| Author |
|
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15775
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 9:59am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Yeah, that was a major misstep in the first Raimi movie, for me.
The whole point of the origin story is that nerdy and downtrodden Peter Parker’s ego goes out of control when he gets his powers. He’s so full of himself and so concerned with getting what he feels is his due after years of being ignored and/or abused by the outside world that he can’t even be bothered to stop the burglar when he has the chance. Of course, his bubble is completely burst when he learns that he could have prevented Ben Parker’s death.
It’s a case of the revenge of the nerd backfiring horribly. For a fatal moment, he becomes an arrogant jerk just like Flash Thompson, and learns the hard way that he should just be Peter Parker, and do the right thing for the right reason. He pays a terrible price in order to learn that simple lesson.
Changing his motivation for not stopping the burglar into a moment of petty revenge completely misses the point.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132381
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Raimi seemed to have some difficulty translating his own filmmaker experience into the real world. Can't have Parker be an ass because of his celebrity! And of course he can have a costume that costs a hundred grand a pop! Isn’t that how normal people live?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 1:06pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
One of the essay writers mentioned that. The writer talked about how Parker's science skills are mostly absent from the film, but he appears to be an excellent tailor.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132381
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 1:27pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Raimi said he gave Parker those idiotic biological webspinners because he and his high school buddies could never have created the mechanical ones. But, again, no problem with that costume!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
It's a bizarre logic. I doubt any of us could have created mechanical webspinners, but then again, we're not Parker/Spider-Man!
I know some people dismiss the live-action TV series - it's not without faults - but seeing Nicholas Hammond's Parker working on mechanical webspinners, and trying them out by a tree, was a satisfying moment for me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132381
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 1:55pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
When I was breaking into The Biz the popular meme was “Batman would have to be crazy to do what he does!” My response was “No, YOU’D have to be crazy to do what he does. But he’s fine. He’s Batman.”It’s a pretty simple rule, really: If you don’t BELIEVE in a character, don’t work on that character.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 4789
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 3:50pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Let me see if I understand. It's not realistic for the kid who can lift a car, stick to any surface, outrun a truck, jump a three story building, and detect danger build his own Mechanical web shooters. Sure. Makes perfect sense.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15827
|
| Posted: 25 September 2018 at 4:22pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
In Stan and Steve’s version, Peter doesn’t stop the burglar because he’s too full of himself and his celebrity. He’s an ass, and Uncle Ben dies as a direct consequence. In the movie, he’s provided an “excuse” not to stop the burglar. Sure, two wrongs don’t make a right, but there are TWO wrongs. Peter has a way to dodge his responsibility ------------------------------------------ You're right, of course, in that in AF15 Peter is an ass, is too full of himself, and Uncle Ben dies as a direct consequence. In the film, Peter gives in to a petty urge to get even with the promoter,and Uncle Ben dies as a direct consequence. For me, the film still has a genuine lesson for Peter Parker in how great responsibility comes with great power. Stopping the thief was easily within his power, but he chose to not do the right thing because of self-interest. And he learns his lesson. The punch is greater with Stan and Steve's version, no doubt, but I don't see it as such a fundamental change, as you clearly do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 26 September 2018 at 7:59am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
I'd like to point out that I feel some of the essays are seeing things that aren't there.
One writer mentioned how ambivalent Parker seemed about pursuing education/a science career. Fair enough. But then he went on to say that Spider-Man's battles against scientific foes like Lizard and Octopus could be interpreted as being Parker 'battling against his own aspirations'.
I don't see that. At all.
Far be it from me to get inside Stan Lee's head, but I'd wager it was about creating colourful and larger-than-life villains. I cannot imagine Stan Lee - or anyone - creating Lizard/Octopus, and having Spider-Man battle them, as part of some social commentary about Parker 'rallying against his own aspirations'.
I am always open to learning, so if anyone agrees with the essay writer, I'd welcome such a viewpoint, but it came across as seeing something that isn't there.
I mean, I suppose the storyline reasons for Parker not pursuing a career in science were down to factors such as his hectic lifestyle, balancing his various responsibilities, realising he couldn't lead a normal life (can one be a scientist and do lab work when you could hear of a bank robbery miles away?).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15775
|
| Posted: 26 September 2018 at 8:18am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I’d say that any subtext which Lee, Ditko (when Stan wasn’t writing against his art), and subsequent creative teams had in mind is pretty easy to suss out.
The moral of AMAZING FANTASY # 15 is right there on the page, and the more subtle elements (such as Flash Thompson probably being there as a yardstick for comparing Peter before and after he gets his powers) aren’t that hard to notice,
I’ve not read the book (although I’m considering picking it up), but “deep” readings like the ones you mention sound very much like the sort of insipid fan theories you can find in hundreds of clickbait articles.
The text is the text. Sure, creators may encode ideas within their work that can go over a lot of viewers’ heads, but reviewers suddenly declaring decades after the fact that they’ve stumbled across a “subtext” which completely recontextualizes a story smacks of both arrogance and delusion. It’s even worse when they use these fan theories to defend genuinely bad stories which don’t have nearly as much depth as they claim.
Being inspired and pulling one’s own interpretations out of a work is one thing, but reading way, way too far into something and both assuming and declaring that this was the creators’ intent is something else.
When you have people saying that simultaneously watching THE SHINING both forward and backward (and overlapping the footage to see which shots are juxtaposed) reveals that Stanley Kubrick “really” made the film to expunge his guilt in faking the filming of the moon landing, that’s probably a clue that they’re reading too much into things. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7494
|
| Posted: 26 September 2018 at 9:11am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Batman isn't crazy. He's dealing with a personal trauma in a highly unorthodox way, but he's dealing with it.
Spider-Man didn't stop the crook because he was too busy being insta-famous. We haven't seen this recreated with the new Spider-Man yet but it isn't a stretch to imagine that Tom Holland's interpretation is much closer to the original Stan-and-Steve version than Raimi's.
And Spider-Man is not fighting against his own aspirations. That's absurd. Many of his greatest foes are either mad scientists or the results of science gone wrong. If anything, they are object lessons in what Spider-Man MIGHT have been if he didn't have a strong moral foundation. But that doesn't make him a horror character to me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 26 September 2018 at 9:49am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
I honestly don't know how the writer can interpret it as Spider-Man 'fighting against his own aspirations'. I am clueless as to how anyone could arrive at such a conclusion.
I'm more inclined to believe (and I could be wrong) that the likes of Stan Lee were simply introducing as many animal-themed opponents as possible.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |