logo Sign In

How could Vader not see Luke there???!!! — Page 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

I hate the 2004 abomination of a set its plain awful.  Sith should not have pink lightsabers unless that was Lucas deliberate creative decision.  And Who am i to argue with Lucas he knows the best for Star Wars right?

Red is obviously supposed to suggest Evil and Satanic.  Or blood according to George.

But since its a deliberate creative decision might as well go back and make Darth Maul pink as well.

Unless Lowry admits to fucking the movies up with their auto clean up algorithm which is highly unlikely.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link

or it was not important to the films plot.

It plays a major part in the film's plot. It's the only thing that truly distinguishes Jedi Anakin from Darth Vader. He started killing Jedi. We know the entire film centers around the character's turn.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

I thought that was killing Younglings according to George.

But that of course flies in the face of the fact that Anakin is an asshole in Episodes II and III and had no problem killing sand person kiddies in episode II. Of and unarmed females too.  tough guy that anakin.

The novelization does make a distinction though that his first murder is dooku, in episode II he was just mad because they tortured his mom to death.   He said they were like animals and he slaughtered them like animals.

That it was not premeditated and he just lost his cool it was just manslaughter,lol.

Anyways jedi are above the law and don't answer to the senate anyway and since they have their own distinction of right and wrong they are to do whatever they want regular people need not be concerned.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

What Lucas quote are you referring to?

But that of course flies in the face of the fact that Anakin is an asshole in Episodes II and III and had no problem killing sand person kiddies in episode II. Of and unarmed females too.  tough guy that anakin.

That's my point, actually. He's killed women and children before, and the only difference after the turn is he's turned on the Jedi.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
Post link
Janskeet said:

I really hope Adywan does something about this. I know it is something that crosses everyone's mind when they watch this.

 

Lol. Never bothered me in the slightest or ever even so much as crossed my mind before. Luke was really wailing on the old bastard, takes a lot of strength to block heavy blows like that. Luke was drawing from the darkside and being strengthened by it, so it is very reasonable that he'd be able to bring Vader down like that.

 

@ Gaffer: That was an incredibly insensitive thing to say! For all you know the color pink very well could have killed sky's father. Besides, it is a very offensive color. Extremely bright, draws attention to itself, doesn't really go with anything. Only time it occurs in nature is on flowers and various animal and people parts, and as far as I am concerned, those places are wear it belongs! Most defintately not on Sith Lords lightsabers!

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

The only film in which Anakin is shown as kind and unselfish is Episode I.  Why did Lucas forget to show Anakins finer points in II and III.  Or was it just that padme falls in love with a bad boy type of thing?

If that is the case then it is way too lame and ruins the oot.  The prequels seriously suck if you try to use them as what leads up to the originals. Or Maybe the jedi where always assholes and liars and Luke should just have joined the sith.

Anakin fell from Grace and was seduced by the power of the darkside.  What fall there was no grace to fall from, what power of the darkside it probably was just a lie by palpatine that the sith could prevent death.

Revenge of the Sith shows that the jedi and the sith are pretty much one and the same.  There is no black and white or right and wrong its all grey and morally relative. The jedi follow absolutes just like the sith. 

The bush reference with if your not with me then your my enemy was laughable.

 

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

I can see a woman falling in love with an evil tyrant who commits mass murder. He's powerful, and women love to bask in a cock's power.

The real failing is that women don't like men who bitch and complain. Anakin does it all the time. He can't even pull off a "boyish charm" type of playful bitching, because his bitching is real and sounds like it's coming from a toddler.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Yeah but it goes completely against the Character of Leia's mother than Lucas built up through the films.

She would never be with someone like that obviously Lucas does character assassination on Padme who was a strong character in episodes I and II and in III she is barefoot and pregnant and stands there.  I find it appaling.  Well at least in the deleted scenes she founds the rebellion. although that never happened according to the force unleashed.

Padme was a Queen of Naboo.  Who fought to free her people from the trade federation.  She is a moral person.  She became a senator to do good.  How could she overlook and forgive Anakin's murderous ways unless she is a bad person too.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link

Yeah but it goes completely against the Character of Leia's mother than Lucas built up through the films.

"What do you mean?"

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

She was supposed to be the prototype for Princess Leia's character.

But i don't see her falling in Love with Han Solo for being a mass murderor or a toady to the main bad guy.

Seems like it happens because the script says so.

Maybe a wizard put a spell over her,lol.

Then again Anakin is a dumbass that believes in a bloodless and beneficent dictatorship.  Thanks Lucas way to ruin star wars.

Lucas said Padme is supposed to be a role model for liittle girls.  As far as i can remember.   I hope all those little girls out there don't marry mass muderors,lol.

Anakin justifies the evil he does because he is a sociopath.  Read the novel dark lord he actually thinks its Obi Wan and Padme's fault for not joining him in his rightious cause.

Then again he did tell Padme to Join him and help him overthrow the emporor.  He also tells Luke in Empire strikes back " Join Me and i will complete your training. With Our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy"

He thinks the rebels are wrong and are lawless traitors of course.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

I think it was too vague (like Leia's memories) to draw any conclusions about her mother's overall personality. Beautiful, kind, sad. Pretty general stuff.

I always thought it was Bail Organa who likely passed on the firey, assertive, militant personality onto Leia.

And I agree. Padme as a role model? I'd much rather see a lot of Leia types running around in today's society.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
C3PX said:

Having been a fan of the original Amazing Spider-Man comics for as long as I can remember, I felt the first film was incredible true to the originals, with the exception of Mary Jane, which felt like a fair enough plot convienence to me.

It is a comic book movie, how "deep" do you really need it to be? It is no more shallow than the source material. Also, it was made by someone who had a great respect for the source material (unlike the makers of most comic book movies), and that is really all I could ask for in a comic book movie. My feelings are that the first and second Spider-Man flicks are ideal comic book movies. If the prequels were half as good as Spidey 1 & 2, I would have been thrilled. But to each their own.

Just out of curiosity, what movies do you like?

 

And yes Mielr, B-movies were low budget. There was a misunderstanding on the part the OP, but it has since been cleared up.

 

 

Having been a fan of the original Amazing Spider-Man comics for as long as I can remember, I felt the first film was incredible true to the originals

Sounds like you were watching a different film than me, because what I saw wasn't true to it.

It is a comic book movie, how "deep" do you really need it to be?

That's the attitude I oppose. That's the attitude some of these filmmakers seem to have. If these comics didn't at least have some emotional depth than they wouldn't be worth making into films. And if the comics have some emotional depth then the films should have some. Just because they're basing a movie on a comic book doesn't license directors to chuck all depth out the window.

 It is no more shallow than the source material.

It's significantly more shallow. The Spider Man movies have zero emotional depth. The comics had heart, the films just have a sunny emptiness.

The Spider Man comics managed to fit a certain feeling of the real world into their unreal world, while the films live in a world that feels totally unreal. The central character has some depth in the comics and he's relatable, whereas in the film he's a prissy glassy-eyed jerk-off who fails to feel like he matters. The Spider Man films live in a world that is overly sunny, despite whatever threatening things that may happen. The sense of darkness and threat that I found in so many Spider Man comics is missing. Oh the films can throw in some villains who can be scary and violent to an extent, and bad things can happen, but the way they do it, it doesn't go far emotionally. The characters in the comics could be engaging and interesting. Too many of the characters in the movie fail to make a connection, most notably the main character. Not to mention the characters don't feel like themselves. Peter Parker comes off more like maximum wuss Andrew from Buffy than like the character in the comics, and he comes off so terribly self-satisfied too. James Franco is a good actor, but he's not Harry. Kirsten Dunst is no more Mary Jane than she is Darth Vader. I liked their Doc Ock, but the film he was in was crap. Eddie Brock wasn't Eddie Brock at all (though that actor wouldn't have been too bad as Parker, which goes to show how inappropriate he was for Brock). They nearly got Jake Gyllenhaal to play Parker in the second film, which would have been a vast improvement.

Also, it was made by someone who had a great respect for the source material

Funny way to show respect.

As you can gather, I REALLY didn't like those movies. Spider Man in the comics was a hero I could relate to and his world felt like it mattered. I couldn't relate to the twerp they made the main character into in the films and his world felt totally fake.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?

Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?

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

What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.

I thought the first 2 films were good films and the third was a bit dissjointed and needed to be edited better.  One two many villains and subplots in the movie. 

Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek.  I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable.  This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.

Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?

I do agree with one thing though the guy from the seventies show as venom was an absolute joke.

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.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link

janskeet

At the end of the fight, Vader just falls down and grabs on to the railing for no apparent reason.

He lost his balance and grabbed onto the railing. ;)

Author
Time
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?

...

I thought the first 2 films were good films and the third was a bit dissjointed and needed to be edited better.  One two many villains and subplots in the movie. 

Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek.  I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable.  This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.

Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?

 

The organic web was the one complaint I had about the movies. It was kind of weird the webs would come out of his wrists. I always liked the idea of Peter inventing the webshooters, and that Peter had to becareful not to run out of web cartridges. The comics often show what a genius Peter Parker is, and that was something that was lost in the movies. 

Spider-Man is actually older in the movies than he was in the original comics, he was fifteen when he first became Spider-Man, in the film Peter is a High School Senior. 

Spider-Man 3 was downright awful. Not only is it disjointed, but it is truely a mess in every way. Not sure they could have made it any worse if they tried. Venom was very poorly done, and they really went out of their way to include him in the movie. Three could have been a great film, but they really blew it on this one.

And with Gwen Stacy in 3! Why? Why decide to leave her out of the story at the beginning and skip right over to Mary Jane, then force her back into the story in an akward way two films later. It would be like making a new series of Superman movies, and skipping right onto having Lois Lane be Clark Kent's love interest from high school, then in the third film somehow throwing Launa Lang into the picture. 

If they had known there would be three films from the beginning, an interesting way to include both Mary Jane and Gwen would have been to have them both in the movie from the beginning. With Gwen being the girl Peter was in love with, and MJ being Peter's aunt's friend's daughter (just like in the comics). Mary Jane could just be Peter's close friend but not love interest, while Gwen plays essentially the same role Mary Jane did in the film. In the second film, he could hit some rocky ground with Gwen, and start to grow feelings for MJ. Then they could have the Goblin drop Gwen and have her die towards the end of the film. The third film could deal with Pete's grief, and by the end of it he and Mary Jane could be together. Still wouldn't have been a spot on with the comics, but it would have been a fair adaption of the early Peter Parker love life IMHO.

 

To shift back on topic so I don't feel so guilty about derailing this thread,

So, yeah, why didn't Vader see Luke there anyway?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
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?

And I persoanlly thought Spiderman 1 and 2 both had a great deal of depth.

(It seems unfair to label accomplished directors with varied carreers 'b-movie horror directors' on the basis of their first films. On that same line, since Lucas made Star Wars early in his career, he's still a Great Director.)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?

Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?

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

What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.

I thought the first 2 films were good films and the third was a bit dissjointed and needed to be edited better.  One two many villains and subplots in the movie. 

Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek.  I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable.  This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.

Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?

I do agree with one thing though the guy from the seventies show as venom was an absolute joke.

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.

They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?

I don't think being truer to the comics character would have made him any less relatable to teens and ostracized kids. I think the character as he was in the comics was perfectly relatable and would have worked fine for those people. There was no need to warp the character. I think if they were going to change the nature of the character so much they shouldn't have been making a film of the material. They should have got their own original material with their own character instead and not fucked with a character who'd been developed for 4 decades and had lot of fans.

Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?

I didn't have a problem with that.

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

You don't need to change everything just because it's in a new medium. A new medium does sometimes require some changes, but directors of these kinds of films often take way too many liberties. I figure if they're not going to base it on the material properly then they shouldn't be making a film of the material. They should go get their own original material to make a film of, rather than fucking up somebody else's story. It being an adaption didn't require shallowness, dumbness, bad casting or dropping so much of the feel of the story.

Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek.  I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable.  This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.

The comic book character was a flawed guy with issues and love troubles, but he was a whole hell of a lot more relatable than Tobey's version. They didn't have to get an actor to do him like a self-satisfied creepy little twerp. The comic character was a geek but not since very early on in the comics (in rather weaker stories) was a he a total dweeb, and I don't think it improves the story to make him one. I didn't find Tobey's version especially believable. For one thing, I found him not remotely believable as any sort of hero. Spider Man in the comics was a geek and not a big muscle bound guy, but he had a heroic fighting spirit. I just didn't get that off Tobey's version at all. There was no strength to Tobey's version. Tobey's version was a wimp through and through. And he didn't bring the character to life properly for me at all, he just annoyed the fucking hell out of me.

To me Tobey's Peter Parker is in exactly the same class as turning Anakin into Hayden Christensen.

Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?

I didn't have huge issues over the Gwen Stacy thing apart from bad casting for the role.

What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.

I wasn't terribly impressed with the cgi version of Spider Man, but that wasn't one of my biggest issues with the films.

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.

Nope, I'm not a Raimi fan. I had issues with the casting in LOTR, the rewriting of Faramir and the exclusion of certain Saruman stuff, but the LOTR films were so very well done in many ways. There was much brilliance there, totally unlike the Spider Man films.

 

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
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.

Author
Time
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:
TheBoost said:  

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

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. 

What's the single best known most archtypal momen in SpiderMan? When he realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. A self satisfied creepy twerp is EXACTLY who Peter Parker was. That's the entire point of his character. He's a loser, and the moment he gets some power he becomes an jerk (letting the robber go) and spends the rest of his life regretting it. A cool, charming, humble, or pleasent Peter would have missed the point.

 

Author
Time
Post link

I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.

Peter changes quite a lot in the comics, depending on who is writing him. To me, the characters in the film come off very much like they were in The Amazing Spider-Man volume one era.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
TheBoost said:  

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

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. 

What's the single best known most archtypal momen in SpiderMan? When he realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. A self satisfied creepy twerp is EXACTLY who Peter Parker was. That's the entire point of his character. He's a loser, and the moment he gets some power he becomes an jerk (letting the robber go) and spends the rest of his life regretting it. A cool, charming, humble, or pleasent Peter would have missed the point.

 

He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.

And no WAY is being a self-satisfied twerp the whole point of the character. It was the point of one brief stage in his development. Then he moved past that to something very different. He acted like an idiot because he was a downtrodden teenager who suddenly got a lot of power. But he quickly learned his lesson and changed. He wasn't a self-satisfied twerp by nature. The movie version was. Different character.

 

C3PX said:

I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.

Peter changes quite a lot in the comics, depending on who is writing him. To me, the characters in the film come off very much like they were in The Amazing Spider-Man volume one era.

The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.

That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth (after all, film is a medium that can go farther than comics -why not use that potential to make the most out of the comic book material?). Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.

Author
Time
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:

He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.

 

C3PX said:

I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.

The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.

That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth. Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.

 

 I'm really just a bit wierded out by your Spider-Man/pedophilia connection. What I'm hearing from you is you just didn't like the performance of Toby Maguire. But how do you deny that he DOES grow into the hero he is in the comics when he... I don't know... becomes a hero, saves the day, and sacrifices his chance at love with MJ because he understands that WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY which is the driving center of the character for the 40+ years he's been published.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Yeah, where does this whole pedophile thing come from? I don't see it by a long shot. Pinching little girl's bottoms? Where did anything in the film happen to even suggest that in the slightest? I really fail to see anything creepy or self satisfying in the character in the movie. Care to give a few examples of what makes him seem like a self satisfied punk who likes small girls?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.

 

C3PX said:

I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.

The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.

That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth. Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.

 

 I'm really just a bit wierded out by your Spider-Man/pedophilia connection. What I'm hearing from you is you just didn't like the performance of Toby Maguire. But how do you deny that he DOES grow into the hero he is in the comics when he... I don't know... becomes a hero, saves the day, and sacrifices his chance at love with MJ because he understands that WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY which is the driving center of the character for the 40+ years he's been published.

The movie character may grow into a hero in the films, but he's never remotely convincing as a hero and he continues to come off like a self-satisfied creepy guy.

C3PX said:

Yeah, where does this whole pedophile thing come from? I don't see it by a long shot. Pinching little girl's bottoms? Where did anything in the film happen to even suggest that in the slightest? I really fail to see anything creepy or self satisfying in the character in the movie. Care to give a few examples of what makes him seem like a self satisfied punk who likes small girls?

It's not in the story of the film. It's in the performance. The character is played as this creepy self-satisfied guy. Really off-putting.

 

Author
Time
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

I hate the 2004 abomination of a set its plain awful.  Sith should not have pink lightsabers unless that was Lucas deliberate creative decision.  And Who am i to argue with Lucas he knows the best for Star Wars right?

Red is obviously supposed to suggest Evil and Satanic.  Or blood according to George.

But since its a deliberate creative decision might as well go back and make Darth Maul pink as well.

Unless Lowry admits to fucking the movies up with their auto clean up algorithm which is highly unlikely.

I like it that red was determined as the offical color that represents the Republican Party and blue represents the Democratic Party. Just like in Star Wars, good fighting against evil.