TheBoost said:
skyjedi2005 said:
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.

Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.

When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.

Should you be faithful to the original 12 page origin story? Or the years he was a hipster college student with two hot girlfriends, often considered some of the best years? Why not get his origin out of the way ASAP, and then be faithful to the years he was married to supermodel Mary Jane, my personal favorite years? Or the 'Ultimate Spider-Man' retellings, or the "Lost Years" re-tellings, or one of fifty other retelings of his origin? Would a almost exact recreation of the story where he fought Man-Wolf, the lycanthropic astronaut, be better than an adapted version of the Green Goblin saga?

I don't think that's an excuse for not being faithful. You can zero in on the best material or the best-known or most archetypical stuff and be faithful to that. The films made the characters into totally different people from what they were in the comics and reduced the story to a load of crap. Peter Parker in the comics never came off like a self-satisfied creepy twerp who probably stalks little girls, but that's how he was played in the films.

C3PX said:

Spider-Man 3 was downright awful.

I can agree with that.

And with Gwen Stacy in 3! Why?

The Gwen Stacy thing wasn't done very well.