"Spiderman 2" spoilers

[lynnzop[$]]

Son and I went to see Spidey 2 today. I liked it, even better than the first. The nice scientist turned bad guy (Doc Ock) was terrific....I had seen previews and wondered how such a seemingly sympathetic charactor could become soooooo bad.

Tobey McGuire does a great job of going from super-geek to Super Hero and back again. I thought he played the tormented hero part very well.

Spoiler time.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think that by revealing Peter Parker as Spiderman to many of the key players (as well as a whole host of other people on the train), they've limited the ability to have a third sequel. But left the door open with Harry's discovery of his father's den. So how are they going to pull off the knowledge by MJ and Harry that Spidey is Peter?

[murasaki]

Marvel has hosed up the basic continuity of Spiderman over the years, so why not the movies?

I really did not need to see Alfred Molina's man-boobs, but otherwise a good flick. I was waiting for more celebrity cameos to appear but it was fine that they didn't, especially in the second half of the movie.

[drmomentum[$]]

There is a sequel already announced. And there is plenty of sequel material.

In the comics, MJ supposedly knew he was Spidey all the time, but she never revealed it to him until just befroe... er, something that hasn't happened yet in the films. MJ won't tell anyone he's spidey, of course.

Harry... well Harry is going to develop his own agenda. Revealing Spidey's identity would be far too easy.

They're not following the comics, but they're drawing from them. And I think they're doing a decent job. I liked this one better than the first.

-JP

[frazzledspice]

Hubby and I loved it! I was at the edge of my seat during the action sequences and occasionally let out a shriek.

I never saw the first Spiderman until it came to DVD (but now I wish I had...) It was just amazing.

[lynnzop[$]]

frazzledspice said

Hubby and I loved it! I was at the edge of my seat during the action sequences and occasionally let out a shriek.

me too! There were several times when I gasped audibly or made some other such noise.

One thing about this series, it seems almost believable. I kept forgetting "it's only a comic strip"!!

[theworm[$]]

I didn't see the first. I have no interest in the second. I couldn't care less about the third. Is there something wrong with me?

[drmomentum[$]]

theworm said

I didn't see the first. I have no interest in the second. I couldn't care less about the third. Is there something wrong with me?

No, you're just not a fan.

I grew up with Spider-Man comic books and he was my favorite. But if you're not into that sort of thing, I can understand having no desire to see the films.

-JP

[theworm[$]]

I do buy Spider Man stuff for my nephew though!

[theeye]

And he picked out his Spider-Man shirt to wear the other day, btw.

[theworm[$]]

Oops. I have another one to send him from Vegas.
Add that to my to do list.

Sorry - please return to your movie discussion.

[eris esoteric]

MAJOR PLOT RELATED SPOILER. MAJOR. HUGE. Yes, I think they made a bad movie here, but I wouldn't want to RUIN it for anybody.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


So, there I am, watching the previews, minding my own business, not hurting anybody, and what do they do to me? They make me watch a preview for "I, Robot". "I, Robot", if I recall correctly, is the title of an Isaac Asimov story. Isaac Asimov , if I recall correctly was the person that came up with the Laws of Robotics. These would be the Laws programmed into robots to prevent them from killing us all.

So, if I'm recalling this correctly, WHY THE FUCK WERE THERE AN ARMY OF MURDEROUS ROBOTS CHASING WILL SMITH IN THE FUCKING PREVIEW? Huh? They can't ALL just have really good taste in music.

So, I start out the movie with this on my mind.

So then, what do I see?

I see a reporter ask Dr. Octavius if he wasn't afraid of the AI program in his mechanical arms taking over his mind. I see Dr. Octavius respond that he had thought of this, and had included a special chip added in that would prevent that. (Raise your hand if you didn't see something happening to that chip in the near future. Now, whack yourself in the forehead. Again. Again. Again. Again. Thank you.) The chip is destroyed, the good (if slightly arrogant) doctor's wife is killed... and the BAD EVIL BAD MACHINES take over his brain.

Now, in the comic, it's not the machines. Doc Ock just goes nuts. It's a human failing. Doc Ock loses his mind, and uses the machines that he has created and does bad things. It's a subtle difference, I'll grant you, but it's there. The one has the failing being in the machine itself. The other has the failing being in the USER of the machine. If the failure is in the user, then it's something that we can guard against. If it's just the machines, then we must guard against machines themselves. (Matrix, anyone?)

Also, in the comic, we have Peter Parker going up against Doc Ock once, getting his butt handed to him, and then going home, redesigning his web shooters to produce stronger webs, and then going back in and taking the good doctor out. This provides a balance. Yes, there is a danger in technology and science. There is also a benefit. The difference is the USER. (Is a gun evil? Depends on who's holding it). I can understand why, plot-wise, making the webs a natural part of Peter's alteration is a good move. (For instance, how could a kid who can't keep a job and is late on the rent somehow afford to have access to the chemicals that he uses to make the webs? It just don't scan). However, it changes the theme of the movie from being HOW to use technology (benign vs malignant) to science vs. nature. And nature is GOOD, so nature wins.

"BUT WAIT, eris!" you say. "Peter is the end result of a scientific experiment!" And I scoff at you.

Peter Parker is the VICTIM of an ACCIDENT resulting from a scientific experiment. Peter Parker did nothing to gain his powers, he was just in a certain place, at a certain time, and stuff happened to him. Now, Peter is an exceptional young man, raised by exceptional people, and has RISEN ABOVE the horrible thing that has happened to him. He has taken his handicap, and turned it into an asset. It is, however, still a handicap, and it keeps him from being able to love and trust people, even the people he loves and trusts the most.

To my point. They have taken a work of fiction that was meant to show BOTH the dangers and the glories that we can achieve with our own minds... and turned it into propaganda showing us how human intelligence and human technology are going to be the eventual ruin of the race. Same deal with "I, Robot".

To me, it's the same as if they made the next X-man flick, and included a bit about how, yes, your baby COULD be a mutant, but mutants saved the world, so babies are good, and homosexuals can't have babies, so homosexuals shouldn't get married.

I can deal with the technology bad, humans good theme from an original work, like say, Matrix. I found it sad that Matrix resolved itself by basically saying that the human race had gotten itself into a fix so bad that God himself had to come down, incarnate, and smack the machines that man had built into submitting. But it's not the same level of wrongness as turning a body of work against itself and propagating the ignorant masses into believing themselves powerless.

It's not just a disappointing plot twist. It's a fucking desecration.

[drmomentum[$]]

I disliked that he lost his powers, but I don't expect the movie to be faithful to the comic at all.

I judged this film not on how accurate it was to the comic (I could list tons of things I would have rather seen them do with the first 2 movies to make more like the comic. Web shooters, anyone? The love and subsequent death of Gwen Stacy anyone?). Instead, I judged it by how I judge other comic book films -- does it evoke any feelings similar to the feelings I got reading the comic?

To me, this film did have appropriate Spider-Man themes, and I felt them come through.

Contrast with X-Men 2, for which I felt absolutely nothing.

Obviouisly, different people have different standards. But I think there were a number of reasons they changed Doc Ock, and I think the reasons were good, even if the execution left a little something to be desired. (In the end, I think the changes just barely work)

-JP

[phoenixx]

Thank you both for saving me $10.50 - I would have hated all plot twists mentioned above INTENSELY

[ms_n]

The girls are excited about going sometime next week. Summer school will be over and things will slow down a bit for us, so this is the time to have some fun.
It'll probably mean different things to each of them ( I recall that they liked Revenge of the Clones) but I hope it's better than what it sounds like! From the brief previews I've seen I figure it's not going to be that good. But, hey, I'm hoping it won't be that bad either. I'm committed to going, good or bad.

[drmomentum[$]]

Well, I really liked it, despite what I wrote above. I was just focusing on the negative.

I'm betting your girls will like it.

-JP

[Flamepillar]

I totally hear ya on the whole deal with machines taking over the world... countless examples of this have come to pass in the last few years, especially in video games. For every new movie that depicts machines as being the "bad guys", Short Circuit becomes that much better, and ID4 becomes that much more original

[lynnzop[$]]

I liked it. But then again, I don't read comic books, so I'm blissfully unaware of them 'screwing' up the original.

[eris esoteric]

Flamepillar said

I totally hear ya on the whole deal with machines taking over the world... countless examples of this have come to pass in the last few years, especially in video games. For every new movie that depicts machines as being the "bad guys", Short Circuit becomes that much better, and ID4 becomes that much more original

I'm not so concerned with them breaking canon as I am that this movie has become part of a disturbing trend... a trend that the original form was partly deliberately intended to counteract.

However, I will admit that I thought the crucifixtion scene was utterly moving and brilliantly done.

[eplovejoy]

I haven't seen the Spiderman sequel yet so I can't comment on Eris' points, although they sound reasonable. If she is right, it's not just Spiderman. Marvel apparently has adopted a belief that human initiative will always be trumped by circumstances beyond our control, or at least it has in most of its recent movies.

In Daredevil the comic book, Matt Murdoch is a hero before he is accidentally blinded by radioactive material. The accident is the consequence of his risking his life to save a man who is about to be killed by a speeding truck. In the movie, Matt does nothing heroic and is blinded purely by chance.

In The Incredible Hulk comic book, Bruce Banner is hit by gamma radiation when he saves a kid (Rick Jones, I think) from being hit by the stuff instead. In the movie, it is again an accident not brought about by the character's innate heroism.

The fatalism in the movies is a betrayal of the heroism in the comic books.

[drmomentum[$]]

eplovejoy said

I haven't seen the Spiderman sequel yet so I can't comment on Eris' points, although they sound reasonable. If she is right, it's not just Spiderman. Marvel apparently has adopted a belief that human initiative will always be trumped by circumstances beyond our control, or at least it has in most of its recent movies.

There is a great scene in S-M2 where Spidey has been battered and is exhausted in a metro car. When Doc comes for him, a bunch of New Yorkers move to block the villain, putting themselves into harm's way.

There's a similar, but less striking, scene in the first Spider-Man when citizens are pelting the Green Goblin during a heated moment when Spidey is vulnerable.

We can pick and choose changes, but you can't ignore that Sam Raimi, has at least, tried to show real people without superpawers can be heroes. And despite what the Bugle prints about Spidey, they let their hearts tell them what's right.

I guess you could argue that these folks are still overpowered by the super villains, and it takes super powers to triumph (coupled with what is good within us). But Spidey isn't born via super powers. He's got his powers before he has a chance to stop Uncle Ben's killer. He becomes Spidey when he is reminded (tragically) of what happens when we do not rely on our better selves. That's what makes him heroic, not the powers.

The only good I see in S-M2 regarding his loss of powers is that they seem to have flown when he began to lose sight of what really made him a hero. So perhaps my initial interpretation was wrong. I'll have to see it again.

-JP

[eris esoteric]

drmomentum said

There is a great scene in S-M2 where Spidey has been battered and is exhausted in a metro car. When Doc comes for him, a bunch of New Yorkers move to block the villain, putting themselves into harm's way.

*snip*

I guess you could argue that these folks are still overpowered by the super villains, and it takes super powers to triumph (coupled with what is good within us).

You're right. The crucifixtion scene was marvelous. The stated theme of the movie, that our heroes are important because they stand against tyrants and casual sadists, and give US the courage to stand as well, is an important one for us to hear, and it was elegantly stated.

Yes, those people got smashed aside by Doc Ock when they told him that he had to go through them to get to Spidey. They knew that was the consequence of their actions. They were willing to face the consequences, because they all knew the the consequences of NOT standing would be worse. They would have to fail someone who had come through for them. In their minds, at that moment, that was worse than dying.