The New Aunt May?

No, they really weren't. The single good thing about the first movie was the part lifted directly from the comic: the wrestling scene. Organic web shooters, 'nuff said.

hey, they can't help it that there isn't magical compressing technology to hide a device that shoots webbing while hidden within spandex

Absolutely not, and anyone who's read any of my posts over the years knows better than to claim such. But you need to get the *core* of the character right and hew close to the *theme* of the piece, or else you're changing too much. The details don't matter as much if the foundation is solid.

That's the primary reason why the web shooters were retarded. The whole *point* of the mechanical ones are to show how smart Peter is. He's also supposed to be freed from his humdrum existence by the Spider-man persona, which is one reason why he makes so many wisecracks. Despite all the baggage that comes with the great power and responsibility, there's a part of him which *revels* in his alter-ego, because it's an awesome lift from his day-to-day life. Yet he barely makes a single joke in the movie and I never once got the feeling he loved being Spider-man beyond a brief scene. Peter loves the freedom yet constantly feels guilty about it, because he failed to use his gifts when they mattered most. That's what drives him. Mostly we got an angsty emo kid who just gets one more crappy thing heaped on his shoulders. That's part of Peter Parker, but that's not *all* of Peter Parker, so it's a huge miss.

Then there are clumsy things happening like him using the web shooters in full view of dozens of classmates and moving inhumanly fast right in front of people, yet there are no repercussions from that. Yesterday he's a dork and today he's superpowered, yet it has zero effect as we ignore that and move on to the main plot. The acting was fine and the cinematography is passable (except for the web-swinging scenes) but the writing is jumbled at best and, as I've said, missed the heart of the character entirely.

And this coming from Raimi, who made the terrific Darkman and Evil Dead movies. That's why I was disappointed.

Not so sure about 616, but in the Ultimate Universe, Aunt May is a noticably older sister to Peter's mom (I'm assuming it's the same in 616).

Sally Field, imo, fits the Ultimate version of Aunt May well. Figure Peter's mom was likely born when Aunt May was about 18-20, so when Peter's 15, Aunt May is around 60, depending how old Peter's mom was, when she delivered him.

Also, I get the feeling Aunt May didn't live the easy life for whatever reason (stress, hardworking...if she was a hippie, could of been the drugs!) could make her look older, if not just simple genetics (some people just don't age well), so she could look older than she is.

Obviously in 616 isn't the case per se, as I believe she's suppossed to be REALLY old in 616.

This movie will not make gobs and gobs of money.

Also, it is very unfortunate that the shared universe that is being created onscreen by Marvel films has to exclude the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. Not saying they should be included in The Avengers movie, however it is very odd to know that a version of the Marvel Universe exists without any of those landmark characters.

They also implied the web fluid creation was due to the change he underwent. He gained a unconscious understanding of the web fluid.

The reality of the comic is that Peter is really smart. His own modifications to his web fluid and the web shooters are good examples. And it is a wonderful question as to why he never took that skill farther, other than his responsibility as Spider-man interfering with his life.

I mean, if you are going to go with "unconscious understanding of web fluid" it's not that large of a leap to "he gains web fluid."

Wasn't the web fluid formula his dad's, as well? I can see how having him design the fluid in the movies would slow down the pacing of the film/raise more questions: is he really that smart? How did he create the fluid (it is easier to explain "unconscious understanding" in a comic book, not in a movie)? If they tied it to his father, now you have to explain who his father was. How does he find the material to keep on replenishing the cartridges? Where does he keep the cartridges. And so on.

It is just easier, in a streamline sense, to make the fluid organic. I do wish there was more Spidey banter, though.

Other than 3, I agree. I loved the films, and I missed the banter as well. Banter does not work well in a serious movie though.

As for linking the web fluid to his dad, I do not know about that. Was this a relatively recent add on when they started going more into his parents?

"Easier" does not mean "better."

The best version of the web fluid thing was in Ultimate Spider-Man by Bendis. That's where it was shown to be his dad's unfinished formula and he'd been working on it for years. Peter's breakthrough comes after the spider bite, so one might say his abilities also allowed him to clear his mind or concentrate better, or perhaps it was simply a coincidence. Bendis dispensed with the entire matter in less than two pages of the comic, succinctly summing it all up.

One reason why he doesn't apply this knowledge to other fields of endeavor is because of the web fluid's limited use. It only lasts for an hour or two before dissolving -- which might be useful in construction or something, but how does anyone explain that they've come up with this idea? (Although that might be a good subplot for a second movie, now that I think about -- Pete uses someone as a cut-out to market the fluid, but they take the lion's share of the profits. Pete can't sue the guy because he'd reveal himself to be Spidey, and so on.) Then there's the notion that it simply never occurs to Peter to capitalize on the web fluid, as other characters have commented that he could make a fortune with it. He *is* rather distracted by events in his life, plus his mind doesn't work like that. I don't recall if Reed Richards or anyone have analyzed the stuff, but that's certainly one thing that could be examined in a movie. I'd rather see that sort of thing instead of the scene in the lunch room and fight in the hallway.

As far as explaining who his dad was, you don't even need dialogue for that. Especially after Uncle Ben is killed, just have Peter in his room reflecting on his life. Just *show* that his dad was a chemist as Peter pulls out old newspaper clippings, photos and certificates, then have him glance over at the formula on the board again. Just a brief shot to establish it's both important and related to Pete's dad. Have that board in the background from the start of the film to establish its presence. Maybe even have Ben or May yell up to him to get a move on or he'll be late for school as he stands concentrating on the thing. You can dispense with all of that stuff in less than a minute, simply allowing the audience to draw the correct conclusions by association via montage. Maybe even throw in a bit of dialogue for the slower viewers.

On bus:
Mary Jane: What were you doing?
Pete: Looking at my dad's formu - nevermind, just geeky stuff.

Or even more on the nose, but lame:
Mary Jane: Looking at your dad's formula again?
Pete: Still.
Mary Jane: You'll get it, you're the smartest guy I know.
Pete: You so need to get out more.

Then why so hung up on web shooters? Because that's just a detail yet you're using that as the major reason of why the Spider-Man movies were bad (which they weren't).

You may think you're commenting on quality, but all you're screaming is "THE TYRANNOSAUR DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE END OF JURASSIC PARK!! WHY DID SPIELBERG PUT IT THERE???"

Exactly. It makes way more sense that this incredibly strong webbing is the result of his mutation than some HS kid invents it in his bedroom. The kid is supposed to be really smart, but he shouldn't be inventing **** in his room that the worlds greatest scientists can't replicate in the best labs technology has to offer. Making the webbing organic was a great move in the last movies.

A guy gets bitten by a radioactive spider and mutates, gaining spider like abilities including the ability to create webs.

A guy gets bitten by a radioactive spider and mutates, gaining spider like abilities except for the ability to create webs. Luckily, his dead father was working on a web like substance and his HS son picks up the work (and wow, what were the chances that his dead dad's work would go with his new spiderman abilities!), creates a powerful webbing solution that the worlds top scientists would marvel at, creates web shooters of similar technological brilliance, and maintains a steady supply of this fluid as a HS student and then college student working part time as a photographer.

And you think choice 2 makes more sense? Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, lol.

No, but in movies they MAY be the same thing. Look at Inception, for example, a lot of people didn't like the movie because they viewed it as "too complicated." Now, before we launch into a conversation about the "dumbing down of America," sometimes superflous things added into a movie, maybe to fully flesh out a character, is not necessary and can lead to confusion and/or boredom.

Two pages though in the comics may mean anywheres betweens 30 seconds to 5 minutes in a movie, to properly setup that moment.

Honestly, that would be cool to see. But it would also run the risk of being boring. Especially since up until that point in the film (talking about the lunch room scene), we hadn't seen much "superheroy" stuff. Remember the big complaint about Ang Lee's Hulk: not enough HULK SMASH.

Have you heard of Chekhov's gun? Introducing Peter's dad may result in an undeed perversion of that if the rest of the movies don't revist him (if we assume the rest of the movies would have followed the same storylines). The audience will expect some more explanation as to how were Pete's parents. Mind you, they are involved in some major storylines in the comics. So you may even have people complaining that they need to be MORE involved in the movies. Remember all the nerdgams over the mention of Dr. Connors in the first movie, then really nothing except some cameos from him by Dylan Baker.

So basically, yeah, they left things out but I think they did a good job overall. The problem is always going to be when adapting a property, especially one with as much mythos as a comic book, is you are going to leave something out. And even if you put it in, some people will think you misrepresented it or you should have put X in.

I didn't say they were the major reason, but nice try putting words onto my post.

What I said was this: They aren't a detail, they underscore the reason why Spider-man is a terrible adaptation. If you're going to argue with someone, at least pay attention to what they say instead of what you think they say.

If he's going to spin webs the way spiders do, then he needs a fold-down flap in the backside of his Spidey suit.

His dad wasn't working on a web fluid, PETER re-purposed it for that. The kid's smart. Haven't you ever met a smart person? I mean a genius-level-IQ type of person. They don't think they way you do.

As I say, there is plenty of room for exploration regarding those things as a subplot. Since it goes to the core of the character, it's worthy stuff to add.

One person's boredom is another person's riveting moment. The best you can do is what's true to the character and story and let the rest of it fall as it may.

Not at all. My favorite example of cinema's power to capitalize the fact that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is from Robert Towne's Tequila Sunrise. In that film, a five-second shot of a matchbook on a bar says more about trust and betrayal than five pages of ranty soap opera-type dialogue ever could. It is a brilliant moment, one of the most perfect such moments in movie history.

That's a structure issue, not a story issue. There are so many basic ways to get around this it's not even an issue. Even the tried-and-true flashback a la Forrest Gump would work fine. But "no action" doesn't have to equal "boring." Check out The Social Network or Dead Poets Society for how sitting at desks can be made into a riveting movie. Trotting out another film, Gosford Park, the first half of that movie setting up the movie was so interesting that I completely forgot it was supposed to *be* a murder mystery.

It wasn't that they left things out, it's that they changed core parts of the character for no good reason other than they were too lazy to work out a better way to integrate all those key elements.

First time on the internet, is it?

Again, see Ang Lee's Hulk movie, with its shots of moss growing, as to how something like can seem out of place and "boring" in a superhero movie, where people's expectations are for action or a constant pace. We are only now reaching the point where superhero movies are being considered "art" with Nolan's Batman films. To expect something like that in one of the first "New Age" superhero movies is saying that in hindsight it would have been great, but the audience and the filmmaker's stance was not mature enough at that point.



And how many of those movies did you just mention were based on comics? Were movies with fight scenes? Or, y'know, expected to be, hoped for, blockbusters? Those are quieter films by the very nature of their subject matter. The audience goes into those movies expecting those types of scenes. Though don't, at least at the time Spidey 1 was released, expect that in superhero movies. I like those scenes, but again, the modern (Marvel) superhero genre was just being born at that time and they had to get the big crowd-pleasing stuff right first before they could get to the smaller stuff. What is boring in one movie isn't boring in another, by such factors as story, pacing, and audience expectations.



Honestly, having read a handful of Spidey comics in my life, I don't think they changed any core parts. You say they didn't make him smart enough. He was still smart, we still saw everyone from Norman to Doc Connors marvel at his intelligence. They didn't make him into a dumb teenager. He was maybe a bit too emo, but that is also a core aspect of the character: his constant struggles to do what's right while dealing with his real life.

They touched upon each of the fundamental core tenets of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Maybe not in full or a lot (i.e. the banter) but I doubt most people would say that the Spider-Man presented on screen is fundamentally different than the one found in the comic book.

bold statement, but name recognition alone is going to guarantee that this thing is going to clear 100$ million regardless as to how good or bad it really is. no it won't rake in the same cash the others have, but it's still going to make enough to be VERY profitable.