Webb is so much truer to teh comics than raimi

Before you start claiming I've never read the Spider-man comics, saying how Raimi's spiderman wasn't true to the source material because of the web shooters and the lack of gwen stacy... maybe you'd like to look into Webb's Amazing Spiderman you hypocrites.


1. In the comics the suit looked like web, not a basketball.



2.Webb:
"After the trailer, the first footage shown at the panel introduces us to Peter Parker’s pre-superpowered life. His teachers complain that he’s tardy. He’s reprimanded for skateboarding in the hallway. He’s constantly bullied. He’s the kid who hides beneath his hoodie in the back of the classroom, the kid who always comes home with a black eye and can say he tripped and fell only so many times. But when he punches one of the boys who hit him in school, he and Uncle Ben are called into the principal’s office."

Right, Peter was not rebellious at all in the comics. He's a socially awkward nerd, not a rebellious little punk. Peter would never be late for class before getting powers in Ultimate OR Amazing series. And skateboarding before having the spidey powers? Slightly out of character much?

3."He’s constantly bullied. He’s the kid who hides beneath his hoodie in the back of the classroom, the kid who always comes home with a black eye and can say he tripped and fell only so many times. But when he punches one of the boys who hit him in school, he and Uncle Ben are called into the principal’s office."

Peter never got bullied as such in the comics. He got picked on a bit and sure, he'd fight back after getting the powers. But before getting the powers? Not at all.

4."The next scene shows us Peter holding his father’s leather briefcase. He searches through the case, taking out his father’s glasses, his OSCORP ID, his calculators, and finally, a mysterious folder of documents."

So his father worked for Oscorp now?

5.Anyway, Peter's meant to be antisocial and whatnot, and in this film it seems that the reason for this is the loss of his parents. This is extremely out of character. Peter never really brooded in the comics about the loss of his parents, especially not before he gained the super powers.
Also in the trailer you see Peter being left with uncle Ben and aunt May as a young boy... in the comics he's meant to be a baby! This is why he would have not been so upset about it in the comics.

6.

Why's everyone focusing on Peter? Is he that interesting? I thought he was a socially awkward nerd?

7.

What's the point in having the spider bite in the back of the neck as opposed to the hand? I mean what does it change? Every previous incarnation of spider-man had the bite on the hand. What does this add to the film, seriously? It's just a further lack of respect for the source material.
And why is there webbing? Did the spider climb in? Spiders fangs don't contain the web last I looked.

8.

Maybe my eyes are just decieving me but is Peter wearing his spidey suit from the waist down? If so that shows Gwen knows he's spiderman and is supportive. Couldn't be more out of character for the Amazing universe Gwen (this is Amazing spiderman is it not?). In the comics she dies before ever knowing. But yet again, this is just an assumption.

Yeah.

I actually took this info from here but summarised the main points Just so you know I've read a number of Spider-man comics, but not loads so this wont bother me, I can enjoy the film on its own terms. But anyone saying Raimi's films were anything less than great because they think he's not true to the source material.. think again.
http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/wordpress/2011/08/01/why-the-amazing-spider-man-movie-is-probably-going-to-suck-cont/

He is socially awkward. The picture where he walks down the hallway while everyone is staring at him. is suppose to show that Peter is insecure.

No one said this was going to stay 100% true to the comic books. But the characters are more accurate to the source material than they were in the Raimi films.

Also about the suit, you need to get your eyes checked. Because the webs in the comic books don't stick out either.

^
Oh so the people looking at him presents his paranoia? So what is this now, an art house film?

And yes the webs are raised in Raimi's film, but at least they look like web. He's spiderman, not basketball man.

"But the characters are more accurate"
Ahem... Peter's a rebel in this that gets in fights BEFORE getting superpowers. Gwen Stacy knows he's spiderman. His parents work for Oscorp. Not really accurate mate.

These aren't massive deviations but neither were the ones in Raimi films. This is what happens when you nitpick.

Insecurity is part of being socially awkward.

Also it's funny how you only bring up the changes, but not some of the accuracy to the comic books.

As for Garfield's suit, I see black lines kinda like in the comic books. Where as Tobey's suit has sliver webs that stick out.

So we don't lose track of what we're discussing I'll address your points, one by one.

1.Yes I bet insecurity IS part of that but firstly, Webb is making him a rebel so he's not socially awkward in the same way as the comics where he's just nerdy. Secondly, these are people STARING at him. Acknowledging him being there. This isn't him just seeing that, but them actually doing that. Last I checked you don't pay attention nor give a shit when the socially awkward person enters the school.

2. I brought up the changes the same way that's all anyone else does when they mention Raimi films. They never praise the good aspects (which there A LOT of), but focus on the negative. Plus this is just a summary of what someone else wrote.

3.Silver that stick out, ooh a colour and different thickness. Who cares? The entire SHAPE is wrong on Amazing spiderman. Web is silvery is it not? Therefore it's logical it would look that way on the spidey suit. On ASP, yeah it is embedded into the suit and black like in the comic BUT at least it does not resemble the web so they may as well not even bother with the pattern.

@Mecha LOL

1. Well who knows? I could be wrong. That scene where everyone is staring at him could mean something else. But just because he acts like a rebel, doesn't mean he isn't socially awkward.

2. Well you're not doing a good job at pointing out those positive aspects.

3. You seem to care a lot considering you're nitpicking about the webs.

1. Dude, one does not simply get everyone staring when you walk in unless you look absolutely weird..... wait, just remembered it's Andrew Garfield. Nevermind, it all makes sense now. And I never said the fact that he is rebellious stops him being socially awkward, but mentioning that he is still not the same character. If he's that rebellious, he blatantly has more confidence (which is odd for an insecure person).

2.
Like I said, this is about the deviations from the comics, in response to all the people praising how its so much more faithful to the comics than Raimi's interpretations. Also it's not my own article. I simply summarised it.

3.All I did was mention in one bulletpoint that the suit is wrong and you responded to it. If anything you're nitpicking the article. I am just responding to your response.

1. It suppose to show how Peter feels. That doesn't mean people were actually staring at him. Either way, it doesn't matter. Because we don't know for sure what that scene was about.

2. Well compare to the Raimi films, it basically is more faithful to the comic books.

3. Are you serious? All I said was the webs in the comic books don't stick out either. Then you try to justify the silver raised webs, which wasn't in the comic book.

1."So what is this now, an art house film?"

2.Really? Web shooters and Gwen Stacy. Is that it?

3.But at least its still webs huh? Not just randomly laid down lines.

Lykos wrote:

1. Dude, one does not simply get everyone staring when you walk in unless you look absolutely weird..... wait, just remembered it's Andrew Garfield. Nevermind, it all makes sense now. And I never said the fact that he is rebellious stops him being socially awkward, but mentioning that he is still not the same character. If he's that rebellious, he blatantly has more confidence (which is odd for an insecure person).

2. Like I said, this is about the deviations from the comics, in response to all the people praising how its so much more faithful to the comics than Raimi's interpretations. Also it's not my own article. I simply summarised it.

3.All I did was mention in one bulletpoint that the suit is wrong and you responded to it. If anything you're nitpicking the article. I am just responding to your response.

1. That's because it's a film, and films are a VISUAL WAY OF STORYTELLING. A smart-ass who's complaining about "OMG, HE RUINED THE 180 DEGREE RULE", should know that by now. Also, the reason for that could be for multiple reasons.

2. Yes, it IS more faithful to the comics than Raimi's shit. But a noob like you who's spreading all this hate because "OMG, MY FRIEND TOLD ME IT ISN'T LIKE THE COMICS" will never get that, no matter how hard we try to tell you. Again, no-one stated it was 100% true, but it's still MORE TRUE than what Raimi created.

3. Who are you to say someone is "Nitpicking"? Aren't you the one who complaints about the fucking web-shooters? Despite them, actually, being accurate to the comics?

Also, how come all the points you are attacking here are about "OMG, IT ISN'T LIKE THE COMICS", but when Sam Raimi does something that's not like the comics, you just defend it like the blind hypocrite you are.

1. No. It's just done much better than the Raimi movies is all.

2. Wow! Really? You own the comic books and all you can say is web-shooters and Gwen Stacy? That's it? Have you forgotten what makes Peter Parker/Spider-Man such a great character for the past 50 years? No wonder you like the Raimi movies so much.

3. Yeah... randomly laid down lines, like you know, in comic books! So it's really not a big deal.

I don't know how someone can judge a movie based on a few trailers.

@Rambo ... Umad?

Okay yes a film is a different form of storytelling than the comics but if I complained about Spidie speaking out his thoughts in ASM I get a shitstorm of people telling me that's what happens in the comics. But I believe the film SHOULD be different in some ways because the medium of film is different in itself and not all aspects work as well. So yes it's fine for Webb to do this, but after people acting like ANY deviation is an issue it makes me wonder why you'd be so cool about it. Something unrealistic and out of character in spiders world.

Boy it's very well to bring up criticisms with no examples but you effectively have no argument.
Yet again "it's more true!!!". Yes yes but may I remind you that is exactly how this started... People made assumptions based off a few trailers and were quick to jump onto the bandwagon and completely disregard the Raimi films. Where is the evidence that it is more true to Raimis films? When you see the film there might be a scene where Spidey goes to space to search other planets for info on his parents and gets attacked by a pink alien.
The difference between me and you is that you'll criticise something with no weight in your argument, I back it up with reasons and examples. And honestly I realise it's a stupid debate when we havent seen the new film yet, but hey I'm just playing the game on your own terms.

And Mecha, the most predominant complaint Against the Raimi films is that Spidey hasnt got the same sense of humor. Would you agree?

Yes, but that's not the only problem though. He's also dumb down and is always depress compare to the comic books.

Lykos wrote:

@Rambo ... Umad?

Okay yes a film is a different form of storytelling than the comics but if I complained about Spidie speaking out his thoughts in ASM I get a shitstorm of people telling me that's what happens in the comics. But I believe the film SHOULD be different in some ways because the medium of film is different in itself and not all aspects work as well. So yes it's fine for Webb to do this, but after 1. people acting like ANY deviation is an issue it makes me wonder why you'd be so cool about it. Something unrealistic and out of character in spiders world.

2. Boy it's very well to bring up criticisms with no examples but you effectively have no argument.
Yet again "it's more true!!!". Yes yes but may I remind you that is exactly how this started... People made assumptions based off a few trailers and were quick to jump onto the bandwagon and completely disregard the Raimi films. 3. Where is the evidence that it is more true to Raimis films? When you see the film there might be a scene where Spidey goes to space to search other planets for info on his parents and gets attacked by a pink alien.
The difference between me and you is that 4. you'll criticise something with no weight in your argument, I back it up with reasons and examples. And honestly I realise it's a stupid debate when we havent seen the new film yet, but hey I'm just playing the game on your own terms.

And Mecha, the most predominant complaint Against the Raimi films is that Spidey hasnt got the same sense of humor. Would you agree?

1. No-one even said that.
It's not the fact that it's different. Because, like you said: it's a different form of storytelling and should be treated as such. The problem is, though: While Marc Webb's Spidey may have a skateboard, which is a REALLY MINOR thing, Sam Raimi's Spidey shits on the entire Spider-Man universe. Since you seem to like examples, even though you don't have any yourself. Here it goes:

Spidey doesn't have Web-Shooters. Which is a big deal, considering that it's one of his trademarks.
Sandman, apparently, kills Uncle Ben. WHICH IS SO FUCKING NON-CANON. And it also shits on the entire Storyline Raimi created in the first two films.

Another way he shits on his own storyline: Gwen Stacy doesn't exist, neither is even ever mentioned. AT ALL. which is fine and all, but then she just pops out of nowhere in Spider-man 3, and somehow, some way already has an established friendship with Spidey. Despite her non-existence in the prior films.

2. Yeah, 'cause I'm the one who has so few arguments I have to resort to my friend, an Article and fucking assumptions.

3 + 4. Doesn't that contradict itself, mate? First, you say anything could happen, since we haven't seen it yet. Which is true. But you have no evidence of that scenario. Yet, then you claim YOU'RE the one with fucking EXAMPLES AND REASONS. Despite of you presenting none of either.

Also, no, I'm not mad. I feel more sad on YOUR behalfs, pal. More so than anything else.

Mecha wrote:

Yes, but that's not the only problem though. He's also dumb down and is always depress compare to the comic books.

(also compare to http://images.wikia.com/spiderman/images/b/b3/Spider_Man_no_more.jpg )















(Of course it depends what series you are reading but its safe to say there are dark and depressing moments throughout each of them. Raimi is a fan, mate. He's doing as much justice to the comics as he was allowed to do).

He isn't depressed all the time though. :areyoufuckingk

Although I agree with Lykos on many of his statements regarding the Raimi vs Webb argument, I do have some input into the "Fandom" that is being reflected within this forum.

Part 1 - My thoughts on Spider-Man and some opinions of the current feud


Firstly I absolutely adore Spider-Man, since a child The Web-head has been my favorite superhero and I don't see this changing anytime within the near future. And as a fan, I do agree with Lykos when he says that Raimi got LOADS RIGHT! I won't got into detail, due to the high amount of evidence he has given, however I find it hard for you to argue completely, no matter what state of closet like repression you are under when it comes to those movies... Sure Lykos is nitpicking about your "Better Movie", but the fuckload amount of people who are nitpicking unjustly against Raimi with almost petty reasoning means that sometimes you're gonna get a fan of the original trilogy who bites back.

Part 2 - Idiots who think a film is Astonishing or entirely faithful to the subject material under false Pretenses.

Secondly, although I am very much looking forward to The Amazing Spider-Man, I don't have a real opinion....Why? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FUCKING MOVIE YET! Unless any of you have seen The Amazing Spider-Man through some sort of early screening or was lucky enough to attend one of the premieres (was there more than one?) then you really are fucking stupid. Yes through the trailers there are scenes that look faithful to the comic books...There is also some stuff that looks quite "iffy" to me. Having said that, I'm not going to tell you if the film is good or not because I haven't seen it yet! You guys act as if you know it's better because the film has a decent marketing campaign and you like the look of the trailers...which in this day and age means fuck all to the final film product. You act as if it's completely faithful to Ditko and Lee's source material EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM IN IT'S ENTIRETY! For all we know Raimi could have done a better job...WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE BEFORE WE GIVE OUR OPINIONS

Part 3 - Stop pulling a moodswing like a child who dropped all of his Sweets


Lastly, we're grown adults and are complaining about which film, director, actor, costume is better when we really don't know the outcome of what the film itself is going to be. I defend Lykos when he says that the Raimi series did Spidey right. But I'm not going to say that he did the better movies, because like you I don't know yet. And the more you say that a film is better before it's cinematic release, the more you look like Fudgenuts. Grow up guys, see the movie, and if you like it more than the previous "atrocious" trilogy tell us why and then debate and bitch (it is entertaining). But if you state a moot opinion now and end up hating it upon release, you're just gonna look like Dickheads

1.

Web Shooters, okay I can see why you're pissed off. That's ONE deviation. I know you want Peters scientific, nerdy prowess to be shown, but hell... what's the point in being bitten by a radioactive spider in the first place if Peter's intelligent enough to build a spidey outfit that allows him to climb walls and shooters that allow him to shoot web. What's he left with, just strength and spider sense.... meh.

Well to be fair, in Spider-man 1 the burgler was left unexplained. We can disregard Spiderman 3 if you like because during that film Sony had more of a hold on Raimi and made him add in things he didn't really want to do. Then again, it's a film adaption. Some changes can be made for dramatic effect and whatnot.

http://www.spiderman-3-movie-buzz.com/wp-content/uploads/spiderman/large_SpiderMan%203%20-%20Gwen%20Stacy%202-4v0pvmig.jpg
Gwen is still seen about. Yeah only in a minor way but lets face it, she was only around for a short while and dies in the comics. Mary Jane is the more major romantic figure in the comics. They can't make hundreds of spiderman films. They had the pick out the more major aspects of the story and throw them in. In a comic you can get away with relationship after relationship because there are literally thousands of comics. Films, it doesn't work so well...maybe a tv series. But otherwise, nope. We also don't know yet if Amazing Spiderman films will include MJ Watson....

But yeah either way. I did call it, didn't I. Web shooters and Gwen Stacy are pretty much the only "major" deviations. You added in Uncle Ben's killer, well done. That is all.

2. I do have a number of spiderman comics from the Ultimate, Amazing and Astonishing series. Also a graphic novel. I won't pretend to be a massive fan or have a huge experience, but hey, I probably have more than the average guy who hopped onto the amazing spiderman bandwagon.

3. But I did present reasons did I not? The OP provides Examples and explains HOW they deviate. Are you blind? Or are you resisting this knowledge because you hate to be wrong?
NOW you provided examples... but aside from uncle ben (which was something that is expanded upon in Spiderman 3 anyway, which is the the worst of the 3) they are ones that I KNEW would be mentioned. I even wrote earlier that they are the only ones people can think of. Either because they aren't truly fans of the comic and just jumped onto the bandwagon, or because they ARE the only proper ones.

So yeah, character (no gwen), spidey outfit change (no web shooters), added in feature (sandman being the murderer...but before being sandman).

VS

character alteration (gwen seems to know he's spiderman), spidey outfit change (no proper webs on the outfit), personality difference (peter being more rebellious, and "cool", also brooding about his parents a lot more which doesnt happen so much in the comics), career change (parents work for oscorp rather than shield.. but thats not webbs fault), spider bite in wrong place (bitten in back of neck rather than hand LIKE IN EVERY ITERATION OF THE SPIDEY FRANCHISE) and whatever else I listed in the OP which I cant remember.


And whats funny is all this criticism can be found in the trailer and webb's information ALONE. And we are pitting it against 3 films. In three films it's a lot easier to count the amount of deviations. So yeah, when Amazing Spiderman has 3 films out, then we can properly compare the two. It's only fair then.

Also that article i posted was only a continuation. If you're so passionate about the comics and hate deviations, read this one too.

http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/wordpress/2011/07/25/why-the-marc-webb-of-spider-man-movie-is-probably-going-to-suck-especially-if-youre-a-fan-of-the-comics/

@JayMoore

So you were a Spider-Man fan growing up as a child? Well then you should know by now that Andrew Garfield plays the character a lot more accurately than Tobey Maguire ever did. Saying that we haven't seen the film yet doesn't cut it. We've seen enough to actually give an opinion.

Errr no you don't! You have no right, because it's not been released yet! Lykos has given a substantial amount of information as to why that neanderthal doesn't entirely fit the role and as to why the clips aren't exactly like the comic books....but you still persist. Are you completely writing off a good argument because a new movie is being released? With a bigger contemporary flare and punk rock sensibilities to make it Hip to like Spider-Man. I hope you're right and the film is better, but at this rate I wouldn't wanna become a fan of ASM before it's release because I'd frankly come off as a child jumping on the bandwagon for the sake of conformity.

I know, lets not analyze the films themselves. Because it's not fair on Amazing Spiderman in which the film isn't out yet. So lets compare the trailers because that's all we have to play with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KW8stZ2jSQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atCfTRMyjGU


Which one is more faithful to the comics?

1. @Lykos, like I said: I'd have been fine with it had she not appeared, at all. That way, despite it not being canon, the storyline still makes sense. But then, Raimi just THROWS HER IN THE STORY OUT OF NOWHERE, acting as if she's always been around. Which just screws up his established storyline.

Also, Mary Jane the real romantic relationship? WUT?
You do realize Spidey loved Gwen Stacy more than he did with Mary Jane, and as far as I remember, the only reason he even started falling for her, was really more because of his loss. The loss of Gwen Stacy. Mary Jane was more of trust-comfort than anything else.

you mentioned my examples as well. And yes, you had already mentioned the first two. But again, THEY ARE EXAMPLES, nothing else. Here, since you seem to be turned on by them:

1.1 New Goblin is a fabricated character. Yes, Harry turns into a Goblin, but that's HOB GOBLIN. Who's also, NOTHING ALIKE NEW GOBLIN.

1.2. Everyone in Raimi's universe ends up knowing Peter Parker's secret identity. In the comics, Gwen was the only one who ever found out about him being Spidey.

1.3 Spidey's parents are NEVER EVEN MENTIONED IN RAIMI'S UNIVERSE. Do you even know how big of a deal that is? It's an important aspect to who he is. And who he becomes.

Again, these are EXAMPLES. Not every major thing. Sadly, I don't believe there's enough paper to write all of it down.

2. I'm just going to skip this part. Considering there's nothing to argue with here.

3. Since I listed examples (Seen above), I really don't have much to talk about here. But first and foremost, can you honestly tell me that Spidey getting BITTEN IN A DIFFERENT AREA, is a bigger deal than to exclude his parents? Or, that him skating, is a bigger alteration than him not being a sarcastic wise-ass?

Also, if you think it's only fair to compare when the entire trilogy is done and made, what's the point of your entire thread, and every single one of your arguments? I mean, it isn't fair to compare, right?

Next time, when you're about to lose a debate, try not to call in your friend to just randomly defend you.

1. The new film will most probably be better than the 2002 incarnation as it doesn't star...



Nuff said...