millarworld.tv Comics Creators

What are you watching? 2018 edition


#1176

I don’t remember the criticism that Ramie’s Spider-Man wasn’t funny. I remember the CGI was a big complaint, but in retrospect I think our eyes were still getting used to CGI. I watch them now and think they look better now than I thought they looked then.

On the humor I agree, they’re very funny movies but he has an odd sense of humor. The dance scene is a big example but there’s lot of little ones. I remember back when 2 came out on DVD I bought it and watched it a friends apartment and we just started laughing hysterically when Peter’s trying to put the brooms and mops back in the closet and they keep falling out, and it goes on maybe 20 seconds longer than it should. It’s so dumb, and that’s part of what makes it funny. It’s straight screwball as you mention. Simmons’ JJJ walked straight in from a Cary Grant comedy.

I wonder if those of us ages 35-45 can be a bit cynical about newer movies since the modern directors are copying stuff from our youth, so we’re already familiar with it, whereas directors like Spielberg, Tarantino, and Raimi copied stuff from before our times.


#1177

Yeah, maybe that’s fair.

Most of all I feel like the humour is distinctive though, which is a stark (ha) contrast to the MCU’s general cookie-cutter approach to comedy one-liners. Aside from Guardians and the latest Thor a lot of the MCU humour is pretty interchangeable.

But with distinctive comedy comes a higher likelihood that it won’t work for some people, I guess. Luckily Raimi’s odd humour works for me (it maybe helps to have been a fan of his stuff pre-Spidey). Along with the broom-cupboard scene the awkward elevator scene in Spidey 2 is a highlight, but I can see why some people wouldn’t like it.

(Interestingly in the 2.1 cut the dialogue for that scene is completely different. I guess they shot a few alternative takes.)


#1178

I’m still not much of a fan of the Raimi movies. I get why people like them, just not really my thing. That said, the stuff people complained most about Spider-Man 3 were some of my favorite bits of the whole trilogy. Especially Emo Peter. I thought those parts were great. That and Harry’s love of pie.


#1179

I certainly do, at the time too. It’s a big part of the comics that Spidey let’s rip with the wisecracks while Peter is insecure and troubled. It is missing in the Raimi films, not humour overall, just that aspect. Which isn’t a huge deal but a valid criticism for those that liked that aspect in the comics.

They tried to include that in the Garfield version but did it all wrong, he came across as a bit of a bully and an arsehole.

They finally nailed it with Holland.


#1180

Yeah, Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man wasn’t really funny to me. He was a decent insecure Peter, but not a very good wise-cracking, fun Spider-Man. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy Emo Peter so much in Spider-Man 3. I felt it was the first time Maguire really seemed to let loose and have fun.


#1181

It’s always a bit awkward that one of his first gags in costume is that slightly homophobic joke at the wrestling match.


#1182

I simply didn’t buy Spider-Man 3. I think it was done as well as that story could be, but it felt like reading fifty issues of the comic in about two and a half hours. Spider-Man has always relied on improbable coincidences. Like Peter gets his powers the same night as the Goblin AND the Goblin just happens to be someone very close to him. He just happens to meet Doc Oc a few days before his accident and is there when it happens. These things are part of the Spider-Man mythology, but in 3, they have to stack up the coincidences like crazy just to keep the story moving.

The first two worked quite well with one main super powered antagonist, but the third throws in three and a half villains, each with a very convoluted connection to Peter Parker. Again, it works as well as it can, but it accelerates the progression to the dramatic resolution in a very unsatisfying way. There really were around three movies worth of material in that film to plow through.


#1183

Yeah, famously Raimi wanted to stick to the classic villains and Venom got pushed on him by the producers. It’s a shame and I’m disappointed we never got to see his take on the Vulture or the Lizard - particularly that last one would have been great for Raimi I think.


#1184

Yeah, a doubly a shame since they set up The Lizard so well with maybe it being a consequence of experimenting with the symbiote.


#1185

Dylan Baker must have been pissed off. :slight_smile:


#1186

I’d have loved to have seen Kraven done by Raimi.

I really don’t like Maguire Spidey, for me he’s the weakest part of the movies. That said back then comic fans were much more stringent on the movie characters being exactly like the comic characters, but I think that’s lessening as fans get more comfortable with movie interpretations (like Dark Knight Joker for example). In many cases the movie characters are changing the comic characters (the Guardians being the best example).

Spidey should be a joyful character. Tom Holland plays him perfectly. He’s excited with every single line of dialogue.


#1187

He was on KINGS, I doubt he has to want for anything.


#1188

Venom was pushed on him but if I had to remake the movie I’d actually dump the Harry/Goblin storyline and keep Venom. It just felt like a retread, made even worse later on by the Amazing Spider-Man crew thinking we wanted it repeated another time.


#1189

Yep, I’ve even said before that I think the Venom story turned out better than the Sandman sections, let alone the Harry bits.

I’m sure Raimi could have made a better movie with Sandman alone, but as things stand if I was cutting the existing movie down to one villain I’d make it a Venom movie.


#1190

I loved the Harry bits.
The Eddie Brock stuff was fun and could have been solely that. He didn’t need to turn so soon.

1471443421441

The Editor’s Cut also removes the “Butler” scene and gives him more agency at the end.


#1191

Another of the problems I have with Spider-Man 3 is that Gwen is a nothing of a character. She’s just there for Peter and Eddie to fight over.

MJ’s stuff isn’t much better, with her going from a lead role in a Broadway musical to being a waitress in about a week.


#1192

Was it Broadway or off Broadway (it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film)? If it’s the later, it’s quite plausible. :wink:


#1193

Yeah, she says it’s Broadway when talking to Harry.


#1194

I actually love the MJ/Pete stuff because it’s such a really dynamic look at the problems in their relationship.


#1195

I prefer Tobey. There is just something natural and innocent about him. He slides into the role effortlessly whereas with Holland (who I also like) I feel always aware that he is putting a huge amount of effort into his acting.

Tobey played Parker as if he needed Prozac and Holland plays him as if he needs Adderall, which I guess is kind of perfect for their respective eras.

I don’t know what Garfield was doing. His approach was just strange all around.