast, and director will remain the same, because they did a hands-down excellent job with this one.


----------



## Chun-tzu (May 5, 2002)

About the Peter-MJ ending, I think there's another reason why it had to end that way (besides the fact that it's true to the character and the source material), and why I'm glad that it did. This movie was meant to be the first of a franchise (a trilogy at least). One of the things that I hate about the Batman movies, James Bond movies, Indiana Jones movies, and a zillion other franchises is that the romantic plots are a joke. Every movie is a different girl. What the **** is that? Am I supposed to care about this fourth girl now? Is she any more meaningful than the last 3?

The reason they do that, it seems, is the perception that there's nowhere to go after the hero gets the girl. If Peter and MJ were together at the end of this movie, where would the romantic tension be in the next one? Granted, they could screw it up by dragging out too long (they're still friends after 10 movies), but if it's timed well, then it makes for a much more genuine and meaningful romance element. While it would be interesting seeing Felicia Hardy or Gwen Stacy in the later movies, they should keep Mary Jane instead of just dumping her and moving on to a new girl.


----------



## Orco42 (May 5, 2002)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Also, he had a . . . I forget which set of Magic the Gathering, but he had a Magic Poster too, I think. *




Yeah he had an Invasion poster.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (May 5, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *I loved the usual cast of characters that usually show up in a "Raimi" production - it's one of those little "hallmarks" you find.
> *




Yep.  Even Lucy Lawless has a cameo (as a "Punk Girl") but I missed her.  It's a credit that even the Internet Movie Database has missed.


----------



## Crothian (May 5, 2002)

Any news or rumors as to who the next villian will be in Spiderman 2?  Or just who do you want?


----------



## MulhorandSage (May 5, 2002)

*My review*

SPIDER-MAN (a review)

If superheroes are, as some cultural observers say “modern day gods” than Spider-Man has a lock on the trickster archetype. An acrobatic wise-cracker who hides a world of pain and guilt under his mask, Spider-Man was the gateway drug of choice of many baby-boomer geeks into the world of comic books, including myself (who remembers Amazing Spider-Man #180 as his late adolescent entry point into comics). While the basic nature of Batman and Superman may appeal to kids, Spider-Man is an archetype that an adolescent can sink his teeth into; the classic Lee/Ditko Spider-Man is a boy on the edge of manhood, grappling with issues of guilt and responsibility, whose personal problems were often far more formidable than any of the villains he fought. He was Everynerd, and when he donned his longjohns and started making outrageous quips at the villain while dancing In circles around them, well it was a catharsis for more than just the character.

How then to judge the movie adaptation of Spider-Man? Well, there’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that they nailed the character. Toby McGuire is wonderful as Peter Parker, the nebbish high school student turned photographer, and so’s pretty much the rest of the supporting cast, especially Kirsten Dunst, who’s done her screen career a world of good here. Willem DeFoe plays a more interesting take on the Green Goblin than anything the comics ever came up with, making him an almost sympathetic figure. Here Norman Osborn is a schizoid who was forced into sn act of self-mutilation by the worst instincts of a capitalist system whose pursuit of short-term profits eclipses the long term needs of their companies and destroys people’s lives. And J.K. Simmons, playing the most delicious role in the entire canon of superhero comics, nails it perfectly; as skinflint newspaper publisher J. Jonah Jameson, Simmons is the quintessential New Yorker, combining pomposity with natural accuity and the instincts of a street fighter. If he were Perry White’s evil twin, he’d have eaten him in the womb.

The CGI special effects are too obvious and artificial, but at the same time they succeed at doing the one thing they needed to do most; they get the swinging right. If the 1980 Superman’a motto was “you can believe a man can fly”, Spider-Man’s motto was “you can believe a superhero can swing”. And despite the CGI, the motion is believable enough that you can feel Parker’s exhilaration. His first extended prolonged swing serves the same jubilant purpose as Superman’s first flight – when a man first understands his potential, and the joy that’s derived from that understanding.

The bad news? Like a lot of genre films, this plot breaks down at the two-thirds mark, when the wonderful character-building stuff has to come to an end so they can resolve the plot. The nicely drawn parallels between Osborn and Parker go out the window, and only the subtext gives a real hint to the Goblin’s motives. The Gobln's schizophrenia, played up during scenes where Osborn learns he’s the Goblin by hearing the Goblin’s laughter in a mirror, and a scene where he’s being ordered around by his mask, are genuinely creepy moments that go a long way toward establishing the character. But it’s about two scenes too few. One can criticize the Batman series for overplaying the villains, but at least you get a sense of their motivation there; here, once Osborn’s finished with his revenge, you don’t get a sense of why he’s drawn to battling Spider-Man; yes, there’s an explanation for the attraction in the script, the lines are delivered well by DeFoe, but there’s “explanation” and there’s “suspension of disbelief”, and I didn’t feel Osborn’s motivation. If at the end, you’re wondering “why are these guys fighting” in an action movie, something’s wrong. Put simply, despite the fact they set up some nice personal connections between Parker and the Osborns, the climax doesn’t emphasize it enough. It lacks the emotional impact that it should have had.

Contributing a large part to undermining  the Goblin’s character is the costuming. Lets be frank here, the Green Goblin costume is the dumbest costume in the entire history of big budget superhero movies. It's worse than Superman IV’s Nuclear Man, or even Joel Schumacher’s gay fetish take on the Bat-suit. The characters cast one of the most expressive faces in the entire movie industry to play the Goblin, and they cover it up with blandly molded fiberglass. What on earth were they thinking?

Another contributing factor to the disappointment is the mundanity of Spider-Man’s fight scenes. Comic book battles are as much ballet as brawl, and particularly with Spider-Man and the Goblin both being characters that thrive on motion, choreographing them as two guys in spandex standing tall and duking it out is an immensely disappointing failure of either imagination or budget; only at the end of the last fight, where Spidey pulls off a clever trick with webs and a brick wall, do we really get a taste of comic book inventiveness. Also missing is Spidey’s trademark combat banter, though here I suspect McGuire’s high pitched voice works against him – it’s not a vocal register well-suited to delivering taunts and bravado. Unfortunately, it contributes to a flatness to the combat scenes, and that’s where the film needed to soar.

Spider-Man is two-thirds of a great movie, just close enough to the level of a classic to be really frustrating. It had all the elements to equal the epic scope of Donner’s Superman, Green Goblin could have been a match for the twisted villainy of Nicholson’s Joker in Burton’s Batman, and McGuire is almost a match for the pathos of Jackman and Paquin in the underrated X-Man. Unfortunately, it falls short of all three films. Spider-Man is a great take on the character (enough that fans will love it and non-fans will find themselves rooting for this heroic Everynerd), but it’s not a particularly great movie, and it could have been both. A pity.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Zhure (May 6, 2002)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yep.  Even Lucy Lawless has a cameo (as a "Punk Girl") but I missed her.  It's a credit that even the Internet Movie Database has missed. *




HAH! I saw her. I didn't recognize her at first, but the voice gave it away. 


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

She was the one in the yellow clothes (jacket, windbreaker?) who said, "A guy with eight arms...?"

Greg


----------



## Zhure (May 6, 2002)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *I doubt you'll ever see Kingpin as a villain in a Spider-man movie, at least in this current incarnation.  (Maybe if they do a brand new Spider-man series in 25 years, you'll see it then.)
> 
> Why? Kingpin is the villain in the upcoming Daredevil movie, and I don't see them cross-pollinating, as it were. *




Same re: Morbius. He's supposed to be in Blade soon.

My bet is the new spidey suit makes an appearance in Movie 2, so venom shows up in Movie 3. That puts Doc Oc in #2 as the most probable candidate. Personally, I always liked the Scorpion. We'll have to wait and see.

Greg


----------



## Crothian (May 6, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Same re: Morbius. He's supposed to be in Blade soon.
> 
> ...




They did set up the Hobgoblin to be a villian.  Perhaps we'll have more then one in the next movie.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 6, 2002)

> Same re: Morbius. He's supposed to be in Blade soon.




Actually, that rumor was nixed some time ago.  People thought he was going to be in Blade 2, but that obviously didn't happen.



> My bet is the new spidey suit makes an appearance in Movie 2, so venom shows up in Movie 3. That puts Doc Oc in #2 as the most probable candidate.




I dunno.  This is going to sound strange, but while the idea of an alien symbiote costume works in comic books, I don't think it would fit in with the "reality" constructed by the movie.

But there are plenty of other ways to create Venom that would involve a different origin but the same final result.  Just off the top of my head, I can imagine what might happen if someone discovered the accident that gave Peter his powers and tried to recreate it, but something went wrong...



> They did set up the Hobgoblin to be a villian. Perhaps we'll have more then one in the next movie.




Man I hope not.  Not about the Hobgoblin, he's a great villain.  (Although his costume would really have to look more organic than the armored GG.)  But I don't want to see multiple villains in a Spidey movie.  I think that was one of the biggest mistakes the Batman franchise made.  More than one villain, you can't focus on either to the extent they deserve.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (May 6, 2002)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *
> 
> HAH! I saw her. I didn't recognize her at first, but the voice gave it away.
> 
> ...




Thanks.  Now I remember.  I also didn't catch Bruce Campbell untl the end credits.   Man, I gotta start paying attention!


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2002)

Here's how'd I'd do the sequals.  Have Doc Ock be the baddie in the next movie, maybe along with Electro or the Lizard.  Spidey somehow finds his new black costume/symbiote in the middle of the movie.  He finds out at the end of the movie that the costume is joining with him and gets rid of it.  Pete develops a negative relationship with Eddie Brock during the movie (probably just one-sided, Pete knows little about it).  Harry finds out his dad was Gobby.  MJ finds out Pete is Spidey.

Movie 3, Harry has used the time beteewn the movies to use Oscorp to remake himself as the new Goblin/Hobgoblin.  The symbiote merges with Brock to become Venom.  He's gotta fight both of them (though they don't really team up, like in the lame Batman sequals).  Pete and MJ get married.

Or something like that.


----------



## Negative Zero (May 6, 2002)

Spiderman was AWESOME! the _best_ superhero movie to date! the webslining work done was perfect! i loved the way he flailed around when he first started doing it. too cool! and the even got some of those awesome comicbook poses in!

Toby was PERFECT as Peter. there's only one time in the whole movie where the story tells you the Peter is a geek, but from his acting, it's NEVER in question. great stuff! Defoe does an AMAZING job as GG. that scene where he's talking to the Goblin in the mirror was so well done! and i LOVED the portrayal of Jonah. J.K. Simmons NAILED it!

GG's costume really didn't bug me at all. neither did the mask. i can see why it would bug some people though. and, minor adjustments for movie transitioning aside, i was really impressed with the faithfulness of the movie to the Spidey mythos.

one of my favourite scenes was that fight with Flash, where Flash swings a punch, Peter dodges it, looks over at him, looks back at the fist, and then moves back into position, all before Flsh has a chance to pull his arm back! 

oh, and for those of you who did see it, wasn't that Hulk teaser too damn KOOL!!!!!!!!!        

one very happy camper
~NegZ

<edit>
btw:
did anyone else know that Macho Man Randy Savage's last name was Poffo??? i mean, Randy Poffo! seriously!  ROTFLMAO


----------



## Nareau (May 6, 2002)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned all the product placement.  Some of those money-shots were just too much for me (the Dr. Pepper can, the Cingular billboard, etc.)  Commercials like that screw with my suspension of disbelief.

Otherwise, I loved it.

So, anybody feel like compiling a list of easter-eggs?  There were a lot of references and visual jokes in the movie that were easy to miss.  I didn't catch any of the "Future Villians" references that people have pointed out.  I'd love to see it again, and spend more time looking for these things.


----------



## Daebryn Bladestorm (May 6, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Any news or rumors as to who the next villian will be in Spiderman 2?  Or just who do you want? *




I just watched the Spider-Mania special on E!, and in an interview with Sam Raimi he specifically mentions both Doc Ock and the Lizard. He also mentioned that they were going to add a second female lead (Felicia Hardy?) to the sequel.


----------



## Negative Zero (May 6, 2002)

i caught a quick reference to the guy who turns into Lizard (can't remember his name right now) during the movie, so my money's on him  otherwise, i'd deffinitely go for Doc Oc


----------



## coyote6 (May 6, 2002)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> * But I don't want to see multiple villains in a Spidey movie.  I think that was one of the biggest mistakes the Batman franchise made.  More than one villain, you can't focus on either to the extent they deserve.*




I think it might work, if they do it right. Maybe have one "thug" (say, Scorpion or Rhino -- a mercenary criminal type without a complicated motivation for their villainous ways, given powers or gizmos by someone else) and one "mastermind" (Hobgoblin, Doc Ock, etc.), who possibly arranges for the thug to get his powers and definitely gives the orders. I think that could work, if done right.

I definitely agree that having two brand-new villains with deep motivations & origins is probably a bad idea. It at least hasn't been successfully pulled off, as yet. OTOH, movies have managed to do well while conveying a hero and a villain's origins, motivations, and all. I don't see why doing two villains would necessarily be impossible.

Another alternative might be to have two villains with entwined origins. Say, involve Dr. Octopus in the Lizard's creation somehow, so that Doc Ock ends up somehow & somewhat in control of the transformed Dr. Connors.

I'm not sure whether Venom ought to be a mastermind or a thug, though. I was never a huge Venom fan...


----------



## coyote6 (May 6, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *i caught a quick reference to the guy who turns into Lizard (can't remember his name right now) during the movie*




Dr. Connors. Peter mentions that he was fired by Dr. Connors.

J. Jonah also mentions something about how Brock, the Bugle's photographer, can't get any clear photos of Spider-Man. Eddie Brock is, of course, Venom.

If the second film has Dr. Octopus, the Lizard, and Felicia "Black Cat" Hardy, plus Spidey & MJ and presumably supporting cast (Harry, folks at the Bugle) -- well, Raimi's going to have a tough job, that's for sure.


----------



## Negative Zero (May 6, 2002)

Connors, that's right! and i completely missed the Eddie Brock bit too. *hangs his head in shame* i, on the other hand, really liked Venom ... well the symbiot (sp?) anyway. i really wish Spidey could have kept that black suit. *sigh* but the good guys never get to keep anything really good they get. ESPECIALLY when he's Spiderman!

~NegZ


----------



## Game Control (May 6, 2002)

I loved the movie!

The anticipation leading to the movie eventually lead me to start collecting the Ultimate Spiderman serie.

Speaking of the serie; I gotta say that Ultimate Spiderman's Green Goblin looks infinitely better than either that of the movie or the Amazing Spiderman serie.  Well, IMO anyway.  Also, Harry Osborn was so shallow you don't get why Peter Parker is friend with him.

Well, overall it's a great movie.

Two things I've noticed that haven't been mentionned;

I think MJ realizes that Parker is Spiderman at the end.  

As he walks away after telling her that they'll just be firend, stay focused on her face in the background.  First she is crying than suddenly she seems to realize something and puts her hand to her mouth in the classic ''Oh My god'' pause.  Then she fixes her eyes on the back of Peter Parker and she doesn't seem to be sobbing anymore.

Finally, If you stayed through the credits, you would have heard the Spiderman's theme song from the old cartoon in the 80S.

''
Spiderman, Spiderman
does whatever a spider can
spins a web, any size
catches thieves just like flies
look out here comes the Spiderman
''

etc.

It's after ''Hero'' by the singer of Nickelback and ''That's what we're all about'' of Sum41.


----------



## Negative Zero (May 6, 2002)

oh absolutely MJ knows. or at the very least there's a big "could it be???" going on. t'was the kiss y'see. that's what did him in. apparently either ol' pete is so good that upside-down or rightside-up, he's still a great kisser ... either that or he's so bad, that it's exactly the same no matter what direction he's facing, up or down! 

~NegZ


----------



## Henry (May 6, 2002)

LOL, Neg Zero!!    

Seriously, there is a saying that everyone kisses a certain way. I doubt MJ had been kissing ANYONE between the time she laid one on Spider-man, and she kissed peter. It don't take a genius to match mannerisms when you've spent time with two people who are supposed to be different, but are actually the same person. Everything from the voice, to the comments ("I was in the neighborhood") would conceivably add up over time. So there is strong evidence to believe that MJ's face at the end was an _"Oh my God"_ face.

If anything gave it away, it was his "I will always protect you" speech.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (May 6, 2002)

First off, I loved the movie.  I really felt like I was watching a comic book come to life, which was all that counted.

Now, on to Ebert's review...  It's been mentioned a time or two. Good ole' Roger Ebert wrote a rather pessimistic review of Spider-Man, which included a comment that just had me laughing my posterior off.  In regard to Peter discovering his powers "...but insufficiently amazed (or frightened) by them".

Oh man, now _that_ was priceless.  Now, what would you do if you got bitten by a spider?  Really?  If there was one missing from the "super spider" display and I was bitten by one, I might have told the scientist and asked if there was anything I they needed to do.

If I dismissed the possibility of the super-spider biting me, but still felt really poorly a few hours later, wouldn't you have told your guardians?  I know if I was feeling as bad as Peter seemed to be, the last thing I would do would be to lock myself in my room.

How about you just dismissed that as stomach flu, but next morning you were able to see without glasses for the first day in your life?  I've had to wear glasses since the fourth grade, if I woke up able to see without them, I'd be running downstairs carolling for joy.  Discovering I suddenly has muscles... I might start to get freaked.  Finding that I stuck to things, could shoot webs out of my wrists, and had better reflexes than than Michael Jordan?  I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with me.

What would Peter would have done in the "real world"?  Probably spent his transformation in a hospital and the rest of his life in a scientific institute.  Wow, that makes a great movie.

Lighten up Ebert, if people in comic books reacted to their powers the way that most people probably would, the plot would come to a total standstill.  What would be the point?  You don't want a hero to be too awed or scared of his own powers.  You have to have them be comfortable with them and use them, so that they can battle evil.  I thought Peter's little "kid with a new toy" scenes where he explored his powers were great.  Just enough for believeability without straying into dull reality.


----------



## Tortoise (May 6, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *LOL, Neg Zero!!
> 
> Seriously, there is a saying that everyone kisses a certain way. I doubt MJ had been kissing ANYONE between the time she laid one on Spider-man, and she kissed peter. It don't take a genius to match mannerisms when you've spent time with two people who are supposed to be different, but are actually the same person. Everything from the voice, to the comments ("I was in the neighborhood") would conceivably add up over time. So there is strong evidence to believe that MJ's face at the end was an "Oh my God" face.
> 
> If anything gave it away, it was his "I will always protect you" speech. *




Don't forget the situation on the bridge where Green goblin offers him a choice "Save the woman he loves or the kids."

Plus when he's holding her and the cable car, he calls her MJ which is something only Peter calls her.


----------



## Sodalis (May 6, 2002)

by now- you would know there are spoliers:
.
.
.
tortoise: actually Harry calls her MJ too (thanksgiving scene), which was sort of a thing for me cause in the comics-it was a strict Peter thing.  It was his pet name for her- which she hates, but grows to like cause it is Peter.

Also, she can piece out that Spidey was very familiar with her by the way he addressed her during the cable car scene.  Being a hero, he was supposed to be unbiased. But since he chose to go after her first instea dof teh car (even though itw as a logical fhoice to go for both) meant that he has a closer connection to her than to all the kids combined.  

the kiss also gave it away

I am pretty sure the next villain would be DocOc because of the obvious rivalry between Oscorp and Quest. And sice Oscorp is now without a head (all the board members are dead) this is the perfect time for Quest to seize control.  The fall of Oscorp would make for a perfect intiator for Harry's rage to become the GG.  his growth will prolly come at the end of #2 and throughout #3.  making him a supervillain in #4 (if they take it that far)

During this, a subplot of a shuttle will be launched which will come back with the Venom Symbiote, which will set up #3.  

I really thought that there should have been an additional scen at the end.  After the funeral (and before the MJ PP talk) Harry should have come home, angry at Spidey and trashed the house. In his rage, he accidentally stumbles into his father's secret room, where he finds the mask.  The scene pans out into darkness as you hear norman's laughter fade pierce the night...

I loved the movie- but my GF could not understand why things happen:
a genetically altered spider bites him- so waht? it was part of teh story.

he found out he got the power and started jumping across buildibng: its a guy thing- when you find out you can do something- you do it ... and even push your limits sometimes (i take drag racing s example)

He should have gotten the girl: the gift/ curse quote was beautiful

his uncle died for no reason: it was a reason for him to accept responsibility as spidey.  if a normal guy gets those powers, he would abuse them (i know i would) but since he got hit so hard with a life's lesson, he was forced to accept responsibility.

once again- i loved the movie...


----------



## Vargo (May 6, 2002)

*Loved it myself*

...and so did my wife, who has not been impressed by any superhero film other than the original Superman, and (to a much lesser extent) the original Batman.

In fact, the only fault she had with it was (in her mind) how little time they gave to MJ discovering her feelings for Peter - she felt that the final scene was a bit forced.  I kind of agree with her, but at the same time it's a superhero flick, not a soap opera.  

The ending, IMO, was just about right.  I too have a problem with the "disposable female lead" issue, and given just what Peter's just been through, I'd do the same damn thing myself.  Ebert can go relieve himself up a rope, I liked this film. (Hey, was it him who didn't like _My Neighbor Totoro_?  If so, then I'm not surprised he had issues with Spiderman - and he should put down the crack pipe and take 10 steps back.)

BTW, I have *NEVER* read a Spiderman comic book, and am only very briefly familiar with some of the backstory from the sunday-only comic strip in the paper during the late '70s-early '80s and maybe an episode or two of the cartoon.

Yeah, I loved it.


----------



## Tom Cashel (May 6, 2002)

Methinkus said:
			
		

> *
> I have the right to state my opinion on these boards and have it taken seriously, your little “sigh” was rude and it implies that you consider my thoughts no more valid than a small child’s.  Like I just need to have the plot explained to me and I’ll be quiet again. *




And to recap your opinion...



			
				Methinkus said:
			
		

> *
> How dare they string me along with Peter Parker boo hooing and not wooing for two hours and in the end when she confesses her love he sighs and walks away like a big gay nothing.  Peter Parker is a homosexual.  (I’m really just frustrated, I don’t mean this and I have nothing against alternative lifestyles, but I heard harsher words yelled out at the end anyway)  The INTRODUCTION to the movie called it a love story, and all I get in the end is a blatantly out of character move from the protagonist so that we’d all feel that much more inclined to go to the freaking sequel.
> *




You sound ignorant, homophobic and insensitive.  "It was gay" _is_ the criticism of a 14-year old.  If you don't want to be sighed at like a small child, then try not to sound like one, huh?

You do indeed have the right to state your opinions on these boards, but you are completely wrong in thinking that I have to take them seriously.  Especially when you have the nerve to say it like that...your "I have nothing against alternative lifestyles" comment, in this context, is so blatantly hypocritical.

Criminy...I don't care if you dislike the film, that's fine.  But what a stupid bunch of comments.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 6, 2002)

*Re: dont get mad, im just saying. . . .*

You are 12 arent you.

So you really think Joe Average 18 year old is going to turn into 1/3 rambo 1/3 Jet Li and 1/3 "Insert some dumb romance star" in mere seconds from getting bit by a spider?

How truly dumb.




			
				Methinkus said:
			
		

> *REAL   BIG    SPOILERS
> .
> .
> .
> ...


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 6, 2002)

*Re: Yeah baby!*

Where did they slide in the Lizard hint? All I noticed were the Goblin/Hobgoblin hint and the very subtle Venom hint.




			
				Mojo said:
			
		

> *Saw it last night...and loved it.
> 
> They got everything right.  The organic webshooters make so much sense that I'll bet if Stan Lee were to do it all over, they would have been included in the original story.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hand of Vecna (May 6, 2002)

Lzard hint was when Peter told Harry Dr. Connors fired him for being late again -- Dr. Curt Connors is/becomes The Lizard.

And Harry was the second Green Goblin, not a Hobgoblin. The thrid Green Goblin was Harry's psychiatrist, I believe.

Roderick Kingsley was a Hobgoblin. Jason Phillip Macendale was also a Hobgoblin, though I can't remember which one was first (I _think_ it was Kingsley). I do remember that they got their gear mostly by ripping off GG caches...


----------



## Flinx (May 6, 2002)

> Roderick Kingsley was a Hobgoblin. Jason Phillip Macendale was also a Hobgoblin, though I can't remember which one was first (I think it was Kingsley). I do remember that they got their gear mostly by ripping off GG caches...




Although I could be wrong, I believe Macendale was a character called <sigh> 'Jack O'Lantern' who also stole ideas/weapons from GG.  The only hobgoblin I knew was a guy named Ned Leeds who was the husband of Betty Brant (known only to Spidey historians).   

BTW, I just saw the movie and thought they did a great job with it.  As far as the sequel goes, the big bad will probably be Doc Ock or at least one of the other 'Sinister Six' (Ock, Electro, Kraven, Vulture, Sandman, Mysterio).  If they put another female co-star it would pretty much have to be Felicia Hardy, the Black Cat.  The  only other viable alternative would be Gwen Stacy which would make for too much of a soap opera for a two-hour movie.  Whatever the case, I look forward to seeing the sequel (unless it's based on the 'clone saga'  ).


----------



## Wormwood (May 7, 2002)

Flinx said:
			
		

> *...Whatever the case, I look forward to seeing the sequel (unless it's based on the 'clone saga'  ). *




C'mon, after Episode 2 and Nemesis, what could one more clone hurt?

Anybody else geting sick and tired of the C-word?


----------



## noretoc (May 7, 2002)

I think Kraven would be an awesome villian.  It is the right time for him, just as spidey is getting popular.  He wouldn't be too hard to do.  I just like it.  (I could have sworn I saw a picture of a guy in the Rhino costume a while ago.  Not sure if that means anything, but I seem to remember there being a connection with the pic and a spiderman movie).  
One thing I loved!  The scenes they took right out of the book or the old 70's show. He swings aroudf the flag pole a few times and takes off.  (that was a favorite move for the old cartoon).  The sitting on the building looking over the city after Uncle Ben was killed.  The flag pole at the end.  All classic poses.


----------



## MulhorandSage (May 7, 2002)

Count me as voting for Doc Ock in the second and Mysterio in the third. My two favorite Spidey villains when I was a kid, though I could live with Kraven.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Hand of Vecna (May 7, 2002)

the psychiatrist who became the third Green Goblin was Barton "Bart" Hamilton.

Edward "Ned" Leeds found a GG cache of equipment, then was killed by Roderick Kingsley, who became a Hobgoblin. Again, not sure if Kingsley or Macendale was the first Hobgoblin...


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 7, 2002)

Hand of Vecna said:
			
		

> *the psychiatrist who became the third Green Goblin was Barton "Bart" Hamilton.
> 
> Edward "Ned" Leeds found a GG cache of equipment, then was killed by Roderick Kingsley, who became a Hobgoblin. Again, not sure if Kingsley or Macendale was the first Hobgoblin... *




Ned Leeds was the first Hobgoblin.  Macendale hired someone to kill him and became the second Hobgoblin.

Then, many years (real time) later, Marvel Comics changed their minds.  They wrote a story to "explain" that Leeds wasn't _really_ the Hobgoblin, and that was actually Roderick Kingsley the whole time.

In a company known for retconning its character's histories, this one was lamer than most.  It reminded me why I stopped collecting comis.


----------



## Hand of Vecna (May 7, 2002)

which is why I posted what I posted -- officially, according to Marvel, Kingsley killed Leeds soon after Leeds found the GG stuff, but not before Leeds would use it.

Oh, and, yes, Macendale WAS Jack O'Lantern...


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2002)

A lot of flak for the movie in changing GG costume.  For the Spidey fans out there who are real traditionalists: what do you think of GG in the Ultimate Spider-man mag?

Me, I'm not a real Spidey historian.  I watched the cartoons tons more than I ever read the comic books.  And frankly, I love the new Ultimate Spider-man: the first comic book I've considered collecting again in about 10 years.


----------



## takyris (Sep 15, 2003)

Hey Kesh, Eldorian, and Jezter,

Eldo: You had to go back a ways, but they're there.  Here's the biggest one I could easily find.  You DO know that you can find old threads by changing the "Show up through" menu option, right?  If you're gonna almost lose your lunch while reading my post, you must be intelligent enough to figure out how the messageboards work. 

Kesh: A bias against RomComs is not a bad thing... the term RomCom is often applied to a movie that isn't considered funny enough to be called a comedy, and has a boy/girl thing... Very few legitimate RomComs actually exist, in my opinion.

Re: The harshness.  Jezter, I apologize for being harsh in the "confusing your opinion with reality" line.  I am prone to overreacting when I see stuff like that happening.  I have no problem with people having different opinions and liking different things -- but saying that just because you don't like something, then the Academy is stupid for liking it, smacks of a somewhat self-centered universe.  So does saying "I like this, so the rest of the world is wrong."  Liking or not liking something is an opinion.  Stating that an entire genre is lame is an attempt to slide your opinion under the radar in the form of a fact.  This always ticks me off.  Saying something like, "Hey, that's just my opinion, the Academy is free to pick stuff dull pieces if they want to," is an implicit slam on people who like things that are different than the things that you like.  And as someone who DOES like things that are different than what you like, I took umbrage.

I obviously took umbrage out of scope with the degree to which you inteded it, but nevertheless -- other people in the world are going to have different opinions than the ones you have, and they're not all stuffy idiots.

That aside: *My Extremely Late Spider-man Review*

*Things I liked*

- Most of the stuff with Peter Parker.  Liked the actor, thought he did a good job.  It felt like a good reimagining of the comic-book character.  His initial self, his changes, his true-to-comic letting the bad guy go scene that ends up costing him his uncle -- all of that was good.  Loved him exploring his powers.  Loved the fight scene with Flash.

- Liked most of the CG.  I'm not a CG-driven person -- I'm more impressed by dialogue and characters and PEOPLE than by flashy effects.  That's purely an opinion.  If you're paying $9.50, you get to like whatever you want to like.  That said, there were only a few times when the CG broke my suspension of disbelief.  Most of the time, they did a really nice job with a difficult superhero (harder than Batman or Superman to make real onscreen).

- Liked William Dafoe (or whatever his name is), the GG guy.  I thought that as long as I could see his face, he was doing a great job.

- Liked Jonah Jamison (or whatever the character's name is).  One of the best character bits in the movie for me was watching him argue with Peter about something, JJ acting completely mercenary and cold, and then the GG bursts in and demands that JJ give up the photographer who shot the Spider-man pics, and JJ, knowing that Peter is right there, lies through his teeth without batting an eyelash.  That was a great bit of characterization.  I liked it a lot.

*Things that were, for me, flaws*

- Not a huge fan of most of the fights.  I liked the Flash fight because it showed us Spidey's growing power.  But then, as soon as we get into full Spidey form, he promptly loses that ability.  The GG isn't THAT fast -- why does Spidey completely forget how to simply get out of the way?

I'd have loved to see Spidey act like some kind of Wuxia hero, but I know that that fighting style isn't really true to the character in the comic -- untrained but just naturally fantastic in terms of speed and power.  So I was trying to be okay with non-beautiful fights.  But these were at times almost at the level of Blade-2 annoyance -- the hero's ability to fight depends completely upon the plot: in one scene, he's knocking around trained people with ease, and in another scene he completely loses any ability to fight and gets slammed through walls just to make the audience get worried.

If the fights had been good but non-Wuxia, I wouldn't have enjoyed them as much, but I would have chalked it up to a difference of opinion -- purely personal preference.  In this case, however, it is *not* a difference of opinion.  The fight scenes had logical flaws and did not stay true to the science-or-logic that they established earlier in the movie.

A whole lotta writing for something relatively minor.  Not a game-breaker.  And people without a ton of combat training are likely not gonna notice, so while it's fact and not opinion, it's a pretty nitpicky fact.  Okay.

- Faces.  I'm not saying that this was something I could have done better, but I *am* saying that it messed up a lot of the movie for me.  The concept of a completely masked hero works well in a comic, since you can look at the panels and read the words, and you never see his face not-moving while he speaks.   And when comic-Spidey sees a busload of puppies crashing into the orphan farm (or the other way around), his eyes change shape to show that he's alarmed.

In a real-life movie, that's not an option.  And so we end up with Spidey and GG going at it, their voiced-over voiced fraught with emotion and hatred and angst and betrayl -- and the director shows us long shots of a completely masked face doing NOTHING while the voice-over goes through an impassioned speech.  Sometimes, even the director would realize that this was not going well, so he'd have somebody do Power-Rangers-body-language acting, waving their hands a whole lot more than necessary and doing goofy double-takes.

Like I said, I'm not saying I could have done it better.  I'm saying that it was a flaw.  Maybe they could have altered the costume to give Spidey a mouth, as long as they were altering other things.  Maybe they could have done some subtle CG effects on the face -- not enough for it to be goofy, but enough for the eyes to change shape when he was angry or sad or scared or something.

Game-breaker?  Possibly for me -- again, I like super-heroes because of the character, the concepts, the battle of archtypes, not for who can do the coolest thing.  Anecdotally, everyone else I've mentioned it to agreed with me, although they might not have proactively thought of it on their own.  Could it have been done better? Oh heck yeah.  I don't recall having any trouble getting a sense of emotion from Darth Vader, and he was done in full mask a few years earlier than Spidey. 

- Mary Jane.  Mercenary and heartless.  We never see her actually love anybody.  She dates Flash because she wants the pedigree of "popular guy in school", and the second she graduates, he's gone.  Then she needs some money or at least an upper-class date, so she goes for Harry -- but we never see her actually feel anything for him.  It's this "Yeah, apparently we're dating, even though I don't let him kiss me and get uncomfortable when he gets anywhere near touching me" kind of relationship -- and she cheats on him by kissing Spidey.  Mary Jane's character was obviously after the Alpha Male for the entirety of the movie, right up until she goes for Peter at the end in a poorly written scene that had me cringing in my seat (The "and I love you, I do, I love you so much" scene) and which several of my friends described as complete and utter turnoffs.

Ya know, when you find yourself in agreement with the psychotic villain when he says that somebody is a heartless goldbricker who's only after his son's money, and he's talking about the female lead you're supposed to like a whole lot, that's probably not a great thing.

That doesn't even get into Peter's whiny teenage "No, I must be on my own" thing.  That was pure opinion on my part.  Some people might have liked it.  Some didn't.  I'm not attacking that,  although it didn't work for me.  I'm purely going after the writing and directing of Mary Jane, here.  Heck, for what Dunst had to work with, she did a decent job.  She looked surprised and happy and cute at all the right times -- the only time that had me physically repulsed was, again, the funeral love-declaration, which just rang utterly false and hollow because it was in direct violation of the previous hour and forty minutes of the movie.

- The idiotic end of the last fight.

Okay, I'm the Green Goblin.  I've been beat in the fair fight.  I'm pulling out one last trick, pretending to be Norman and lure Spidey into the path of my death glider (or whatever he calls it).  When Spidey moves into position, I trigger the Death Glider, which roars toward him at full power.  Spidey backflips over it, and the glider continues on at full speed and strikes me, killing me after my one little angst bit.  D'oh.

Awright, chalk-talk it with me.  I'm a brilliant ENGINEER, and this is the best plan I had?  Really?  Allow me to diagram:

GG --> --> Spidey --> --> Glider

I've triggered the glider, with it's long sharp spikey bits, to move toward Spidey at full power.  What exactly was I thinking?  What possible good result could come of this?  I mean, not even "Spidey could flip over it and then it could hit me".  Let's pretend it DOES hit Spidey.  What's gonna happen?  It's gonna go THROUGH him. We saw this thing cut through concrete.  We saw it tear through metal.  You think Spidey's even gonna slow it down?  Even if Spidey gets mashed on the front, the spikes are gonna go right through him, and the end result is that the glider is, even if it DOES hit Spidey, going to continue on its trajectory, and it's STILL going to hit me, the evil genius.

Brilliant plan.

The only possible reason for me to do this is if I realize that I've suffered a mortal wound already, and I want to make sure that my corpse is found smashed together in a deadly embrace with Spidey's, leading Jonah Jamison to finally get that "They were secretly gay lovers!" story the hard supporting evidence that it needed.

I can handle the villain beating up the hero and then letting him go. I can handle the villain capturing the hero, demanding that he change sides, and then letting him go.  Those are character traits.  The end fight was not a character trait.  The end fight was a stupid flaw in the writing that left me in disgust that I'd waited that long for a brilliant ending and been served that instead.

*End of Review*

There you go.  Horrible movie?  Certainly not.  Enjoyed large parts of it, and could respect many of the parts that I did not enjoy as being a simple difference of taste and opinion.  The things I listed above were the things I considered objective flaws -- the things that I could not simply chalk up to a difference in opinion.  You are certainly welcome to say, "That didn't bother me" or "I didn't notice that", but I would be extremely surprised if you can rebut anything I've said above as demonstrably untrue.

There are plenty of movies with flaws that I don't care about.  My wife HATED the singing in Moulin Rouge, because she sings professionally.  I listen to her sing professionally, and so I could wholeheartedlly acknowledge that the singing was not of professional caliber.  It was a flaw.  But I didn't care.  You are, in the same vein, free to not care about the flaws in Spider-Man -- but to pretend that it was a miracle of modern film-making that ought to be placed in a time capsule and saved so that future generations can use it as an example of cinematic brilliance is to overlook a few large and fairly unwieldy flaws.

Please go ahead and lose your lunch if my review has caused you physical discomfort, Eldo.  Once you've cleaned up, though, perhaps you could come on over -- now that I've showed you how to bump posts in a messagboard -- and rebut?


----------

