Marvel Movie Madness! Part 22: Spider-Man

FIRST; AWESOME!!!!! I love SPIDERMAN.

Jun 28 - 10:13 AM

dethburger hates Flixster

I'm so confused what just happened here.

Jun 28 - 05:25 PM

LAST!

Jun 29 - 02:28 PM

Jimmy Cork

movie was good to my memory but I haven't seen it in a long time

Jun 28 - 09:03 PM

Jake Armistead

My personal favorite of the series, I doubt the reboot will top this or the second movie.

Jun 27 - 03:06 PM

Lenny Monroe

Now THIS is an awesome fucking film, the start (and in my opinion short) time of when superhero movies were great. Spider Man, X Men 1 & 2, and Spider Man 2 are in my opinion the 4 best Marvel Comics films of the 2000-2009 decade, before we got crap Fagtastic Four and The Hulk movies and the horrific Spider-Man 3 with so many plot holes it was hilarious as hell

Jun 27 - 03:26 PM

FREAK YEAH!!!!!! I love SPIDER MAN 3 the best actually . . . it had the Christian FORGIVENESS Theme throughout it.

Jun 28 - 10:16 AM

Matthew Strehlow

With great power comes great responsibility. I'll never forget that.

Jun 27 - 03:27 PM

Eric McInnis

I love Spider-Man. It was the first Marvel movie I saw. And I just respect it.

Jun 27 - 03:37 PM

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I too thought GG's costume was just plain bad, actually made me think of villains in Ultraman or some of those pre power rangers japanese tv shows.

The one thing I hated about the whole Spiderman series, and that was taken to disastrously epic proportions in part 3, was the cheesy dopey love of the two characters. In the first movie it was just there, all cheesy and dopey, but the driving force was still the new superhero powers, the origin of everything and the search for vindication for his uncle. I actually think that out of origin stories, Spiderman hasn't been topped and won't be anytime soon, Batman Begins and First Class come close, but this was a perfect mix of story and action. The slow motion in some fight scenes bothered me back then and it does so now, but I guess the counterpart is it all happening too fast to appreciate (a la Michael Bay) so I stick with Raimi's way.

Before Marvel took the reins of some projects and gave em a "vision" I always categorized their movies each by genre: FF is comedy with superheroes, Blade was action with superheroes, Xmen was actiondrama with superheroes and Spiderman was romance with superheroes. I still think Spiderman trilogy is the one with the most "romance" out of all of em, but in this first one they didn't give it so much importance that it took precedence over everything else.

Jun 27 - 03:57 PM

Big Brother

Yeah, why get Willem Defoe to play Green Goblin if you're going to put him in a metal mask. That dude has a face that was born to be the Goblin. Just put a little make-up on him, give him a hood and cape and let him go.

Jun 28 - 05:03 AM

Iron Will

Still one of the Top Five greatest comic books flicks eva.

Jun 27 - 04:12 PM

scifi mark

i definitely enjoyed this movie. I think toby maguire was great as peter parker and i enjoyed the origin story of the movie. GG was kind of weak and could of been much better

Jun 27 - 04:30 PM

Chip McNair

I LOVE both Spider-Man 1 & 2; both are classics in my opinion, and both are in my top 3 favorite comic book movies of all time, along with The Dark Knight. And I really don't care for the third (I don't hate it, but I really don't like it). I would agree with Dunst not being the knockout bombshell that I picture MJ to be, but she still did fine, and I think she was quite attractive in the first film. But yeah, this movie is right up there with the best comic book adaptations, and Tobey Maguire doesn't get enough credit for his performance.

Jun 27 - 04:40 PM

Matanuki .

Dunst almost completely killed the series for me. It was one of those ironic things by the third film, that a natural blonde would a red head and a red head would play the blonde. A red head that, in the end, would have been a better choice for the red head in the first place. Every time Dunst was on the screen I rolled my eyes. Imagine watching three movies and rolling your eyes all the way through the experience. And the whole thing with Lizard man was an epic tease in the worst sense of the word.

Jun 28 - 01:46 AM

Chip McNair

Yeah, I agree that Bryce would have worked for MJ, appearance-wise at least.

Jun 29 - 04:37 AM

Pete Labazzetta

Luke,

You Rule!! I agree with you 100%.

Jun 27 - 04:41 PM

I always wondered whether the whole "new yorkers throwing stuff at green goblin" scene was a bit much. . . . Don't get me wrong, everyone was thinking fondly of NY and its people in those days, but having spiderman be "the new yorker's hero" kinda made it look like they wanted the movie to be criticism proof.

Which is why I love superheroes that hail from fictional cities, cause then you don't have to pay lip service to all its residents.

Jun 27 - 05:03 PM

Larry Cunningham

I'm glad you said it first. Trying to transfer the emotion of 9/11 to spider-man really felt forced to me too.

Jun 27 - 05:29 PM

Worst of all, it didn't add to the enjoyment of the movie at all . . . . That scene and every subsequent scene throughout the trilogy where the camera would focus on some random pedestrian saying "go spidey, go" really made it clear: this is a movie. . . . .these guys are actors. . . . . . currently trying to deliver lines as earnestly as possible

Jun 27 - 07:15 PM

Spider man kinda earned it though. He was a New Yorker for 40 years. I really liked how people got involved. It wasn't just the superhero saving the day with super powers. He needed help from real people. (But yes, the dialouge was a bit too heavy handed and badly delievered. Supposedly added after 9-11.) When you think about it, 9-11 kinda kicked off the whole superhero movement. Spider-Man was the first big summer movie since the attacks. America needed a hero. It was the right film at just the right time. I own the re-called poster with the twin towers reflected in his eye. Great banned teaser trailer too.

Jun 27 - 10:03 PM

Jeremiah Rancourt

The scenes with the everyday people helping Spiderman or cheering him on are incredibly touching and moving. I'm surprised more people on this site don't appreciate Raimi's humanization of the superhero and what he represents to the everyman, as seen in these few scenes. It calls upon the audiences deep down need to "believe" in someone and have a hero to "look up to." Spiderman is shown both to be "a part of us" and someone to emulate in these brief sequences. Both the bridge scene in Spiderman one and the subway scene in Spiderman two are part of the reasons why these films worked so well for the masses (not just fanboys).

Jun 28 - 08:35 AM

Larry Cunningham

The scenes with everyday people you speak of bordered on "camp" if you ask me. The film makers removed the towers from EVERYTHING in the movie, the trailers, and posters because they felt it was too soon for the audience to deal with it. Then turn around and add corny dialogue and situations that were obvious nods to the tragedy. And like rizzyh said, it took away from the entertainment value of the film. Horrible decision by the studio.

Jun 28 - 11:55 PM

Jeremiah Rancourt

I didn't see it that way. Putting on 9/11 goggles, perhaps you can view it from that perspective, but I can separate myself from the real world when viewing movies. I suppose an analogy can be drawn to people "pulling together" in a time of tragedy, but it wasn't obvious. I hope we haven't become too jaded to appreciate moments like this in a film. These moments stand out for me and show there's a real backdrop to what these heroes are doing and they don't simply act in a vaccuum.

Jun 29 - 08:39 AM

J. L.

I don't particularly mind the People of New York/Spider Man interaction Raimi injects into the films, but as a director he just doesn't have the talent to translate that kind of emotion into a movie. All those scenes come off as cheesy, and it's not just the Spider Man trilogy- look at any other Raimi film and you'll see the same problem. His directorial expertise obviously lies in other areas.

Jun 29 - 09:33 AM

Larry Cunningham

Exactly. It just feels forced. To me (and this is just me) I think they should have just left the towers standing in the movie. Let people sort out their own emotions about what happened. Yeah, they may have taken a beating from some people, but they would have been praised by just as many.
Or they could of just had a shot of spidey swing past the towers at the end of the movie instead of landing on the US flag (althought I thought that shot was great). The movie would have probably made more money! At least that way it would have felt real and not forced. All that is minor to me though because I thought the movie itself was terrific!

Jun 29 - 12:36 PM

yeah its like 9/11 never really happened anymore . . . I hope they re-insert the World Trade Towers back in. 9/11 only happened in New York City for about 3 hours, not the entire world . . . that's what it sounds like you are saying: that people need to get over the entire 9/11 thing because its not all THAT big a deal in a Spiderman movie. (people don't read this stuff anyway)

Jun 28 - 10:25 AM

Peter Williams

That's not what rizzyh is saying at all. He's just talking about Hollywood pandering to the audience. I understand what he's saying because I felt the same way. 9/11 was horrible, but it didn't belong in a Spiderman movie. It was nothing but playing on the audience sympathy to earn a few more dollars.

Jun 28 - 05:13 PM

I don't think it was that cynical, Truheart. Spider-Man has been a comic character set in New York for 40 some years. In fact, his character can barely exist outside New York (can't sling in the suburbs) The movie was shot in New York and even the marketing campain prominently included the twin towers. This was the first biggest escapist summer movie set in New York since the attack. I think they sincerely felt they had to say SOMETHING. The difference between Marvel and DC characters has always been that Marvel is more rooted in the real world. So how could they just ignore this enomorous real world event? It was all anyone could think about or talk about. I think Raimi just wanted to pay homage. Sam Raimi is as human as the next guy. I can't imagine he's sleazy enough to attempt to cash-in on the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Jun 28 - 06:00 PM

Joshua Dinsmore

Finally. Been wondering when they'd finally get to this. It's up there with their best movies in my opinion.

Jun 27 - 05:48 PM

Nik Summers

Dear RT - Ryan,

Nice backhanded compliment of Kirsten Dunst (odd, Muppet pug sort of way...really?!?!). Keepin' it classy...

Jun 27 - 05:52 PM

Kirk McCarty

Especially considering he's probably never been with nowhere near as good looking of a woman.

Jun 27 - 10:34 PM

oh RT RYAN . . . he likes Yukie Kawamura, . . . Kirsten Dunst is no Yukie.

Jun 28 - 10:41 AM

Sayuki Matsumoto also is RT-RYAN . . . totally/ you can put an x over Kirstin Dunst.

Jun 28 - 11:16 AM

Pamela Bryant

I really enjoyed this movie. Toby/Peter Parker was perfectly played. The GG was a bit too campy for this movie. He would have fit in better in the early Batman movies. But that was my only gripe with this movie. I thought it was and still is a great superhero movie. I don't think it needs a reboot. And I still don't see the guy from Facebook as Peter Parker.

Jun 27 - 06:03 PM

Alexson Philipiah

Spiderman is easily one of the best superhero film, that I have ever seen in my life. It definitely goes along in my top 10 list. I actually never seen this movie till 2006, as I wasn't really into movies at the time, and this came out when I was like a kid. Now after I viewed it, my honest reaction was: WOW, that was freaking insanely awesome.

I had no expectations, and this movie blew my mind. I mean it had almost everything: real human drama, great characters, top notch acting, amazing effects, tons of great action scenes, etc. This movie was just awesome. I didn't know THAT much about spiderman, but I had a general knowledge of him, and the movie showed it very perfectly.

Now to get wit the characters and acting. Tobey Maguire was my favourite part of this film, as he was as pathetic as Peter Parker could be. Although, Kirsten Dunst could have been a bit more better, and maybe look a bit more attractive. I mean COME ON, she's playing Mary Jane Watson, who is supposed to be FREAKIN SEXY, which Kirsten is not. Just my opinion. Anyways, J.K Simmons was PERFECT as J.Jonah Jameson, He looks EXACTLY like the comic book character. To finish it off, William Dafoe. I know some people gave him a negative reaction for being to silly or cartoonish, etc. But I found that he played his part very well, and I didn't know at the time how green goblin really looked in the comics, but at the time I was expecting him to turn into some monster, which he doesn't and instead dons a weird looking costume. Now I can say that I still think he should have went for an "ultimate spiderman" goblin look. The suit does make sense in terms of logic for the movie, but still. That didn't majorly bother me, as he played a psycho maniac villain on drugs quite awesomely.

The things I had a problem with, were the logic and the one or two plot holes. I felt there was a lot of logic missing in how the hell he made such an amazing costume by himself, and that's just a small one. Theres a lot more but I won't really go through them. One thing was the fun but kind of cheesy atmosphere of the film, which I think is what spiderman is like, but still. The plot holes in this one were also minor, UNLIKE its next film Spiderman 2(which I loved but had 2 HUGE plot holes). I had to go along with my sense of disbelief a lot when watching this movie, so i didn't have a major problem with the logic and plot holes. Plus, the movie is just so much full of heart that I couldn't hate it, and I mean i actually got a bit watery during the Uncle Bens death scene. Oh yeah, another couple more pluses, THE MUSIC was awesome, and I LOVED the style of the beginning credits.

overall, I could go on and on about how much i loved this movie, but I won't and say that I totally recommend it if you haven't seen it( which I highly doubt, since they air it on TV like 50 times a year).

rating: 85%

Jun 27 - 06:28 PM

thumbs-up

Jun 28 - 10:33 AM

This movie was amazing. I love how every once and awhile these writers sneak in comments I made in previous Marvel posts. I don't need a shout-out, but I hope they mentally give me props when writing them.

Tim (and the other guys) - be VERY careful when you try and guess what diehard fans of the superhero did/didn't like about a movie. You mentioned how how the web-slinging came from his wrist, instead of him making those devices, and how you suspected that fans didn't mind the change.

FALSE. I grew up reading Spider-Man, and - while I found a way to suck it up and not let it bother my viewing - I DID have a problem with. In fact, I remember a LOT of fans not liking the change. It really takes away from Peter's intelligence. In the movie, we get that he's smart - but more in a nerdy way than the genius he was. But don't assume a major change in the movie didn't ruffle a few feathers before they saw the movie.

I had a major problem initially with Tobey playing Peter. He fits the pre-spider bite Peter, but not the later years where he gets comfortable with himself and is pretty charismatic. But once again, I sucked it up and accepted it while watching. I do not, however, agree that it would be hard to imagine anyone else playing it - or that he fit the role perfectly. Look at his "cocky" performance in 3 to see how eye-covering bad he is at playing confident.

I completely agree with Dunst not being the IDEAL actress to play the stunning MJ. However, Rogue was supposed to be stunning and sexy as hell, and they chose Paquin to play her (well, technically, she played a Rogue/Jubilee hybrid) - so at least Dunst was closer than her.

I too had an issue with GG. Like I said in a previous Marvel RT column, the Power Rangers comparison was a bit much. However, I appreciated Raimi and Co. trying to come up with a logical reason for GG to have a costume. Armor made sense, though it would've been better (and more logical for military combat)had it been a suit closer to Batman's.

Jun 27 - 06:45 PM

Alan Smithee

The Power Ranger comparison makes perfect sense.

Jun 27 - 07:15 PM

I am not a Spiderman fan, was for a while, but it did bother me too that he threw the spiderwebs rather than make them. Plus, it made him kind of icky, too much like a spider. And he is a genius, not in Iron Man's or Reed Richards' league but a genius and here he just comes off as nerdy.

The one thing I missed in the whole trilogy is the snarky spidey, Tobey just can't pull off being sarcastic, not that the writers even tried, but Spiderman has a very unique sense of humor, not as deranged as Deadpool, but his one liners in the comics were awesome. And in the movies they were just gone, they got replaced with romantic mushy mopey stuff, which is my biggest gripe with the second one, because in the first he's still growing some confidence.

Jun 27 - 08:56 PM

I would agree with you for the most part. Peter was closer to Reeds in smarts, but smarter than Stark.

Jun 27 - 09:20 PM

It was more important to make Peter an everyman than a super-genius. Him making web-slingers from scraps in his bedroom in Queens as a high school student goes beyond bright. That's freakish super-intelligence. People can no longer relate to him.

Plus, here's a kid who was just granted superpowers. Oh but that's not enough for him, so he makes himself some more powers. If you woke up tomorrow and could scale walls, would you immediately start working on a jetpack? It's like if Superman created an invisibility potion.

Jun 27 - 10:09 PM

I guess you do have a point gridlock'd, there wasn't enough time in the movie to make you relate to spidey the way the comics did over 40 years. But the fact that he mutates to the point that he produces his own webbing...I don't know, just made me think of that spiderman clone or whatever it is that actually has 6 arms and 2 legs and a spider mouth. Less of an average guy with superpowers and more of a freak of nature. Ok maybe not average guy cause he's freakishly smart, but you get my point. "Oh yeah MJ, I am now technically a spider, but I look human, and if in need I can make you a dress, wanna make out?" "Fuck you weirdo" would certainly be what would happen.

Jun 27 - 11:22 PM

grid- I completely disagree. Had they gone the original way and viewers weren't able to relate to Peter, that would be the filmmakers' fault - not the source material. Readers had NO problem identifying with his angst back when the comics came out.

Jun 28 - 12:25 AM

Justin D.

Actually the organic web-shooters was one of the few things I didn't mind them changing in the movie. Granted it took away all the "Oh no! Out of web fluid," moments from the comics, but for the fast paced action of the film it fits. And I have to say I agree w/ the Power Rangers comparison (I made it myself not realizing the RT staff did too). The Green Goblin was always one of Spidey's campy villains but the version in the movie was so goofy I almost expected Rita Repulsa to show up and throw her staff down to make him grow.

Jun 27 - 10:32 PM

Really? I was waiting for Alpha to cry "aye yaye yaye yaye yaye!!"

Jun 28 - 12:38 AM

I took for granted in the comics how crazy the idea of webshooters are when I read the comics but in a moive you'd have to ask: How did he make them? Where does he get this an endless supply of fluid? How did he make a substance strong enough to support his body weight? And he made it with what, a home chemistry set? And he makes it every night? How much does it cost? Nothing? Where did he get the materials? Nearby dumpster? So he got bit by a radioactive spider and only recieved MOST of the powers of a spider? Everything except the thing spiders are most known for? It's like getting all the powers of a fish except being able to breathe underwater.
So say he does all this, clearly this high school student is a genius. He should probably work at NASA. So he goes to get a job... as a newspaper photographer? Isn't that kinda squandering your gifts? He should be curing cancer. Doing some real good in the world. Not delievering pizza.
Well, we'll see. Supposedly he's got mechanical web shooters in the reboot. I guess we'll get our answers there.
No, I was a huge fan of the comics and I think the first movie is perfect.
My only tiny gripe is he didn't quip enough once he put on the costume. It should have released his inner smart-ass. Bothers me that Iron Man is witter than Spider-Man in the movies.

Jun 28 - 06:14 AM

That's my usual gripe with the whole series. And what baffles me is that it's not like Raimi doesn't know how to direct someone being a smartass, Bruce Campbell is a wiseass in every single appereance he makes anywhere, why couldn't they transfer some of that to Spiderman? Spiderman, the character, doesn't have a single memorable line that makes you think "that's the guy I remember from the comics!" his personna wearing the suit and out of it is basically the same dweeby nerdy guy.

Jun 28 - 08:50 AM

Jason B

I've heard this before and it always baffles me: When someone says something to the effect of "I find it hard to believe that a person could invent webshooters, the organic webbing makes more sense to me." Ok first of all, that is hard to believe, yet A SPIDER BITING YOU AND GIVING YOU SUPER POWERS ISN'T? Where the hell exactly do you check your suspension of disbelief. And secondly, if he was going to get organic webbing isn't it convenient that it comes out of his wrists instead of say, oh I don't know, his ass...like a spider? (I'm aware spider's dont actually shit webs, please don't comment on that *groan*)

Organic webbing sucks. Peter is a genius and his invention is part of showcasing that and part of what makes him him. It really does take something away from the character when every single thing that makes him Spider-man is just handed to him. So I agree with Noah that no, most comic readers probably did not enjoy the change. While I certainly do think this is a great film, I feel that changed served no purpose but to irritate fans. The story would have played out exactly the same no matter how his webs come out, so what did that change accomplish beyond taking an aspect of what makes Peter, Peter away?

Jun 27 - 07:18 PM

first of all: if they had decided to make spidey shoot webs out of his ass, then this would've been the single greatest comic book movie ever. Seriously, way better then dark knight, cause even when you tried to analyze its plot, you'd just end up going "HOLY SHIT. . .toby maguire's swinging on a rope with his ass. . . . This movie is fucking AWESOME!". . . . . Secondly: the whole "genius inventor even before he was a hero" thing is just a plot device for when there's no explanation for how something came into being. . . . Case in point: michael keaton putting the batmobile back together after escaping the police in batman returns. . . . .by himself. . . .in the dark.

Jun 27 - 07:42 PM

Bruce Wayne is one of the smartest men in the DC universe. If he couldn't fix his own car he wouldn't be much of a Batman would he? And it'd look so dumb that he was all "uhhh the car broke down, let me get my batphone and call Alfred to bring a batowing truck". Now I can picture that in the Adam West one but not afterwards.

Jun 27 - 09:00 PM

I agree. In order to keep his identity safe, Bruce would have to know how all of his devices worked. Can't exactly ring up AAA if the Batmobile breaks down.

Jun 27 - 09:17 PM

You missed my point . . . . .its not just the entire batmobile that keaton's batman can design, construct, take apart and put back together at will like it was made from legos . . . . Its that intelligence used to mean something in comics & movies, like when it helped in finding the criminal . . . .now its a deus ex machina. . . . Batman can make a batmobile, batwing and batboat all by himself. . . . . Lex makes traps that superman constantly falls for despite all his super-senses. . . . . . Tony stark can make a minature nuclear reactor with spare parts from weapons . . . . Ozymandian knows how to fool dr manhattan even though the guy can see into the future. . . . All this is possible because . . . . . . say it with me now. . . . . They're the smartest men in the universe. . . . . Or: a writer's attempt to move the story forward by blaming it on "the resident genius"

Jun 27 - 09:29 PM

Justin D.

@ rzzyh - I agree. It's just a writer's device to explain something that, if held under close scrutiny, would make no sense. If Peter were smart enough to make such a remarkable substance in his own bedroom in Queens, w/ no high tech lab equipment, I wouldn't try to show great responsibility by being a super hero; I'd patent the stuff and make millions, then give generously to charity and to the community. Like you said, it's a simple case of deus ex machina.

Jun 27 - 10:39 PM

Matanuki .

Lazy writing is standard in Hollywood.

Jun 28 - 01:49 AM

Big Brother

I do like when Spiderman joined The Avengers in the comic book and Spidergirl and Hawkeye are talking about him. Spiderwoman whispers to him. "I think Spiderman is like one of those super-genius sciencey guys." and Hawkeye's like "Really" and they both look at him and he's dangling upside down cramming a half-eaten ham sandwich in his mouth. Comedy gold. They need more of that in Spider-Man these days.

Jun 28 - 05:13 AM

Actually Justin, Spider-man tries to make money out of his newfound powers at the start. He tries to become a celebrity (in the movie they did the wrestling thing) and that neglect of his powers for good is what gets his uncle killed. That's why he doesn't go out and make millions and donates them to charity, he feels responsible that if he hadn't been such a brat and concerned about himself only then his uncle wouldn't have died.

Jun 28 - 01:06 PM

@Manuel g: this is gonna sound really mean ( and I apologize in advance) but exactly how old are you?. . . . I'm asking because you genuinely seem incapable of grasping the finer elements of what justin and I seem to be saying. . . .earlier, I was trying to point out that too often comic and film writers use a character's sharp mind as the reason seemingly impossible technological feats can be accomplished. . . . Your response: smarts are how non-powered heroes make their mark in a super powered tale. . . . Right, and water quenches your thirst. . . . . Next, when justin presents a theory that if the "smart" heroes are really walking human computers, why not rely on their vastly superior brains rather than their not so great physical abilities. . . . . Your response: wait, but peter did try to make money off his skills and then he learned his lesson and then he became a hero and. . . . . Yawn. . . . For someone who likes to reply a lot, you don't seem to be able to infer what is being said, and then you provide some unbelievably obvious observation and try to pass it off as analysis. . . . . .hence the question: exactly how old does somebody have to be to consider what you keep writing as 1) relevant to the conversation and 2) anywhere in the vacinity of meaningful analysis?

Jun 28 - 03:42 PM

Fair. First I guess I have to explain why my answers. To your first reply, I never denied that it is a plot commonly used by comic book writers back in the day to explain whatever couldn't be explained, but everything in origin stories can be called DEM (a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object). The thing is that in both that I replied to, you guys are using real world logic to explain, not only comic books, but movies based on comic books, situations that make no sense. Now, if you ask me, that is never going to work out because then nothing makes sense, why don't people you know...just shoot them in the head? That'd end the story quite quickly. We are suspending disbelief by simply opening the comic book or entering the movie theater, so the smartest man on the planet, even though it is easily the second most used solution to problems in comic books, is something we have to simply accept. Yes, I never said it wasn't overused to explain whatever, but trying to mash it in with cold hard logic then nothing in the comic books would make sense. In response to Justin's "I would make a patent, become filthy rich, not bother using my superpowers and donate to charity" I replied that Spider-man had already tried it. Using superhero and comic book logic: why do we look up to Spider-man as a hero and not the million of inventors in history? Because he didn't make a patent, he's different from us not only because of his powers, because of his moral code. Why you and I seem to not be getting one another is because you are trying to adapt something out of fantasy to real life every day logic and I chose to suspend disbelief. But if I move into everyday ocurrences: then yeah, nothing that happens in this is plausible and 90% is actually laughable and absolutely ridiculous, the fact that he can swing from building to building at the speed he is doing it and then suddenly and abruptly lands on a paved street, on his feet, on a full stop, shouldn't his legs break or his spine snap? But then, where's the fun? As for relevancy to the conversation: is it really relevant that Batman shouldn't be able to put together the batmobile alone in the dark and instead he should take a cab or walk back? How and in which conversation is that relevant?

Jun 28 - 04:30 PM

Justin D.

@ Manuel - The thing about a movie or even a comic book is that the logic still has to use a level of realistic logic. You missed the point of what I was saying w/ my response. He tried to become a celebrity out of personal gain, to buy a car to impress a girl. I'm saying that he use his miracle substance to get rich, not for celebrity, but for the benefit of mankind. His web fluid could be used in medicine, or for construction projects, or to help police subdue suspects. On top of making a bundle off of this stuff to help people he donate a portion of his earnings to various charities and to help build up his community. At this point if he wanted to become super hero it would be just for the hell of it but he would definitely not need to do so. Nowhere did I say he should patent it just for the sake of making money.

But all of that is moot when it comes down to the main point rzzyh and I are making. The point is that when a writer can't come up w/ a logical explanation as to how a character w/ no high tech lab equipment, training, or the like invents a super durable, spider-like substance in the comfort of his own Queens bedroom, they simply use the response, "he's a super genius." This is what's known as deus ex machina.

Jun 28 - 09:52 PM

But if you guys see my answers nowhere have I said that it is not a DEM, comics are full of them in the origin stories. What I am rebating is that this doesn't make them less enjoyable or makes us relate to them any less. I just pointed out that it is a common pattern that those with rather crappy or no superpowers usually have genius like intelligence. I don't know why my answer was taken as a "I think you are wrong". But if the purpose was for people to say "yes" then I guess we have been doing it all wrong. So...yes, the DEM is pretty damn common in comic books and movies, we still read em/watch em regardless of that. We came to this point, we are both right, we agree we are, so how was your day?

Jun 28 - 10:13 PM

I see where you are going. But these men were created 60+ years ago for the most part, 30 on the youngest ones. Sure, on paper Spiderman's powers sound good but if he wasn't super smart he'd easily get squashed like you know, a real spider. Batman was the common man's response to Superman's all mighty personna. He had to have something Supes didn't have, therefore, he's a genius. See the pattern, all those with rather crappy powers, except for Xavier, are pretty damn smart. Why? To have somethig to make them super, otherwise they'd be just a notch ahead of normal people. And when you have normal people wearing suits...well they are just Kick-Ass, and while he's ok, I am betting that any of Spiderman's villains could dispose of his average self in about 2 hits. It is a deus ex machina plot device for sure, but EVERYTHING in comic books can be attributed to a deus ex machina, it's not like the origin stories are not completely believable.

Jun 27 - 09:42 PM

@Jason - AWESOME calling out the suspension of disbelief point.

Jun 27 - 09:18 PM

In a movie, the audience will suspend their disbelief once, not twice. He can't get superpowers AND make superpowers. It's gotta be one or the other.

Jun 28 - 06:26 AM

Grid - I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree about the web-slingers. I completely respect your posts in other columns, so I'm not going to try and act like you don't have a good head on your shoulders. I stand by my statement that if they added the homemade web-slingers and people couldn't relate to his character - that would be the fault of the writers and the filmmakers. I WILL say that I don't know where you got your suspension of disbelief calculator, but people will suspend for MANY more times than just ONE per movie. Take the Fast Five - critics LOVED that pile of...I mean "movie" - yet I had to reset my suspension meter about 10 times. Had critics/audiences had to reset it like I did, it wouldn't have been the success (commercially and critically) that it was.

Jun 28 - 06:04 PM

It just seems a bit much to suddenly gain superpowers and then go home and make more superpowers. Why stop there? Why not make a jetpack? And X-Ray vision googles? And maybe a thing that shoot missles? Surely those things could also help in the fight against crime. How come he never invented anything else in the past forty years? Marvel created Spider Man as a contrast to the less-relatable DC characters. (Superman is an invincible alien. Batman is a millionaire) Peter is supposed to be a normal kid that the audience could relate to. Yes, he's bright but it would take a super genius to invent working web shooters and a super adhesive the likes of which will STILL have yet to see, in his bedroom with no access to materials. He's supposed to be an intelligent but otherwise normal kid from Queens, not A Beautiful Mind. I'm not sure I would buy it from a teenage Tony Stark. (But at least he was rich and had a father in the business) Imagine in a movie we just watched him gain super powers from the super-spider bite, now we have to watch him go home and make more super-powers? Why? Because the first set of powers isn't good enough? Because he now has a spider motiff to live up to? How many origins does one hero need? I'm sorry, I just think it would be silly. Trust me, I never had a problem with web shooters until I saw the movie and realized just attributing web powers to the spider bite makes a lot more sense and it's certainly more economical in terms of storytelling. But hey, we'll find out soon enough when Spider Man gets the reboot. Should be interesting. Personally I have a bad feeling, but we'll see. I look forward to continuing this debate then.

Jun 28 - 07:14 PM

harry brown

@ Noah James & gridlock'd
I don't read the comics but I think you're both wrong. From what I've been told, Spider-man's web was created by his father. Why? I don't know. It seems Peter got the idea he could use this substance in crime fighting and made web shooters for it.

Apparently Raimi had no interest in the backstory of Peter's parents, so he cut the BS and gave him organic shooters.

Jul 23 - 03:44 PM

its a silly comic book . . . or is it?////people are TOTALLY deep into Spiderman. Even expressing the notion of Spiderman being a silly comic book will cause feelings of offense.

Jun 28 - 10:37 AM

It's like that time I told someone the Bible was a silly comic book and Jesus din't make a believable superhero. Man, did they get mad.

Jun 28 - 10:48 AM

Alan Smithee

The power of resurrection would certainly be useful when combating demonic hordes from the pits of hell. Walking on water on the other hand ... Now that's just silly.

Jun 28 - 02:00 PM