Review: Spider-Man 2

[kitty]

Spider-Man 2: The Bug that got Splatted by the Window of Bad Film-Making

To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement. To cry out 'what the hell happened?!?' would be a little bit closer to the truth.

Spider-Man 2 is the second in the series of Spider-Man movies that will be coming out of the filmmaking arm of Marvel comics over the next couple of years. Following the events of Spider-Man 1, the sequel deals with Peter Parker coping with his dual identity as New York City's beloved superhero, as well as juggling his friendships with Mary Jane Watson and Harry Osbourne, being a student, and being broke.

Spider-Man 1 was an unprecedented summer blockbuster, and more importantly it was good. It was emotionally moving, thrilling, and had both a charming protagonist and villain. The CGI was breathtaking, the humour was on point, and any minor annoyances (such as what casting directors were thinking when casting Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson) were easily overshadowed by the general fun of re-making Spidey into a modern day incarnation. Sam Raimi had a formula that worked.

Unfortunately, that formula, like Dr. Otto Octavius' miscalculated fusion reaction experiment, quickly escalated into a disaster of catastrophic proportions in Spider-Man 2.

To begin with, Kirsten Dunst is not Mary Jane Watson. She has about as much acting talent as a rotten potato, she doesn't have the classic Mary Jane look, and she acts like the old Gwen Stacy, a sallow, clingy, girl-next-door, whereas every comic book incarnation of Mary Jane depicts a character who is feisty, full-of-life, and a bad girl. It wouldn't be so bad to give the movie Mary Jane a personality overhaul if Kirsten Dunst didn't end up playing her as so obnoxiously grating. By the time Mary Jane gets held hostage, again, we're rooting for Doc Ock to shove one of his big metal arms into her spleen, and end the suffering right then and there.

But, given that Kirsten Dunst was terrible in the first Spider-Man, it came as no surprise that she was just as bad in this reprisal. What is shocking is the drastic change in Tobey Maguire's performance. As Peter Parker, in the first movie, Maguire was endearing and enchanting, and displayed a full range of emotion that quickly captured the empathy of the viewing audience. Whether it's bad directing, or that Macguire's heart simply wasn't in this movie, Maguire's acting is sorely missing in Spider-Man 2. He delivers most of his lines with a dead-pan expression, and though the screenwriter (rightly or wrongly) was attempting to bring Spider-Man's trademark wit into this film adaptation, I'm sorry to say that Maguire simply doesn't have the comedic timing to pull it off. Most of his quips subsequently come off as forced and unfunny. During the numerous emotional scenes, Maguire is similarly less vibrant, giving off the general impression that he's really just coasting through this particular movie.

Many have described Spider-Man 2 as a love story bookended by action. Unfortunately, love stories rarely work if the characters seem to just be too incompetent to do anything about it. The back-and-forth between Peter and Mary Jane became tiresome about half an hour into the movie, and Maguire and Dunst's poor acting did little to help.

Alfred Molina was an acceptable casting choice in the role of Doctor Octopus, and certainly pegged the part, visually. Unfortunately, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's screenplay gave Molina little to work with, and in general, few characters can pull off the kind of monologues that Willem Dafoe delivered with practiced skill in Spider-Man 1. With Molina (as with Maguire and James Franco as Harry Osbourne), the monologue approach feels contrived and unnatural, and a throwback to Stan Lee's old comic book writing style more than anything else -- a tactic best left to comic book history.

But what truly doomed this movie was a combination of a terrible screenplay with Sam Raimi's directorial style, which seems to have shifted into reverse gear, and backended right into his heyday as the B-movie director of such classics as Evil Dead. Scenes which might have been dramatic (had the dialogue not been completely inane) were ruined by Raimi's almost deliberate misues of the camera. He employs extreme close-ups and cheesy zoom-in effects that are supposed to bring the viewer into a character's mind and perspective, but, combined with Maguire's dead pan expression, ends up feeling wooden and empty. Raimi also, for unknown reasons, includes nonsensical parody scenes (Raindrops on my Head, and later, The Bridal March) which catapault the film from just plain bad to exceptionally, gut-wrenchingly campy.

Asian Americans do actually show up in Spider-Man 2, but in a mixed light. First, Raimi chooses (for again unknown reasons) to have a Chinese woman playing a street performer who sings in bad, accented English the old Amazing Spider-Man theme, deliberately out-of-tune. This racial shucking and jiving is played as a running gag to stimulate a laugh out of the (at least in my theatre) predominantely white male audience. Contrasting this is a scnee in which Peter Parker rescues a Chinese American girl for her (one assumes) immigrant parents. They yatter in Mandarin, and the only good comment about this scene is that at the very least, casting directors found native Mandarin speakers. Obviously, these Asian Americans are thrown in for colour, in order to show New York as a racially diverse place, but certainly the first depiction might as well have been the babysitter from The Cat in the Hat.

The screenwriters, in typical bad Stan Lee style, put together a series of concepts that might have individually been acceptable movie premises. Unfortunately, strung together, plot points were left unexplained, and Lee and Ditko end up going for the cheap laugh and over the top histrionics rather than any real character and plot development. Combine all this with a movie that builds to an entirely anti-climactic finish and you have a film that is nothing but a soul-sucking waste of two and a half hours of your life.

The problem really is that the people who brought us Spider-Man 1 were part of Marvel's attempt to rejuvenate their comic book line by trying to hype the Bendis Ultimate universe (which consists of any Marvel title that begins with Ultimate, as with the Ultimate Spider-Man title). Bendis' Ultimate universe is a 90's update of many of Marvel's beloved characters, and Spiderman is the highlight of the line. Bendis made Parker into a high school kid (whereas in Stan Lee's version, Parker is well within his mid-twenties when he becomes Spider-Man) and generally made the characters cooler and more attractive to a new millenium youth audience. In keeping with this, the Tobey Maguire Peter Parker was very much a representation of the Bendis Peter Parker, being younger and more hip.

But, what happens when the people who used to write Spider-Man are no longer constrained to hyping the Ultimate Universe? You have a movie that tries to go back to Spider-Man's old narrative style (coincidentally, Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man and writer of Spidey back in the day is in charge of the screenplay). The problem is that there's a reason why old school comic writing is no longer popular -- it's stilted and belongs during a time when comics were a form of 'good wholesome American' escapsim -- comic characters were meant to be larger than life rather than reflections of humanity. Also, the 'technology' of comic books had not yet evolved to the point where emotion could be conveyed in ways outside of narrative monologues, which is why in old comics, personal conflict must be vocalized whereas in contemporary comics, emotional and mental anguish is as easily communicated through the art of the panels, colouring, and facial expression.

Had Raimi, Lee and Ditko simply stuck with the formula of Spider-Man 1, they could've churned out a movie that would've been worth the hype. They had an opportunity to give Spider-Man some depth, some conflict, and surround it all with some good 'ol fashioned explosions and top-of-the-line CGI. Instead, it's a train wreck worthy of Joel Schumacher and Batman and Robin.

And the true tragedy of Spider-Man 2 is that the fanboys will love it. Personally, I'd actually rather see Catwoman.

[537]

But the true tragedy of Spider-Man 2 is that the fanboys will love it. Personally, I'd actually rather see Catwoman.


....so if i go see it and i love it, i'm automajikally a fanboy?

[kitty]

... yes. :)

[ellsworth81]

how did you watch it already??

[Tao]

awwww....what a downer :(

[kitty]

how did you watch it already??

i'm special like that. :)





.... actually it's cuz i'm a nerd and bought tickets for last night (this morning) at midnight.

[TB4000]

Wow....see, I'm gonna have to go see what's up with this now. When you say all this stuff that was wrong with it, my senses are going off, pun totally intended. Unless you want to get tarred and feathered, you best keep this review off the fanboy sites...;)

[kitty]

awww... actually i kinda feel like there's something wrong with the way i saw it since nearly every review i've read loved this thing. maybe it's me...

terr, totally go see it for yourself before deciding.

[VV o n g B a]

awww... actually i kinda feel like there's something wrong with the way i saw it since nearly every review i've read loved this thing. maybe it's me...

terr, totally go see it for yourself before deciding.
ya, rottentomatoes gives it one of the highest scores i've seen... 94 out of 98 positives. u're definitely an outlier. :wink:

[TB4000]

awww... actually i kinda feel like there's something wrong with the way i saw it since nearly every review i've read loved this thing. maybe it's me...

terr, totally go see it for yourself before deciding.
Nah, you felt the same way for Kill Bill, and I never disregard your reviews, you know that.
:wink: If you don't like it, you don't like it.

[kitty]

ya, rottentomatoes gives it one of the highest scores i've seen... 94 out of 98 positives. u're definitely an outlier. :wink:

lol. sorry but... rottentomatoes = fanboys.

[moJo]

what the hell is a fanboy??? :confused:

[VV o n g B a]

lol. sorry but... rottentomatoes = fanboys.
u mean in general or specifically for spidey 2?

[ellsworth81]

lol. sorry but... rottentomatoes = fanboys.

i thought rotten was just an average/collection of all the critics' reviews out there?

[kitty]

i get a fanboy sense from them, in general :)

[VV o n g B a]

what the hell is a fanboy??? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy

[tommyhtown]

I totally agree that Spider-Man 2 is not of the same quality of the first one. The acting performance in Spider-Man I was better especially Toby's. The jokes didn't seem like they were forced. Dafoe was excellent althouh Dr. Oct wasn't bad. Plus I had a hard time believing Kirsten Dunst playing a role of a model/actress even though in real life she was a movie star. I thought her portrayal of MJ, the girl next door, in the original was better.

After watching Spider-Man 1, I can't wait to see the sequel, but the thing is there were unresolved issues at the end like Mary-Jane and Peter's relationship, Harry's quest for revenge, and most importantly Peter's struggle with the responsibility of his gift and his own life fulfillment. The sequel kinda works out the kinks that Peter Parker had for being Spider-Man. Peter now knows that he is and will always be Spider-man. We were also left with the impression that MJ and Peter Parker would somehow be able to work thing thru. Harry found out about his dad's secret. Basically, this movie didn't leave me yearning for more of the next spidey installment because of that very reason.

It will be interesting to see how the screenwriters and Sam Raimi will decide on the direction of the next Spider-Man movie. I would love to see Peter Parker becomes corrupted with his power ala Anakin Skywalker (using his superhero power to pay for student loan? :biggrin: ). Or Peter meets a superhero chic that understands him better than MJ and creates complication in his life.

[TB4000]

I had to go today around 4:30 and check it out...a mistake I shall never make again. Going to a movie in the afternoon is like going to a daycare center. Babies and little kids mocking the stuff onscreen for a full two hours. Sweet Jenn already hooked up a review, so let me do a bullet list of stuff I noticed: *couple spoilers*

- still lacking in comedian Spidey (they claimed he was gonna be funnier in this one, and a few times he was, but still....)

- everyone knows I'm Spider-Man(come on now, they didn't even pull that in the books, and it's a little awkward to have everyone in NY be so honest all of a sudden, ain't it?)

- skinny ass Russian girl of next door(damn, that girl needed a sandwich big time, swear to God...she was like creepy thin)

- foreshadowing of Hobgoblin and the Lizard (Harry is gonna be the next one, no doubt, and Doc Connors is gonna start messing around with regeneration)

- My back! My back!(that little in joke was crazy, and I loved it)

- like kittygirl said, there were quite a few supporting asian players in this one...the little girl he saved from the fire, the woman doing the off key Spider Man rendition, the female surgeon that got dragged away into the darkness by one of Ock's tentacles, scraping the floor with her nails the whole while, and old boy from Babylon 5, Daniel Dae Kim had like a few lines

anything else....ehhhh, can't think right now...but it wasn't the BEST movie....I did enjoy that fight on the subway though....Spidey don't play that!

[Tao]

I totally agree that Spider-Man 2 is not of the same quality of the first one. The acting performance in Spider-Man I was better especially Toby's. The jokes didn't seem like they were forced. Dafoe was excellent althouh Dr. Oct wasn't bad. Plus I had a hard time believing Kirsten Dunst playing a role of a model/actress even though in real life she was a movie star. I thought her portrayal of MJ, the girl next door, in the original was better.

After watching Spider-Man 1, I can't wait to see the sequel, but the thing is there were unresolved issues at the end like Mary-Jane and Peter's relationship, Harry's quest for revenge, and most importantly Peter's struggle with the responsibility of his gift and his own life fulfillment. The sequel kinda works out the kinks that Peter Parker had for being Spider-Man. Peter now knows that he is and will always be Spider-man. We were also left with the impression that MJ and Peter Parker would somehow be able to work thing thru. Harry found out about his dad's secret. Basically, this movie didn't leave me yearning for more of the next spidey installment because of that very reason.

It will be interesting to see how the screenwriters and Sam Raimi will decide on the direction of the next Spider-Man movie. I would love to see Peter Parker becomes corrupted with his power ala Anakin Skywalker (using his superhero power to pay for student loan? :biggrin: ). Or Peter meets a superhero chic that understands him better than MJ and creates complication in his life.

i'm hoping for the symbiote costume next movie!...and of course venom!

[younggiftedandblack]

Nah, you felt the same way for Kill Bill, and I never disregard your reviews, you know that.
:wink: If you don't like it, you don't like it.

Which is why I think this is probly a good movie :tongue:

[kitty]

Which is why I think this is probly a good movie :tongue:


well, sure, if you like the cardboard acting and lack of plot of the kill bill series, than spidey 2 will prolly be for you. the CGI action was kind of fun, but we've seen it all before in spidey 1 and number 1 had a better plot.

i watched a little bit of spidey 1 last night while flipping channels. even re-watching five minutes of tobey doing the one scene where he's practicing his webshooting had better acting and more enthusiasm than this one.

wtf was with the close-ups? i don't need to count the blackheads on kirsten dunsts' nose or the eyelashes on toby's dopey eyes in order to get emotion... and please tell me you guys are NOT defending the cheesy/campiness of the raindrops on my head and bridal march scenes!!! *cringe* the elevator scene was kind of funny, but tobey delivered it dead-pan rather than with the usual spidey confident wit -- which felt strange and forced. and puh-leeze -- there are more people who learned spidey's "secret" identity in this film than the entire ultimate comic title -- and there it's a running gag that he can't keep his identity secret. you're telling me that dock ock, harry osbournce, MJ, aunt may (that's just wrong btw) AND a subway full of NYC-ers are all going to keep his secret?

speaking of running gags, it's a bad sign when a major thriller needs to resort to cheap slapstick (ala dropping peter on his ass no less than three times) in order to generate a laugh. what are we -- like ten years old?

the ending was anticlimatic. the MJ/Peter Parker/John Jameson love triangle was insipid and just plain annoying. the jokes were unfunny. in fact, what the hell was a single redeeming quality of this movie?

[A.R.A.M.]

I liked the movie. I found the elevator scene, the raindrops on my head scene, and the scene where he was complaining about his back funny. Of course, I don't read the comic book, so I am not really familiar with what Spiderman's wit is supposed to be like. I guess not being familiar with details from the comic book allowed me to enjoy the movie. But I think that makes me the opposite of a so-called fanboy.

[kitty]

see, i hate bad campiness. (usually i hate all campiness, but i liked the campiness of dawn of the dead, remake). raindrops and bride scenes? pure camp and slapstick. it's a cheap ploy to get people to laugh -- i really felt like spidey 2 didn't need to do that, because the original spidey didn't need to. remember the funny parts about spidey 1? like when he does all those hand gestures to figure out how to make his webs sling, some of them are just great fun (like a thumbs up) and some of them were easter eggs for the fanboys. the humour was much more coy and witty.

it's like comparing the humour of a well-written comedy to tossing a pie in someone's face. sure it might be kinda funny to watch the guy get the pie thrown in his face, but it's also dumb humour, and i felt that if the production team had already proven it could do better, with spidey 1, why did it resort to the cheap tricks of this one? peter parker is nerdy and rather socially inept -- he doesn't have two left feet so why was he falling on his face all the time?

[lethal]

Did you think it was a truly bad movie or that it wasn't as good as the first or that it didn't meet your expectations based on the rave reviews it received?

Because honestly, you're about the only person that I've heard negative things about this movie and this comes from fans and readers of the comic and non-readers alike from all age groups.

I haven't seen the movie myself to make a decision on it. I'll have to wait a couple weeks for that, but it almost seems like you're being overly harsh or nitpicky.

BTW: Kirsten Dunst said on Letterman that "Spider-Man 3" would be the last in the series.

[kitty]

Did you think it was a truly bad movie or that it wasn't as good as the first or that it didn't meet your expectations based on the rave reviews it received?

Because honestly, you're about the only person that I've heard negative things about this movie and this comes from fans and readers of the comic and non-readers alike from all age groups.

I haven't seen the movie myself to make a decision on it. I'll have to wait a couple weeks for that, but it almost seems like you're being overly harsh or nitpicky.

BTW: Kirsten Dunst said on Letterman that "Spider-Man 3" would be the last in the series.

bad in general. worse because the entire production team hasn't changed from spidey 1 which i thought was good. (proving therefore that they have no excuse and can chalk it up to one weak link in the moviemaking chain).

i'm not surprised that you've heard only good things about this movie. i know i'm going to be a huge outlier in this. i'm sorry you feel like i'm being nitpicky, but my main gripes are with the cheesy directing, bad acting, and bad screenplay -- and i give some examples of what exactly i'm talking about in my comments above.

seriously though, i expect that the vast majority of america will like this movie, fanboys and non-fanboys alike, because it does have the kind of action that appeals to the summer blockbuster crowd. i would like to hear what people did like about this movie because i seriously tried to and couldn't.

(incidentally, i did read the imdb.com review of this movie, which was less explicit but as critical of this movie as i am).

oh, and incidentally, is it nitpicky to be upset that


the plot ploy to have spidey be losing his powers goes virtually unexplained? he's.... becoming human... because... he's unsure about being spiderman? how about a little bit of explanation to how that works because that pretty much doesn't make any sense.

[lethal]

"i'm sorry you feel like i'm being nitpicky" is an interesting response to "it almost seems like you're being overly harsh or nitpicky."

I wonder what you're apologizing for. Is it for misconstruing what I wrote? Did I say I feel like you're being nitpicky? Did I say I feel like you were doing anything? I didn't realize "almost seems" was synomous with "I feel."

Anyway, your review is your review. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, no matter how in the minority it may be. Heck, perhaps I'll agree with you once I see the movie. We shall see.

[kitty]

sorry, i had interpreted your statement 'it seems like you're being overly harsh or nitpicky' to mean 'it seems to me like you are being overly harsh or nitpicky', i.e. 'you seem to be overly harsh or nitpicky', hence i apologized saying that i didn't mean to come off that way. i did have a very strong negative opinion towards this movie, but i didn't mean to pick on all the things i saw that were negative.

[younggiftedandblack]

Thinking back I had some similar gripes that KG had for installment two with installment one.

I haven't seen two as of yet and probly won't for awhile now, but I didn't think part one was all that either. I agree KD shouldn't have been cast as MJ she's not pretty enough for that roll IMO.

[kitty]

no, she's really not. i mean, she's got all the crooked teeth and thin-ass lips. i think she was cast more for her age and height relative to tobey maguire than anything else.

[robotic]

@_@ man, posts like these make me feel guilty about being a fangirl.

i wish the love for stuff like bill & ted, batman and jackie chan movies would come back.

films like spider-man are not meant to be taken seriously, and as a comic book hero and movie, it fails to emotionally enlighten - but the cinematography/special effects - who would want to miss it?

[TB4000]

The main gripe I had towards the end was Doc Ock "coming to his senses" in the last fight. In the comics his character is just a permanent wack job, and here he becomes good again, to an extent. I didn't agree with that route at all.

[kitty]

The main gripe I had towards the end was Doc Ock "coming to his senses" in the last fight. In the comics his character is just a permanent wack job, and here he becomes good again, to an extent. I didn't agree with that route at all.

agreed. if anything, he shouldn't've been swayed as easily as he was. he spends an entire movie doing evil, and spidey delivers a two minute speech and suddenly, bam, he's good?

@_@ man, posts like these make me feel guilty about being a fangirl.

i wish the love for stuff like bill & ted, batman and jackie chan movies would come back.

films like spider-man are not meant to be taken seriously, and as a comic book hero and movie, it fails to emotionally enlighten - but the cinematography/special effects - who would want to miss it?

hey, matrix had amazing special effects, and a great screenplay. so did hellboy -- but these got panned by audiences.

[s1eve]

Okay my 2 cents: Loved the film. Thought it was more successful then the first, especially as it deals with Parker's inner conflict. This was all about Parker vs Spiderman, rather then Parker vs Doc Ock. Doc Ock only serve to complicate his identity crisis. The writers did a good job. Looking forward to seeing it again.

[PropellerheadCP]

Just saw it, today. I want to go see it again!!!

I loved how things went from bad to worse, for poor Peter Parker. Everything just falls apart around him.
I also love the theme of "There's a hero in everyone", as stated by "Aunt May", in the trailer. It really came through, all the way into the end. Everyone was a hero, one way or another... well almost everyone.

I don't know why there are complaints about the acting. It's on the same level as the first movie. I wouldn't say that it's any better, due to the content and direction. It's all about the comic book storytelling, which doesn't give room for Oscar winning performances.

The CG is just as real/fake as the original. The textures look a lot better, though. They didn't take me out of the movie at all, though. That's all I demand from special effect movies, these days.

The rumors of Venom being the next villain is obviously not true, especially with that ending. However, it seems that Sony has already put up the money for 2 more. The rumor that's flying around is that they're also thinking of 3 more movies, coming up after that.
On the other hand, I've heard about Sam Raimi hinting that it'll all end with Spiderman 3. Hopefully, that's not true, because you really can't end it without Venom. Unless other people pick up the movies after, but it just wouldn't be the same.

[golden_buns]

Never been into heroes, but I thought Spiderman 2 was pretty cool.

At least the comic book styling of the film, photography, and scenary was pretty good, though I won't argue that Kristen's acting was shitty

I thought that 'Raindrops in the Rain', was a good idea since it mixed well with the stuff that was going on while playing that song (i.e Peter becoming a happy weak geek once again and being free from the duty of being Spidey)

[lethal]

the plot ploy to have spidey be losing his powers goes virtually unexplained? he's.... becoming human... because... he's unsure about being spiderman? how about a little bit of explanation to how that works because that pretty much doesn't make any sense.

The doctor said it was all in his head. Mental block cripling his powers.

[draconisz]

The doctor said it was all in his head. Mental block cripling his powers.


That part of the movie sucked!!!
The rest. . .well. . .it rocked!!!

[VV o n g B a]

i was disappointed. i was prepared to be rocked by this movie, but it was only okay. there weren't any surprises and spidey wasn't funny. in the comics and cartoons he's always cracking jokes. in this one he's just a geek. bleh. and the third one is just gonna be another fight against a goblin. been there, done that. they should have gone to venom or something. hopefully mj dies in the 3rd, but of course they won't be that daring.

[537]

I'm a fanboy by way of kittygirl's definition. But on that note, kittygirl's just a hater in my book. ;)

I really loved the movie. The entire movie had a behind the scenes look at spiderman's real dilemna, which was not knowing the right thing to do and any given point in time. I would say that the mental block is definitely an excellent addition to the film, as it conveyed the message that the comics had....that spiderman was one seriously distressed and often confused individual.

I can tribute all these things to the story being true to the comics. In the comics, spidey had always been preoccupied with other things such as his aunt mae, or MJ, or his job, etc. I think the way Raimi translated these things was done well and in a way that made me forget all about his artificial web slingers.

[lethal]

I really liked the movie as well. I could have done without the train scene though, or at least the end of it. And the girl who was saved seemed to grow and shrink in that rescue scene.

But the rest of the movie made it more true to the comic I thought. It humanized the character and personalized the dilemma. There was insight into the thought process and reasoning for why Parker did what he did.

Yeah, it was cheezy and I usually don't like that, but comics are cheezy generally and the director wanted to stay more true to the comic.

[kitty]

The doctor said it was all in his head. Mental block cripling his powers.


okie yah but... how? as in... realistically... how?

red kryptonite perhaps?

I'm a fanboy by way of kittygirl's definition. But on that note, kittygirl's just a hater in my book. ;)


muah! love you too!

[ren28]

I thought the movie was excellent because most of the scenes flowed well and so there was good continuity in the storyline. There were a few surprises in which if I were to overanalyze it, it would suck, but I think this movie was 8 or 9 of 10.

[lethal]

okie yah but... how? as in... realistically... how?
There was this baseball player named Chuck Knoblauch. He played second base for the Yankees. He'd been doing this for most of his life. One day, he developed a mental block and could no longer throw the ball to 1B anymore. There was nothing physically wrong with him, but he simply stopped being able to do something he'd been able to do for all his life. No one could ever explain it. Just a mental block.

The movie gave an explanation. I thought it was perfectly valid. You disagree. <shrug>

[robotic]

my theory:

i think what caused disruption in his powers was that his emotions (bad relations with m.j., harry and feeling guilty about not preventing uncle ben's death) were strongly affecting his mental health, therefore his powers weren't his "strong point" anymore.

[nameless]

did he ever lose his powers in the comics? i know in the cartoon dr. connors reasoned that his loss of powers were only a precursor to his eventual man-spider transformation. but, you know, even that doesnt really make sense, because if you're going to change (i.e. puberty) it should be a forward moving process.

i didnt really dig the mental block excuse, but i felt it was more appropriate then him going to a doctor as spider-man and getting a check up. meh. movie still owned....

[robotic]

did he ever lose his powers in the comics?

affirmative.
i'll try to check on why/how.

[kitty]

There was this baseball player named Chuck Knoblauch. He played second base for the Yankees. He'd been doing this for most of his life. One day, he developed a mental block and could no longer throw the ball to 1B anymore. There was nothing physically wrong with him, but he simply stopped being able to do something he'd been able to do for all his life. No one could ever explain it. Just a mental block.

The movie gave an explanation. I thought it was perfectly valid. You disagree. <shrug>

true, but the man was still physically capable of throwing a ball, just not to first. in this case, peter couldn't see well, and wasn't able to stick to walls anymore. that might explain the webshooting, but the loss of ALL of his powers? Some of them were not consciously controlled physical things -- which WOULD be explained by a mental block. it's like his powers were actually conking out ala red kryptonite.

[ism]

Lego-animated Spiderman 2!

Stop-motion animation here (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1277883&sdm=web&qtw=640&qth=400) (warning: Quicktime movie, large). Amazing professional production.

[draconisz]

i was disappointed. i was prepared to be rocked by this movie, but it was only okay. there weren't any surprises and spidey wasn't funny. in the comics and cartoons he's always cracking jokes. in this one he's just a geek. bleh. and the third one is just gonna be another fight against a goblin. been there, done that. they should have gone to venom or something. hopefully mj dies in the 3rd, but of course they won't be that daring.

??? You didn't like the part in the elevator? When the guy (I think it's Jamie Kennedy) come in. Spiderman has to take the elevator because he lost his powers. But he tells the guy the the outfit is cool. . .but rides up into the crotch a little too much.

LOL!!!!

[Irezumi Kiss]

true, but the man was still physically capable of throwing a ball, just not to first. in this case, peter couldn't see well, and wasn't able to stick to walls anymore. that might explain the webshooting, but the loss of ALL of his powers? Some of them were not consciously controlled physical things -- which WOULD be explained by a mental block. it's like his powers were actually conking out ala red kryptonite.
I've seen and read this happen before, as a common device used in fantasy/sci-fi genres...the main character has some sort of "different" ability from the norm that is diluted or submerged when the character is experiencing some mental block or crisis...and it's a believable stretch, but the stress induces some biological setbacks that affects ability until the crisis/stress is overcome or overpowered, which in this case, happened when Ock messed around with the one main person Peter really felt for.

I didn't have a problem with it, really. In fact, I honestly enjoyed the movie (nobody talked or rang their cell phones! I couldn't fucking believe it! and I went to see it at the Union Square Regal, no less!) and wouldn't mind paying NYC ticket prices to see it again.

Honestly, Kitty, I was going into the joint trying to see it from your P.O.V., but it just didn't stick. I wasn't knocked out of my seat, but I couldn't help but be refreshingly entertained thru the whole shebang. I still love your opinion, tho'....he he he...

My only true problems with the flick were purely cosmetic ones that have more to do with me personally having lived in New York City for over 16 years than any shortcomings of script/acting/casting.

— That particular pizza shop is SO NOT like that. More to the point, any pizza jerk behind a pizza counter ANYWHERE in this city would NEVER talk like that!
— Midtown companies on the upper floors of a high-rise would NEVER order 8 pizzas from a Greenwich Village pizza shop! They would NEVER order pizzas, period!
— An elevated subway line on 6th Avenue that goes to Bay Ridge? Oooo-kaaay...maybe when they finish the new WTC that'll be there...

It's all good, though!

Spidey 3 in 2007, baby!

[nameless]

Lego-animated Spiderman 2!

Stop-motion animation here (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1277883&sdm=web&qtw=640&qth=400) (warning: Quicktime movie, large). Amazing professional production.


Duuuude...too freaking cool. Thanks for sharing!

[kitty]

I've seen and read this happen before, as a common device used in fantasy/sci-fi genres...the main character has some sort of "different" ability from the norm that is diluted or submerged when the character is experiencing some mental block or crisis...and it's a believable stretch, but the stress induces some biological setbacks that affects ability until the crisis/stress is overcome or overpowered, which in this case, happened when Ock messed around with the one main person Peter really felt for.


so just because the plot device has been done before means that it's automatically good everytime it's rehashed? like i said, my problem wasn't with the idea of him losing his powers, but that it was poorly done, and thrown in just to make peter's life suck just that much more. if they had taken more time to make it realistic, shown him getting over the mental block with more than just a 'oh, i know it's a mental block. done!' thing it wouldn't have felt so much like a useless unnecessary side story that was just thrown in 'cuz the screenplay writers (yes stan lee, i'm talking about you) were on crack.

my point is that, just because it's spidey, just because spidey as a character is funny, just because there are a few snarky moments (like the elevator scene which has been now quoted as apparently the best scene in the film), just because doc ock's arms looked kinda cool, does NOT make it a good movie. there has to be some distinction between a cool character and a good movie, and i think a lot of people are seeing the stuff that is inherent about spiderman and thinking that because it's on the big screen, the movie is therefore good. hence, my fanboy comment. in reality, it's quite possible to watch a movie about a great comic book character, and love the comic book character, love his portrayal in the movie, and still recognize that what was good was the pre-existing character, and not the movie, itself.

[Cipherous]

Does anybody else think there was some conspiracy theory behind Spider man 2 to keep people from watching Farenheit 911?

Cause it was pretty fucking corny ass movie and it was no means in the same class as the Micheal Kheaton Batman movies or the old superman movies.

That jesus scene in the train seemed pretty over the top imo.

[Mr.Lum]

I usually dont go to movies but I saw this recently and it licked balls. prolly gets attention becuse its one of the most famous super heroes.

[kimpossible]

Uh... no. I went because the spidey suit looked tighter and hotter and he was all bondaged up by Doc Ock's metal arms. Note that I hate Tobey Maguire himself, it's the representation of SpiderMan that makes one steamy.

My enthusiasm for F 9/11 is unaffected by it. Even with the much anticipated release of S2, it broke all records for documentaries.

[kitty]

I dunno, that seems pretty conspiracy theory to me. merging with other spidey thread.