What NEEDS To Happen With Spider-Man

This is a [frick]ing comment

I bet @cinnamon will come in and write 5 comments each longer than this.

And the award for shortest article ever goes to...

"The third one, introduces his dark side where his own selfish takes over, his frustrations overcome his morale."



Wrong. The third one was where Tobey became an extension of Sam Raimi, he stopped being Peter Parker at that point. Sam's idea of 'making an ass of oneself' was to sabotage MJ's performance at a jazz club, and hit on the Bugle's secretary, and hit on the landlord's daughter, and get your co-worker fired, and put your feet up on Jameson's desk, and act like a moron in public. MacGuire's Peter Parker was always just an extension of Raimi's personality and not necessarily of the actual Spider-Man, but it worked because the director is incredibly talented. Spider-Man 3 was a great experience I had in the theater at a midnight showing seven years ago, there were moments where the entire audience gasped, when Peter almost lost his engagement ring, and when he backhanded MJ. The tension and investment in the characters reached an all time high, and the action scenes in SM3 have yet to be topped, in a sense the new ones kind of plateau'd there way into mediocrity by not being that exceptional.



People always feel the need to go back and hyper-analyze the Spider-Man movies unlike any other franchise, I just like them all. They're all brilliant spectacles, well-told stories and they all do a great job of capturing things from the comics. Someone who knows nothing about the comics can watch the movies and understand what every iconic villain represents. You're right about the story maturing faster than the characters, but that's only if you treat the original trilogy as a separate thing - even though its all done by the same company. The Raimi films are actually a foundation for the TASM films to build off of, at least thats how the filmmakers view it. The 6th Spider-Man film is a villain showcase with characters like Ock and Sandman who need no introduction, and at this point I realize this hasn't addressed any of the points you made, this has nothing to do with what you were saying, and I can't possibly segway back to what this was originally about without sounding foolish.



I wasn't defending TASM2 at all, I haven't even fully seen or evaluated the film for myself yet, I was only making a point about how stupid it would be to reboot the story and skip over the origin.

@MrSotoMan - "down to the very moment Peter screwed up Harrys face" LMAO! I completely forgot about that part, but what an awesome scene. Dane already messed up his own face, and he should really step up his game in the threequel if that whole 'redemption' thing you mentioned earlier comes into play later. Franco's Harry was one of the few highlights because of some unintentionally funny dialogue, DeHaan's Harry ended up being no different in that respect. Its hard to compare the two as Osborn, it'll be even harder to judge who played the better James Dean.



The TASM films have their own thematic cores but they're much harder to spot, the first one is about being incomplete after losing something; Peter lost his parents, Connors lost his arm, Aunt May lost her husband, Gwen lost her father - all permenant losses with no resolution. The second one is about time, the first shot is a ticking watch, the last fight is inside a clock tower, the gears fall apart, time is slipping through his grasp, even that dumb plane sequence had a stopwatch! Whether it worked or not, that's what the filmmakers were going for, and I find it interesting that the producers used the term "redemption arch" to describe Sinister Six.

If you're still confused about what I meant about the Sinister Six plot, I meant its a lot like The Avengers in that Thor and Iron Man need no introduction, because audiences know the lore from previous films. For a character like Ock to start talking about his dead wife, or Sandman about his criminal record, the studio would still be coasting on the success of the original trilogy, while reinventing them under a new actor. Similar to how Ruffalo's Banner isn't at all what Norton's Banner was, but he could still reference destroying Harlem. I did an article about this a month ago where I speculate on the plot, check that out

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man/sinister_six/news/?a=112751

This is not an article much less an editorial.

Please start over.