![]() |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
one thing that i forgot to mention..and this doesn't matter for the film but to me it kinda does. Don't like that Connors is proactively a bad guy. Liked him when he wasn't.
It isn't that people don't like conspiracy. It's just that it hits cliche fast. Not just a conspiracy...but a conspiracy w/ his parents. oh...and somehow he becomes Spidey from OsCorp where your parents worked? yeah..it gets jumbled up fast. Hopefully that's not a shit element in the film. minor note: I do enjoy the color palette they got going on there. The shots w/ Spidey webbing along look tons better than Raimi's. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
I commented about that as well. Is Connors being actively a bad guy something from Ultimate Spider-Man, a retconn in the current Spidey comics, or just something totally made up for the movie? I prefer Connors as a tragic figure.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
I don't see anything that indicates Connors is a bad guy. Its a Jekyll and Hyde situation. When he turns into the Lizard, the Lizard persona takes over completely and he doesn't remember anything of Connors. Lizard is evil. Connors is not.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11107453)
It isn't that people don't like conspiracy. It's just that it hits cliche fast. Not just a conspiracy...but a conspiracy w/ his parents. oh...and somehow he becomes Spidey from OsCorp where your parents worked? yeah..it gets jumbled up fast. Hopefully that's not a shit element in the film.
Even in Ultimate Marvel, it was a conspiracy. His parents worked with Eddie Brock's parents of all people and created the Venom suit. They also worked with Nick Fury and Bruce Banner to create a supersoldier formula that backfired and turned Banner into the Hulk. Conspiracy is nothing new with the Parkers. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Yeah but being part of SHIELD was totally uninvolved w/ his creation. that was fine, I guess I dunno..never read the story.
And in the Ultimate universe it just seemed to click better w/ everything. It seemed like a progression that made since w/ it's interconnectivity |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
(Post 11107470)
I don't see anything that indicates Connors is a bad guy. Its a Jekyll and Hyde situation. When he turns into the Lizard, the Lizard persona takes over completely and he doesn't remember anything of Connors. Lizard is evil. Connors is not.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11107512)
Hated that supposedly the tentacles for Doc Ock influenced him. Otherwise..loved Molina as doc Ock.
Spoiler:
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
In the trailer Connors gives off a "I'm bad even before I started taking the formula" vibe. Perhaps it's the performance and how the trailer was cut more than the writing. However, he doesn't seem like a guy who was tragically turned into a monster.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
yeah he kinda looks pedophilysh in the trailer...
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by devilshalo
(Post 11107537)
Spoiler:
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11107624)
...it doesn't make sense does it?
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Can you uh..pm me too?:)
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by devilshalo
(Post 11107677)
I'll pm you.
Originally Posted by bluetoast
(Post 11107704)
Can you uh..pm me too?:)
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
What's all this pm'ing about?
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Dating.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Oh that figures.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
(Post 11107398)
I don't get what the problem is. Is it really so hard to believe that a huge corporation like OsCorp is doing top secret projects they don't want the public to know about. Its certainly more believable than getting bitten by a radioactive spider and getting the powers of a spider. Its also a heck of a lot better than Richard and Mary's comic book origin where they were secretly CIA spies killed by Red Skull.
Peter isn't supposed to be a big muscular guy. He is a skinny nerd. Flash always called him "Puny" Parker for a reason. Looks pretty muscular there. I never regularly read Spider-Man but he's pretty ripped in a lot of incarnations. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
he basically has Bruce Lee frame, thin but with a lot of mussels
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by nando820
(Post 11108039)
he basically has Bruce Lee frame, thin but with a lot of mussels
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by Draven
It needlessly complicates a story that's complicated enough. I'd rather the parents just be normal people.
Its not like the story is all that complicated. In the movie, they were working for OsCorp and something bad happens and they get killed.
Originally Posted by Draven
Where are we getting "Peter is thin" as the end-all-be-all?
Muscles don't mean you have to be a big Arnold Schwarzenegger type of guy. Like a previous poster said, look at Bruce Lee. He was a very small guy. Wearing a lot of clothes, it would be hard to tell that Bruce Lee was actually very muscular under it all. Peter Parker is like Bruce Lee, not like Arnold. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 11108069)
Where are we getting "Peter is thin" as the end-all-be-all? Sure, there are versions of Peter that are thin. There are versions (like the original) that are quite muscular. I don't know why this movie had to go with a stick-thin waif version.
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
|
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
(Post 11108111)
Except that his parents have never been normal people. Never. I explained in another post, how they were originally CIA spies and even in the Ultimate universe they were working for SHIELD and Nick Fury to recreate the supersoldier formula.
Its not like the story is all that complicated. In the movie, they were working for OsCorp and something bad happens and they get killed. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Yeah but Ultimate did have his parents involved with Eddie Brock's parents, which was also pretty strange at the time.
Edit: Forgot to add that Peter's dad was also working on a formula that Peter completed, which just happened to be the webbing. Now that was a pretty out there coincidence. |
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
Originally Posted by TallGuyMe
(Post 11108166)
I don't like that they are merging Captain Stacy and JJJ's characters. They were nothing alike in the comics. Plus, JK Simmons was the best part of the Raimi trilogy and I was really hoping they would get him back for the new movie.
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11108220)
....It unneedlessly clutters a simple but effective origin that's been well. The add on and what not to his parents late on in the 616 was fine. Needless to overrall nature...but fine. Ultimates didn't mess w/ the origin by connecting it to the parents.
Ultimates messed with the origin bigtime. Did you ever read the Ultimate origins miniseries? Basically all the superheroes were interconnected. Peter's parents were working at SHIELD with Bruce Banner and Hank Pym to recreate the supersoldier formula and it backfired and resulted in the "birth of the superhero" era. Everything came from that. Even the mutant DNA strain was a result of that failure. Mutants weren't a naturally evolving DNA like in 616, but rather they were man-made. Peter being bitten by a spider came from that as well. Norman Osborn and Otto Octavius (Doctor Octopus) were also working to recreate the supersoldier formula by using spider test subjects and one of them bit Peter. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.