That’s precisely why I gave the example of Luke Skywalker. Without the Vader arc, he would have been a dreadfully underdeveloped character. He wouldn’t be Luke without that arc. But there’s not a hint of it in the first movie. I’d say MCU Spider-Man is in a better position than Luke was after the first movie, actually - they’re teasing his development.
Just because those are core aspects of his character, doesn’t mean the MCU Spider-Man doesn’t have them. We just haven’t seen them yet. If they don’t show all the criticism is valid. But it’s unfair to say that he’s poorly developed just because we haven’t seen them straight away.
I’d argue the Raimi films went a bit backwards on his arc, actually. The first one did exactly what you’re saying. Second one kind of did a very similar thing again, which wasn’t inherently weak but his character didn’t go that much further than he’d already developed in the first. And the third one… aha.
It’s not like the idea of a character that “develops” the most in movies other than their first is something radical or unheard of, either. Other than Luke, off the top of my head I can name Will Turner (PotC) and Po (Kung-Fu Panda) as solid examples, and I’m sure there are others.
Incidentally, how did you feel about Spider-Man PS4’s story, if you played it? That felt like a very true adaption of his character, to me.
It was also bad. It got a lot right I’d argue with Spider-Man himself but the supporting cast and portrayals of his villains feels so underdeveloped. The story was predictable. And I disliked the gameplay of the game. It was a step backwards in gameplay I feel. (For some reason you cannot climb ceilings despite how Spider-Man 2 and 3’s games allowed that.)
That’s not what I am saying. I’m saying: MCU Spider-Man lacks the groundworks of Peter’s comic characteristics. Yes, I agree he can GROW. He does that in the comics too. But he lacks what made Spider-Man the character in the first movie. I shouldn’t have to wait for that my man. I just want the baseline Spider-Man and it has not been delivered as far as I am concerned. And then the character growth has been stagnant too.
Who are these anonymous people? What are their credentials? Why are they “true fans”? What makes someone a “true fan” of the character? I’m curious about this.
I’ll agree on the “Raft” villains (Electro, Rhino, etc) and possibly Mister Negative. I thought MJ, Doc Ock, and Miles (to a lesser extent) were all fine.
Yes you can. I’ve done it. It’s a bit fiddly, but it can definitely be done. You can even extend a web from it and do the “hanging-spider” pose (idk if there’s a proper term for it, lol).
That’s fair, I guess. I feel like that was never going to happen without the origin story, though.
It will also be interesting seeing how he interacts with the other versions of Spider-Man, and if he changes as a character as a result of that. I hope he does.
I do kind of agree there. I think Marvel could have been doing more with the character, and I certainly don’t feel that he’s perfect. But I don’t feel like we’ve seen enough of him to say that he doesn’t have a chance to be good and the Raimi version was objectively better. They both have strengths and weaknesses, currently - and it remains to be seen if Marvel will do anything about that or not.
I’m just saying it’s too early to call. People did the same thing to (what I felt was a great, though also imperfect, interpretation) of the character in the TASM movies and they never got a chance to even get going. Felt like a plane being hijacked and crashed before it took off.
I always thought that the plot of the second movie was a bit odd. In that Peter’s superpowers seemed to be failing for no reason other than to establish conflict and make him question whether he should really be a superhero. But, like I said, it’s been ages since I watched the movie, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t know if I’ve hinted at this, but I kind of agree with where you’re coming from. As I’ve said, I think the groundwork laid for the MCU Spider-Man makes sense for this version, and it ends up working out. However, I still wish that there’d been at least some form of reference to Uncle Ben, since he’s always been such an integral part of Spider-Man’s lore.
This I also agree with, and it’s the reason I appreciate that the MCU is doing. Well, that and because I genuinely like what they’ve done with the character they’ve done so far.
A lot of people I talked to said they loved the game, but…yeah, I have nothing to say here.
They’re true fans because they’ve read every comic ever, like you say you have. I’ve talked to people both in real life and on the Internet that meet this criteria who meet this criteria and approve of the MCU’s handling of Spider-Man.
[takes a deep breath]
I realize that my last response came across as kind of rude, and for that, I’m sorry. I’m not saying every “true” fan has to approve of this or that incarnation of Spider-Man. There can be “true” fans that dislike the Sam Raimi films, or the Marc Webb films, or the Jon Watts films. All I’m saying is that the majority of the MCU fanbase and the general public likes the Jon Watts films, and I happen to be a part of that majority.
News to me. Didn’t work any of the times I tried to do it. If it’s “fiddly” I think that’s problematic.
Which is also a problem. I like the origin story.
I mean, Into the Spider-Verse already has a comic-accurate Spider-Man interacting with other spider people.
Is two movies not enough? Raimi had 1 movie to prove that it was good. Why does it need any more?
Nah, it had it’s chance, and it delivered poorly too. Honestly a movie is supposed to fully develop a full story, not rely on sequels to fulfill plot points.
He was love sick. That is why he was slipping in his powers. It was purely psychological.
I haven’t read everything ever but it is a substantial amount yes.
The majority can like a product, but I find myself never agreeing with the majority. It’s either I’m a contrarian or I just prefer to have certain standards for things, and the current MCU Spider-Man just fails to live up to the standards.
You know, I can’t help but feel like I’ve gone through the same things myself. The majority of Shrek fans hate the third and fourth movies, though I find enjoyment in them. Most everyone loves How To Train Your Dragon 2 and 3, but I do not. Going along with your own point, it’s pretty common for people to say that quality is subjective, and I think that adage definitely applies here.
I’d argue that Raimi really had one movie where it was good, though. 2 was ok, and 3 was kinda really not, but even ignoring that one and giving you benefit of the doubt, that’s two good movies.
If MCU Spider-Man delivers we could potentially see a lot more than 2 good movies. I think a slower start is a fair price to pay to see if they can pull it off. If it’s done really well and demonstrates a clear plan for the character, the other movies might be retroactively better as a result of it.
They did tell full stories. It’s just that people were impatient and wanted to see other stories, and they were taking the time to tell some of the setup in more detail (like Gwen Stacy’s story, which I’m very glad we got to see play out before those movies stopped).
There were other issues too (Peter’s heritage/genetics situation, which I won’t go into detail on because spoilers, is kind of the biggest one) but there were other things they did very well. Like Lizard (CGI notwithstanding )
Nothing really to say about the rest of your post because I pretty bluntly agree with everything else.
When I heard that they were planning on having Spider-Gwen in TASM3, I was pretty weirded out. Sure, there was a Spider-Gwen in the comics, but I’ve never liked the trope of “killed off dramatically, only to come back from the dead.”
A while back, there was a rumor that Marvel wanted three trilogies: one about Peter in high school, one about him in college, and one about him as an adult. I don’t know if this was ever confirmed, but if it is true, then…whoa. That’s some serious ambition.
(Seeing that first reply and then that gif gave me a good laugh, aha. Thanks)
Yeah I thought Curt Connors was well portrayed. If anything there were issues with the lizard serum plot that he had, but as far as character motivation and portrayal went I was somewhat pleased - though in all fairness, he is a character whose comic portrayal I’m really not too familiar with, so I may be missing out here. We’re starting to go down a bit of a rabbit hole now though, I think).
If that had of happened (and it hadn’t of been an AU version of Gwen, like the original) I would have been enormously disappointed. Maybe just as well they stopped at two.
In what way? There is a pristine lack of his family (I know they were in the deleted scenes but they do literally nothing and have no impact on the character). Ever seen TAS’s first episode with the Lizard? Or Spectacular Spider-Man with him? That’s a proper portrayal. Lizard is supposed to be tragic, not a “lizards rule da world!” character. (He thinks that way in the alternate persona but in the movie he has control of that mentally.) Lizard is an unintentional monster from a well-meaning man with a wife and son, who he loves dearly and does not wish to harm. TASM Lizard doesn’t care about hurting people. He’s incredibly boring.
I won’t argue that adding more conflict about him and his family (whose absence I didn’t feel was as important because their role is in how they affect Lizard’s character) would have been bad. I vaguely recall that there was at least some aspect of that conflict in the film, though - perhaps I’m misremembering. It should have been more foregrounded, I agree - but even though the plot might not have hit the tragic note it should have, the execution sure did. (His brief joy at his healed hand was one of the better scenes of the movie, and exceptionally well acted, too).
I have seen the SSM version, though, and I don’t think it succeeded in the execution department at all - even though it got more of the groundwork right. I was kind of just frustrated with that version of Peter, moreover, though.
Which is good! But it means nothing when he turns around and causes so much pain and agony to other people and feels no remorse, like comics Curt Connors does. This version of Connors excuses his actions instead of regretting it and wishing to cure himself like the comic Lizard.
The plot is the execution. It’s either it worked in the story or it did not. I think it failed in that department.
I get that way too, but I actually think that is why he is more compelling. He is that way in the comics too, but I think his flawed personality (and how he grows out of it) is what is great. He starts off selfish and learns his lesson. In the next episodes, he grows. It’s just good storytelling.
if I still had Master I would rename this to the “let’s talk about spider-man adaptations” topic
To answer the original question of the topic: I think Chronicler got it in one pretty early on: different isn’t inherently bad, but if one of the things you’re changing are the core aspects of a character or story that make them what they are and make them resonate with people, that’s kinda a problem.
At the same time, though, you start getting into a more fundamental question: what is the point of an adaptation? Should the people making the adaptation be trying to recreate the entirety of another work by the numbers, trying to recreate it as accurately as physically possible? Or should they be more liberal, infusing new ideas into the story and characters to make them feel more at home in the new medium? If the latter is the case, what things should stay and what things are okay to change?
I don’t really have answers to any of these, and honestly they probably vary from person to person anyways. Your opinions on any of the above, not to mention your connection with the source material in the first place, will change your opinion on when “different” means “bad.”
