Lightmaster
The first Spider-Man film came out when I was in 8th grade, during the peak of my comic book obsession. Julian Wellisz's dad managed to get tickets at the Cineramadome on opening night. Despite some major changes from the comic, I loved the movie. I cried when he saved the baby from the burning building, and I cheered when the Green Goblin got impaled.
Two years later, while I was doing a summer program at Phillips Andover Academy in Massachussets, the second movie came out. The program's officials monitored us very closely and gave us barely any free time, but after two weeks of patiently waiting, I finally had a free afternoon to see the film. It cost me about $35 in cab fares to get to the nearest theater and back, but I wanted to see the movie so badly I didn't even care. I ended up liking it even better than the first. It got me so excited for the third one to come out, but I had to wait three years.
So wait I did, and now the wait is over. I've seen the movie, and it's terrible. I had low expectations to begin with, but even those low expectations weren't met. This film strayed from the comics in ways that were unacceptable. First we learn that the burglar from the first film is not actually Uncle Ben's killer, meaning Peter is not actually responsible for his uncle's death. So basically, he became Spider-Man for no reason. Then he gets possessed by an alien symbiote, which influences him to start wearing makeup and comb his hair in front of his face. Yes, the Venom suit turns Spider-Man into Conor Oberst. Eventually Spidey fights off the symbiote and it latches onto Eddie Brock, who in the comics is a buff New Yorker, but in the film is played by a scrawny chick-flick actor. They also have him kill innocent people even though his whole mission in the comics is to protect innocent people. He believes he will make the world a better place by killing Spider-Man, but at no point does he team up with another villain or take Mary Jane hostage in order to accomplish this goal.
But the film reaches its lowest point when Spider-Man and Harry Osborn team up against Sandman and Venom. Since when does Spider-Man need a sidekick? Also, the impaling was unnecessary. Harry should have died in the film the same way he dies in the comics: overdosing on his father's super-strength formula. It's true that in the comics he does have a change of heart at the last minute and decides not to kill Peter, but he doesn't get impaled in the process. I thought that was kind of over the top.
And of course, there's Gwen. In the comics, she's Spider-Man's first true love. In the movie (and in every post-1973 Spidey adaptation, for that matter) she's just some hoochie standing in the way of Peter and his soulmate, MJ. When I met Sam Raimi at the 2001 comic convention, I asked him why he didn't use Gwen as the romantic interest in the first Spidey film. He told me that if he had put Gwen in the film, he'd have had to kill her during the bridge scene. He said Gwen's death is the only thing that makes her relevant. I disagreed at the time, but now I sort of see what he meant. Of Spider-Man's girlfriends, I used to like Gwen best because she shared Peter's love for science and was always very affecionate toward him. But about a year ago I thought back on it and realized that if I were Spidey, I'd go for MJ. She just seems more down to Earth and less needy than Gwen. Plus, redheads_>_blondes. Still, Gwen is Peter's first love, and I consider it blasphemy for them to put her in the movie as anything other than that.
I understand some people think I'm just a crazed Spidey fanatic who would only have left the theater satisfied if the film were 100% true to the comics, but I assure you that's not the case. I liked the first film, despite Raimi's decision to make Spider-Man's webbing a mutation rather than an artificial substance. And I loved the second film, even though it had almost nothing to do with the comics. But there's a big difference between straying from the comics and straying from the entire philosophy of Spider-Man, which is what this third film did. If I ever see Sam Raimi at another comic convention, I'm asking him for an apology. No joke.
Two years later, while I was doing a summer program at Phillips Andover Academy in Massachussets, the second movie came out. The program's officials monitored us very closely and gave us barely any free time, but after two weeks of patiently waiting, I finally had a free afternoon to see the film. It cost me about $35 in cab fares to get to the nearest theater and back, but I wanted to see the movie so badly I didn't even care. I ended up liking it even better than the first. It got me so excited for the third one to come out, but I had to wait three years.
So wait I did, and now the wait is over. I've seen the movie, and it's terrible. I had low expectations to begin with, but even those low expectations weren't met. This film strayed from the comics in ways that were unacceptable. First we learn that the burglar from the first film is not actually Uncle Ben's killer, meaning Peter is not actually responsible for his uncle's death. So basically, he became Spider-Man for no reason. Then he gets possessed by an alien symbiote, which influences him to start wearing makeup and comb his hair in front of his face. Yes, the Venom suit turns Spider-Man into Conor Oberst. Eventually Spidey fights off the symbiote and it latches onto Eddie Brock, who in the comics is a buff New Yorker, but in the film is played by a scrawny chick-flick actor. They also have him kill innocent people even though his whole mission in the comics is to protect innocent people. He believes he will make the world a better place by killing Spider-Man, but at no point does he team up with another villain or take Mary Jane hostage in order to accomplish this goal.
But the film reaches its lowest point when Spider-Man and Harry Osborn team up against Sandman and Venom. Since when does Spider-Man need a sidekick? Also, the impaling was unnecessary. Harry should have died in the film the same way he dies in the comics: overdosing on his father's super-strength formula. It's true that in the comics he does have a change of heart at the last minute and decides not to kill Peter, but he doesn't get impaled in the process. I thought that was kind of over the top.
And of course, there's Gwen. In the comics, she's Spider-Man's first true love. In the movie (and in every post-1973 Spidey adaptation, for that matter) she's just some hoochie standing in the way of Peter and his soulmate, MJ. When I met Sam Raimi at the 2001 comic convention, I asked him why he didn't use Gwen as the romantic interest in the first Spidey film. He told me that if he had put Gwen in the film, he'd have had to kill her during the bridge scene. He said Gwen's death is the only thing that makes her relevant. I disagreed at the time, but now I sort of see what he meant. Of Spider-Man's girlfriends, I used to like Gwen best because she shared Peter's love for science and was always very affecionate toward him. But about a year ago I thought back on it and realized that if I were Spidey, I'd go for MJ. She just seems more down to Earth and less needy than Gwen. Plus, redheads_>_blondes. Still, Gwen is Peter's first love, and I consider it blasphemy for them to put her in the movie as anything other than that.
I understand some people think I'm just a crazed Spidey fanatic who would only have left the theater satisfied if the film were 100% true to the comics, but I assure you that's not the case. I liked the first film, despite Raimi's decision to make Spider-Man's webbing a mutation rather than an artificial substance. And I loved the second film, even though it had almost nothing to do with the comics. But there's a big difference between straying from the comics and straying from the entire philosophy of Spider-Man, which is what this third film did. If I ever see Sam Raimi at another comic convention, I'm asking him for an apology. No joke.