Why are the Raimi Spider Man films SO bland?

[grude]

Does it strike anyone just how bizarrely bland and stoic not only Peter is but other characters too like Mary Jane, and hell even NYC as a whole.

Peter is blander than bland, when he is wearing Venom he shows his darkside by what was it littering and being curt on the phone?

Pater and Mary have 0 chemistry(upside down kiss aside) and that shot of them scowling across the table at each other in the coffee shop while Mary is asking Peter WTF man? Is the height of passion.

Just everything feels even blander and more American Pie ish than even Smallville which is saying something.

What was that odd "World diversity festival" or whatever in the first one with Mary J Bligh performing about?

[GuanoLad]

Because that's how you perceive it.

Many other people find them entertaining.

Mileage does vary.

[grude]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

Because that's how you perceive it.

Many other people find them entertaining.

Mileage does vary.

I didn't say they weren't entertaining, and in fact the villain casting for the first two was PERFECT.

They just seem........to be intentionally creating a reality very unlike the Spiderman mythos that came before, and unlike Raimi's other movies.
You see this most glaringly in Peter who is no longer a working class everyman smart ass, but some kind of almost autistic nerd. The scenes between him and Mary feel uncomfortable.

[Krokodil]

I thought Raimi's first Spider-Man movie was truly great cinema, and that he had progressively less say in the content of the two sequels (although Doc Ock and Sandman are impressively presented).

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

I thought Raimi's first Spider-Man movie was truly great cinema, and that he had progressively less say in the content of the two sequels (although Doc Ock and Sandman are impressively presented).

Well said. The first movie is truly great.

[Sir T-Cups]

I think you should change the thread title to Spider man 3.

The first one was good.

The second one I thought was much much better and one of the best super hero movies in a while.

Third was...ho-lee shit was that terrible and they ruined my favorite comic character of all time

[CyclopticXander]

I actually think they have a pretty fun comic booky feel to them, appropriate for the source material. I do like the new one, but the tone there feels a little forced and out of place for spidey.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by CyclopticXander

I actually think they have a pretty fun comic booky feel to them, appropriate for the source material. I do like the new one, but the tone there feels a little forced and out of place for spidey.

Yea, I thought so to. I thought Rami did a really good job of getting the feel of a comic book in a live action movie. I don't think any of the other recent superhero films have done that.

Agree the girl that played MJ was terrible though.

[Lightnin']

Ranking the Spider(-)Man movies, I'd say:

1) Spiderman 1
2) Tie between Spiderman 2 and Spider-Man (the new one)
3) Spiderman 3

I actually quite enjoyed the first movie.

[Mister Rik]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

I think you should change the thread title to Spider man 3.

The first one was good.

The second one I thought was much much better and one of the best super hero movies in a while.

Third was...ho-lee shit was that terrible and they ruined my favorite comic character of all time

This is me as well. I thought 2 was outstanding, but 3 left a lot to be desired. Although the performance of Sandman in 3 is one of my favorite superhero movie performances to date.

ETA: Also, I agree that Kirsten Dunst was the wrong choice to play Mary Jane. I've liked her in other things, but she was just wrong for that part.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by grude

Peter is blander than bland, when he is wearing Venom *SNIP*

Nitpick: He wears the symbiote. Venom is the combination of the symbiote and Eddie. If Pete was wearing Venom this would be a WHOLE different sort of movie.


And I agree about Dunst as MJ, she was not right for the role. Though the whole MJ character was kinda off, anyway. Pete's supposed to be the hard luck case, not MJ, she's generally supposed to be successful at her acting/modeling career.

I'm not as down on Spider-Man 3 as most people seem to be. It's a little cluttered, thanks to two villains and a tweener (Harry), but it's not like it's significantly worse than the others. Maybe drop it half a letter grade from what you'd give 1 and 2.

[Rhaegar]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

I think you should change the thread title to Spider man 3.

The first one was good.

The second one I thought was much much better and one of the best super hero movies in a while.

Third was...ho-lee shit was that terrible and they ruined my favorite comic character of all time

Have to agree. The first one was good, the second one was totally awesome, and the 3rd one just sucked.

[Sam A. Robrin]

I was buying Spider-Man off the racks from its first year of publication, so I know the character. I caught his origin in the Marvel Tales Annual a bit later. That story taught the lesson that we should do the right thing, by giving Peter Parker the chance to stop a burglar that he arrogantly passed up, only to have that decision rebound upon him tragically.
The first movie taught us that if we don't risk our very lives to help someone (not just incidentally a show-biz impresario) who's just arrogantly cheated us, that we are evil and will deservedly suffer. Goebbels himself couldn't have designed a better campaign to condition the sheep for shearing and slaughter. I've boycotted the franchise since.
So if the movies have been bland since, it's a predictable result of such a world-view.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yeah, it's pretty Jesusy, isn't it? Good thing you didn't catch the weepy "I forgive you" scenes from the third movie.

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

I think you should change the thread title to Spider man 3.

The first one was good.

The second one I thought was much much better and one of the best super hero movies in a while.

Third was...ho-lee shit was that terrible and they ruined my favorite comic character of all time

I thought maybe Shatner had directed 3, it was so not 1 or 2.

[drastic_quench]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Yeah, it's pretty Jesusy, isn't it? Good thing you didn't catch the weepy "I forgive you" scenes from the third movie.

This this? Or seconds later when the passengers carry him overhead like a messiah?

Yeah, those Raimi films were massively vanilla. I think he was overcautious at the prospect of making them weird, ala Evil Dead or Darkman, ala Burton making weird Batman movies. He played it too straight. He openly stuck to the Donner/Superman model. He even did away with having the Green Goblin be a transformation and opted for that leftover Power Rangers villain mask and suit.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Sam A. Robrin

The first movie taught us that if we don't risk our very lives to help someone (not just incidentally a show-biz impresario) who's just arrogantly cheated us, that we are evil and will deservedly suffer. Goebbels himself couldn't have designed a better campaign to condition the sheep for shearing and slaughter. I've boycotted the franchise since.

As a libertarian, this is actually consistent with my worldview. Stopping criminals is a public good: it doesn't just help their current victims, but also everyone they would have persecuted or preyed upon in the future. Even if it's too late to save a serial killer's last victim, you can still save the next.

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

I thought Tobey Maguire was an insipid choice for Peter Parker. Since I found him to be limp, I didn't think the movies help up either.

[Carmady]

Tobey Maguire's take on Spider-Man worked perfectly (if not true to the comics) in the first movie when he was getting to know his powers, and it made the first movie great. It was a feature, not a bug.

Zero chemistry with MJ is a big problem though and ruined a large chunk of the movies. And there wasn't a pressing need for more movies using that take on the character (even though 2 was good).

[Sam A. Robrin]

Originally Posted by Grumman

As a libertarian, this is actually consistent with my worldview. Stopping criminals is a public good: it doesn't just help their current victims, but also everyone they would have persecuted or preyed upon in the future. Even if it's too late to save a serial killer's last victim, you can still save the next.

I'm a libertarian, too (as a Google search will demonstrate!), and he'd have been justified in negotiating a settlement, or recovering the money and just taking it--but he had no idea at the time whether he was even bulletproof. They could easily have stuck with the original scenario, but perverted the very basis of the character.

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Well said. The first movie is truly great.

Boy you really need to get out more to the movies; Superhero movies are B pics at their best.

[Kiros]

I will be forever confused by people who thought the first one was anything better than "mediocre", largely because of what the OP is describing. J.K. Simmons was the only actor that was remotely interesting to watch, and it only got worse when there were multiple actors on the screen at the same time attempting to have some facsimile of interesting interaction.

The second movie, on the other hand, is a pretty decent movie simply from the presence of Alfred Molina. He does his best to overcome the script, and he comes really close to making it a Legitimately Good Movie.

The less said about number three, the better.

Originally Posted by madsircool

Boy you really need to get out more to the movies; Superhero movies are B pics at their best.

Off the top of my head, the two Nolan Batman movies, the first Iron Man, X-Men First Class, and of course the Avengers were A-level in quality. I'm sure I'm missing a couple. Just because a genre is 90% misses doesn't mean that it doesn't have some real quality as well; same as pretty much any other film genre, really.

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by grude

What was that odd "World diversity festival" or whatever in the first one with Mary J Bligh performing about?

Just to pick nits, it was Macy Gray, not Blige.

[digs]

Originally Posted by madsircool

...Superhero movies are B pics at their best.

First of all, no.

Second of all, go have some fun at the movies. Just get up and go see The Avengers or Spider-Man right now. Feel free to leave your Film School Discussion Hat at home.

Third of all, we're putting together a big list for you.

[msmith537]

I'm not a huge Spider Man fan in general. But cinematically, I have trouble getting past the same bizzarre camera angles and snap zooms that Raimi uses in Xena and Hercules.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Superhero movies are B pics at their best.

So are Westerns.

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by digs

First of all, no.

Second of all, go have some fun at the movies. Just get up and go see The Avengers or Spider-Man right now. Feel free to leave your Film School Discussion Hat at home.

Third of all, we're putting together a big list for you.

Originally Posted by Alessan

So are Westerns.

Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind. While many if not most Westerns are also B pics, Westerns do not automatically fall into the fantasy category.

Its sad in some way that major Hollywood studios now release product aimed at the lowest common denominator. Todays corporate garbage cannot compare to the last Golden Age of film..the late 60's early 70's. Apart from an Oliver Stone, what happened to the filmmaker?

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind. While many if not most Westerns are also B pics, Westerns do not automatically fall into the fantasy category.

Its sad in some way that major Hollywood studios now release product aimed at the lowest common denominator. Todays corporate garbage cannot compare to the last Golden Age of film..the late 60's early 70's. Apart from an Oliver Stone, what happened to the filmmaker?

Christopher Nolan is very much a filmmaker, and also does super hero films.

[heathen earthling]

Originally Posted by drastic_quench

Yeah, those Raimi films were massively vanilla. I think he was overcautious at the prospect of making them weird, ala Evil Dead or Darkman, ala Burton making weird Batman movies. He played it too straight.

The whole premise of Spider-Man is inherently kind of weird, though. Lots of awkward sexual symbolism. The gratuitous views of MJ's rain-soaked nipples are especially kind of odd/unexpected for a "kid's movie," not that I'm complaining about it.

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind.

Nonsense.

The Dark Knight used its entire running length to expose a deeper side of humankind.

The X-Men movies are allegories for how people who are "different" have the choice to try and fit in with society or to oppose it. Even when they fail (X-Men 3), they are attempting to explore a deep issue.

[Sr Siete]

Spider-Man was written by David Koepp. Action movie with some comedy. Willem Dafoe is dark and scary.

Spider-Man 2, written by Alvin "Ordinary People" Sargent. Again, action with comedy. Spider-Man quits being a hero, a man is driven to madness and crime with some scary robot arms, aunt May fights him with her umbrella. Not bland.

Spider-Man 3, written by Sam and Ivan Raimi. A farce with some action thrown here and there. Emo Peter Parker dances in the streets, the two girls are cardboard cutouts of a 1920's damsel in distress... Bland.

[Mister Rik]

Originally Posted by Sam A. Robrin

I'm a libertarian, too (as a Google search will demonstrate!), and he'd have been justified in negotiating a settlement, or recovering the money and just taking it--but he had no idea at the time whether he was even bulletproof. They could easily have stuck with the original scenario, but perverted the very basis of the character.

Actually, you've confused me a bit by stating they changed the scenario. I thought it was pretty accurate, but it's been a while since I read a reprint of the original. What exactly changed? Who the robber robbed? Why Peter chose not to stop him?

[elfkin477]

I don't understand how people can be more impressed with 2 than 1. I disliked the second movie because it felt like it was such a rehash of the first movie and heard others make the same complaint quite a bit at the time (not as much as about the chocolate cake controversy, but a lot), so how could you fail to like both pretty equally if you liked the second?

[Gozu Tashoya]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

I don't understand how people can be more impressed with 2 than 1. I disliked the second movie because it felt like it was such a rehash of the first movie and heard others make the same complaint quite a bit at the time (not as much as about the chocolate cake controversy, but a lot), so how could you fail to like both pretty equally if you liked the second?

I like them both pretty equally. For my money, while Dafoe was great in 1, Molina was even better in 2 (and Doc Ock looked a lot better than Green Goblin). Also, they brought Peter and MJ together at the end, ending all the dancing around they were doing. (It's a shame that 3 was as botched as it was, otherwise it would have been interesting seeing things develop.)

[Miller]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind.

That's not the definition of a B picture.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Mister Rik

Actually, you've confused me a bit by stating they changed the scenario. I thought it was pretty accurate, but it's been a while since I read a reprint of the original. What exactly changed? Who the robber robbed? Why Peter chose not to stop him?

In the original comic-book version, Peter (as Spider-Man) is stepping out of a studio where his TV show was filmed (in the first few weeks after getting his powers and designing his costume, Peter becomes a TV performer and earns some serious money doing elaborate stuntwork) when a man runs past with a security guard behind him yelling "Stop that man!" The man reaches the elevator and escapes, while the guard chastises Spidey for not tripping him, or holding him for a second or two, as that was all it would take. There's no indication that the thief has any connection with Spidey's employment, other than happening to be on the same floor. Spidey's inaction was not because of some petulant scorn for the thief's victim, but pretty much a normal response anyone (who isn't yet a superpowered vigilante) might have. Spidey does express annoyance at being lectured by the guard, who he not unjustly might see as the latest in a line of authority figures and bullies trying to push him around.

I admit the Raimi movie improves on the sequence in the sense of Ben's presence being linked to Peter's, and his death being incidental to the thief's flight. It's still a goofy coincidence, but now much less of one. There had been an attempt in the comics to explain why a guy who robs a commercial building in Manhattan later tries to burgle a home in Queens, but I forget how that worked out.

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Miller

That's not the definition of a B picture.

Didnt say that it was.

[drastic_quench]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Didnt say that it was.

Doesn't IMDb miss you?

[CyclopticXander]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind. While many if not most Westerns are also B pics, Westerns do not automatically fall into the fantasy category.

Its sad in some way that major Hollywood studios now release product aimed at the lowest common denominator. Todays corporate garbage cannot compare to the last Golden Age of film..the late 60's early 70's. Apart from an Oliver Stone, what happened to the filmmaker?

This quote sounds like something manufactured to sound like the archetype of a cinema snob. Really? Have you had any exposure to superhero stories? Almost all of the major ones have something to say about the human condition. Since when do fantasy elements exist in a vaccuum where no instrospection is possible?

What's with this sad that Hollywood tries to make money stuff? That has always been the goal of the industry, studios bank on the art that people want to consume. Do you think that the timeless classics wern't created to make money? Do you think that all the great movies were somber reflections on humanity? Because a lot of my favorite older films (like the classic musicals) are pretty damn frivelous. Or do you think that all the movies we remember from different eras with modern DVD releases were all there were and bad movies didn't exists then for the same reason they exist now?

Geeze get some perspective.

[Mississippienne]

Watch out, I got thoughts on Spider-Man 3.

Though oft-maligned, I loved it in theaters and still think it's a solid, if flawed, movie. The big problem with SM3, to my mind, is that its clear Raimi knew this would be his last Spidey movie, so he tried to cram everything into this movie. Not only do you have Spidey vs. Sandman with the revelation that Sandman was involved in Uncle Ben's death, you got Harry going batshit crazy, the introductions of Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy, and of course Peter gets the symbiote and then encounters Venom. It's TOO MUCH.

Honestly, Raimi should've kept to Peter and Harry and Spidey and Sandman, and made one solid movie that way, and if he had a chance, kept Venom for a fourth movie. Because Venom appears so late in the movie and there's no build-up, he doesn't seem like a truly intimidating foe. It's also too late in the game to bring in Gwen, when Norman died in the first movie (thusly wiping out her famous death in the comics).

Harry's amnesia in SM3 is hokey, but I'm not sure it's any hokier than anything in the comics, and it served an important purpose: reminding Peter and MJ, and most importantly we the audience, why we love Harry and making us root for some sort of redemption for him.

[BigT]

I can't understand the OP's claim that he both likes the movie but thinks it's bland. I think he must be thinking of another word, as bland is an inherently negative word.

Also, general consensus before the current movie (which I haven't seen and don't want to be spoiled on) was that Spider-Man 2 was the best film, followed by 1, and that Spider-Man 3 sucked--mostly for Emo Pete.

[Skara_Brae]

Originally Posted by BigT

I can't understand the OP's claim that he both likes the movie but thinks it's bland. I think he must be thinking of another word, as bland is an inherently negative word.

Also, general consensus before the current movie (which I haven't seen and don't want to be spoiled on) was that Spider-Man 2 was the best film, followed by 1, and that Spider-Man 3 sucked--mostly for Emo Pete.

I would agree with the OP. To me, being bland means that it is not particulary interesting or exciting. Spiderman 1 was a perfectly servicible superhero movie, but it was not particularly exciting or interesting.

Bland is like vanilla pudding, not bad, but not spicy. But sometimes, you're in the mood for vanilla pudding.

(I probably disagree with everyone, but I hated Spiderman 2, mainly because of the ending, where MJ leaves her nice fiancee who loves her in the most humiliating way possible, by leaving him at the alter. And we are supposed to cheer for this? And think its romantic? Really?)

[Miller]

Raimi didn't want Venom in the movie - he was forced to include him by the studio.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Skara_Brae

(I probably disagree with everyone, but I hated Spiderman 2, mainly because of the ending, where MJ leaves her nice fiancee who loves her in the most humiliating way possible, by leaving him at the alter. And we are supposed to cheer for this? And think its romantic? Really?)

Not with everyone. I also thought that left a really bad taste at the end of a really good film.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Miller

Raimi didn't want Venom in the movie - he was forced to include him by the studio.

Raimi was right.

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by Skara_Brae

(I probably disagree with everyone, but I hated Spiderman 2, mainly because of the ending, where MJ leaves her nice fiancee who loves her in the most humiliating way possible, by leaving him at the alter. And we are supposed to cheer for this? And think its romantic? Really?)

She had always liked Peter, and was infatuated with Spider-Man. John Jameson was attractive because he was an astronaut, but Peter was attractive because he was a genuine hero.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

She had always liked Peter, and was infatuated with Spider-Man. John Jameson was attractive because he was an astronaut, but Peter was attractive because he was a genuine hero.

But is that a reason to dump him like that? He was a nice guy, and we saw nothing to indicate that he didn't love her. Couldn't she have taken five minutes to break up with him?

Also, she was marrying him because she was an astronaut, and not because she genuinely liked him and cared about him? What a shallow bitch.

[Alessan]

Also, I respect an astronaut a lot more than I respect someone like Spider-Man. John Jameson has to work to get to where he was; it wasn't like he was bitten by a radioactive Buzz Aldrin.

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by Alessan

...it wasn't like he was bitten by a radioactive Buzz Aldrin.

Excuse me while I contact the Syfy Channel with a new script idea I just had...

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, Bart Sibrel was punched by an energized Buzz Aldrin. Has anyone checked him for superpowers?