Comments on: Tangled webs

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:22:08 +0000

Nasa, someone did mention it, but he dismissed the idea. I think you’re right and he’s wrong; the Sandman would be a great villain, both because he’s very suited to CGI special effects and because he’s lower-class and from Queens, which gives him more in common with Peter and MJ than most of Spiderman’s villains.

By: NASA drone

NASA drone — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:57:47 +0000

More evidence that CT’s commenters suck: no one has mentioned the Sandman as a potential Spidey movie villain.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:51:00 +0000

“Perhaps the reference to comic plotting was lost on you.” Um, yes, well, let’s count up the number of comics and sf/comics genre posts on my blog and CT and compare, before coming to such a conclusion, eh? Or look into my background in professional science fiction editing? I don’t want to make too much of it; all I was saying is that “The arc, however, is Peter growing into his role as a superhero and learning how to be BOTH Parker and city savior” isn’t just a temporary arc in the Spider-Man story, but a permanent essence of it. It’s something his story always comes back to. It first was played to the limit in the #50 issue of the original comic that is used as the basis for this movie, but it has been returned to time and again, and always will be. One of the essences of Spider-Man’s story, and one that made it original in its time, is the ever-recurring strain between his two identities, causing so much personal anguish and neurosis, in a way that only fleetingly ever struck, say, Batman, Superman, or any of the DC heros of the era. (Though Tim Burton lifted some of that for his movie, and by the late Sixties there was some grafting of an inner life onto Hal Jordan and Oliver Queen.) It’s built into his origin story. In Spider-Man’s life, that’s not a temporary arc, and never can be. Spider-Man doesn’t get to learn to swing happily ever after, and never will do so on a long-term basis. (For brief periods here and there, sure.) Seeing his story as one that will bring him to such a satisfying long-term adjustment is an erroneous analysis. That’s all. (Beyond that, my original comment was simply because I gawked at Henry’s assertion that the movies were a trilogy, when that’s simply false, and Raimi and Arad are on the record at such verbose length, in so many places, on it being a long-term series; I apologize if I hit that nail too hard.)

By: Jeff Begley

Jeff Begley — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:18:15 +0000

While pessimism seems to rule the day, you CAN do what’s right, get the girl and have a great life just by doing what’s right. And you don’t have to be intimidated into it with promises of heaven or hell. http://neospooky.blogspot.com/2004/07/in-real-world-you-can-do-go-for-goods.html

By: Jeff Begley

Jeff Begley — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:14:33 +0000

Actually, the characters CAN age well into their early thirties. The did it in the comic book. While I don’t recall reading any specific ages in the later issues, Peter and MJ grow into a very mature relationship and have careers, not pizza jobs. They don’t have to stay college age for very long at all (maybe 2 or 3 more movies). I don’t understand the rest of your response to Kate’s post. She brought up a good point. This seems to be a story arc. Perhaps the reference to comic plotting was lost on you. The theme is what you were discussing (truth, justice, etc) and continues through the entire series while the story arc is something that characters endure for a few issues. It would seem the theme is as it has always been: Great power/Great responsibility and how it affects people on a human level. The arc, however, is Peter growing into his role as a superhero and learning how to be BOTH Parker and city savior. That would make movie 3 the synthesis as previously postulated and would be following in grand comic book tradition which I believe Raimi has spoken about and, so far, done magnificently.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:30:58 +0000

"Even if more than three movies are planned, that doesn’t negate the basic point—there’s clearly an ongoing arc about Peter Parker’s relationship with Spiderman, and that’s going to be continued in the next movie." Sure, but that's just saying that the Spider-Man (Not "Spiderman," by the way) movies are being authentic to the story of Peter Parker/Spider-Man; it's like observing as a great insight that a Superman movie is going to stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, or a Hulk movie is going to be dealing with anger issues, or an X-Men series is going to deal with the plight of the persecuted outsider; not a revelation or insight unless you expect an extremely revisionist or inauthentic version (such as, say, the horrible Sixties Batman tv series). (Hi, Kate!; hey, come by my blog! :-)) Maguire has specifically not ruled out doing a fourth and more (nor committed); clearly, of course, if they can keep going towards seven or nine, sooner or later both Parker and Mary Jane would have to be recast, as the characters can't get too old, as I've previously observed.

By: Kate Nepveu

Kate Nepveu — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:12:20 +0000

Even if more than three movies are planned, that doesn’t negate the basic point—there’s clearly an ongoing arc about Peter Parker’s relationship with Spiderman, and that’s going to be continued in the next movie. Also, Maguire and Dunst are signed on for three and not more than that yet, which is another reason why it’s natural to think of these three as one thing and then future movies as possibly something else.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:06:21 +0000

“How is everyone forgetting Dr. Doom here?” Because he’s the villain of the Fantastic Four film that will begin filming shortly, of course. Sheesh. (And he was always the key FF villain; his dealings with Spider-Man were incidental.)

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:04:10 +0000

To make clear here something I left in a link (that probably most won’t click on), Arad and Raimi have explicitly stated, multiple times, that the only villains to be used in the movies will come out of being rooted in Peter Parker’s life. That’s an absolute rule they’ve laid down.

By: Doctor Memory

Doctor Memory — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:53:44 +0000

JP: There’s a Fantastic Four movie in development at Marvel and 20th Century Fox, allegedly due to start filming soon. No way in hell do they use Doom in a Spider-Man movie while there is any chance at all of F4 getting made.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:50:46 +0000

Having just posted this at Matthew's site, it belongs here even more: "Henry Farrell notes that I'm writing about part two of a trilogy here without having seen part three...." That's completely false, of course. No one concerned has ever said it was a trilogy, and it's not. It's a series, and they hope to keep going as long as they can, as both Avi Arad and Sam Raimi have said many times, as I've blogged on several occasions. The only specific figure mentioned so far is "nine," but that's just a vague guess on their point. There has never, ever, been a stated intention of doing a thematic trilogy. I'd ask where you got that from, but you seem to have gotten it from Henry Farrell, who seems to have gotten it from his teeth. His teeth are incorrect. Are you aware, Henry, of some interview or source that contradicts endless articles and interviews with Arad and Raimi, that I am not? It's very weird to read this comics thread, with all this speculation about stuff that is, largely, issues Arad and Raimi have long been on record about. See here, and here, for example. It's like reading people speculating about Bush, Blair, and Kerry, without having ever bothered to look at a newspaper or magazine. (And I'm just an entirely casual reader of comics/movie news, who last bought a Spider-Man comic over thirty years ago.)

By: JP

JP — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:24:22 +0000

How is everyone forgetting Dr. Doom here?

By: Kris McDaniel

Kris McDaniel — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:15:53 +0000

Another interesting theme was this: Doc Ock became a monster because he lost everything he cared about. (So perhaps the only way for Spiderman not to be a monster is for him to have something to care about?) Two things I want in SM3: (1) more of the people from the bugle. Let’s actually see Ned Leeds, Betty Brant, Jonah, Robbie, etc., having real conversations with each other and with Peter. The casting is there, so let’s have them have some lines! (2) A supervillian that’s not mentally unbalanced or irrational. (I guess that’s unlikely if Harry becomes the main focus of SM3…)

By: Matt Brown

Matt Brown — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:08:30 +0000

Something else to consider about MJ and Peter—-to get where they are at the end of the movie, MJ has to hurt someone (Jameson) who didn’t do anything bad to her. I’m not sure how this will play out, but odds are it will be the cause of something bad for her.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:57:15 +0000

Come on! Who doesn’t want to se the Rhino on screen? or the Shocker? Seriously though, Connors is there, plus the Marvel Universe is vast and Spidy live sin Newe York so there’s room for the Juggernaut, Kingpin, and others. Though, personally, i like finite movie cycles and would be happy if they just did a third, wrapping up the osbornes, with Doc Connors as an asside, perhaps manipulated by Harry.