Background: I was reading The Amazing Spider-man comics before most people on this site were born.
Marvel Comics was a beehive of creativity and daring in the 60's & 70's, but the single biggest mistake they ever made IMO was killing Peter Parker's girlfriend Gwen Stacy simply because they felt they had nowhere else to take the relationship besides marriage. It killed my interest in Spider-man for years, and even today only the 'Romita years' comics are the ones I've kept. Sam Raimi must have felt similarly, and omitted Gwen from his timeline as a girlfriend at all, and moved straight on to Mary Jane, good move I thought. But he made webs come directly & organically from Peter's wrists and forsook the web-shooters. Not cool. He cast Toby Maguire, who did a good job overall, but couldn't they CGI his eyes brown & let him be less the victim-type ? And Kirsten Dunst was a total miscast, period. Then they made Dock Ock an unintentional bad guy. Not cool. Then came Andrew Garfield. Better physically, but geeze, what's with the high hair & punk 'tude? And the retconned family history? Oh, they needed something NEW. Okay. They brought in Gwen, but again a total miscast IMO. Like Kirsten, workable, but why not go for the Gold? Okay, then they kill Gwen, but NOT precisely like in the comic. Holy crap, if you're gonna potentially turn people off to a franchise, can't you at least be more respectful to the painful source material? But then, people seem to like 'dark' these days...
Bottom line: There has never been a remotely perfect Spider-man movie made.
But in fairness, Spider-man in the comics (as a ground-breaking & important character) basically burned out after about a decade & a half...
Perestroika time: I can enjoy some of the movies on their own terms.
I like Spider-man, many aspects of Spider-man 2, Spider-man 3, and even The Amazing Spider-man to some degree, but AS2 will be a rental. I just knew they'd off Gwen, and I also knew it'd be completely different. And what up for the next movie? A DAF-style treatment, I see it now. Oh, Gwen tears for 10 minutes, then "Hi Tiger" will fix all that... At least in the comics they could spend some real time on his grief. Not that that was fun.
In the end...
Spider-man 3 is my favourite Spidey film. There. I said it. If you're going to make a film that messes with the established comic book cannon, at least pack it with action overload, which #3 delivers in spades.
Let the pumpkin bombs fly! :))
Comments
I want your money back.
@Agent007391, I have it on good authority that I'm not the ONLY one that likes SM3, there's like, more fans of it than I can count on my right hand!!!
I did not like the casting of Dunst at all. Mary Jane always had black hair, at least in the books I read, and she was real hot, not girl-next-doorish like Dunst. I thought Parker had the best GF on the planet.
I did like Emma as Gwen, but I don't know what Gwen was supposed to be like anyway, so I just rolled with it. I actually had no idea she was doomed a la Tracy di Vincenzo.
Ignorance is bliss.
I am now really looking forward to the casting of the gorgeous MJ though. I'd like a jet black dark-haired young beauty, just like I remember from the books.
Continuing with my rant- I figured out why the suits demanded Venom be added to Spidey 3!
In the first, Norman was not the nicest dude, but his evil was not intentionally embraced, it more or less accidental.
In the second, Octavius was good, it was the evil AI of the arms that made him :Doc Ock.'
In the third, Flint Marko and Harry were both well-meaning peeps caught up in desperation/mental issues and did not mean to be evil.
See a pattern here? I can't really fault the suits for wanting to add in a full-on evil character for ONCE. Heck, Doc Ock was a full-on evil character in the comics, that was the worst thing about Spidey 2 for me...
Must have mixed her up with my other favourite comic-book girl, Veronica, from the Archie books. Now, she had jet-black hair.
Amore!
Hopefully they put this scene off for several films. Mary Jane Watson as recurring super-hot gf, would really spice this movie series up.
I read the "background" portion and then skipped to "in the end..." Glad I did because my reaction would've been the same as yours. :))
IMO, Spider-Man 3 is a terrible film but as a long time Spidey fan I still find it enjoyable at times; the first Spider-Man is also a 'meh' movie. The original Spider-Man trilogy just doesn't feel like it was true to the Spidey character. The new movies, while not exactly like the comics, portray Spidey the way he should be.
JK :))
I am no expert, but in the comics wasn't Doc Ock's madness caused by the explosion that both fused his tentacles to his body and caused brain damage? It is debatable whether he was always evil. I did enjoy the first and second Spider-Man and found their respective villains deliciously ambiguous: we do not know if the Goblin formula merely triggered the evil that was dormant in Norman Osborne. Overall Otto Octavius appears good at first, but he has the hubris of a mad scientist. When his experiment goes awry, he wants to carry on, risking even his wife's life.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2553/the-amazing-spiderman
This is the spoiler thread for those who have read the 70s comics. Let it stay open, please. I enjoy it.
Danny Elfman was born to score movies.....period.
But in the end, Raimi's three & Webb's second are serviceable for me.
A couple of notes:
In the main titles of the 1967 Spider-Man cartoon, they actually used a Steve Ditko drawing from the cover The Amazing Spider-Man, vol. 1, No. 19. at the 0:22-23 (and 20:38 mark of the end titles)
mark of this:
I'm forced to agree here, a lot.