GameBanshee Forums

This may contain spoilers to the film Spiderman, i assume most people know the story anyway.

The point of this discussion (assuming it becomes one) revolves around the central creation of Peter Parker from normal geek to Superhero. He couldn't get the girl as a geek and i was weak and picked on. Then however once he becomes a super hero everything works out for him, his dreams start to become reality

My main problem with this transformation is it's suggestion. To me it suggests that one can't be happy as normal Joe and wont fulfill one's dreams unless they become some form of uber-being. At it's baser level it suggests that you would be better endeavouring to get bitten by a bug than endeavouring through your academia and becoming someone is society.

I know to the mature adult this seems childish but to the impressionable mind of the age group the film is aimed at it might have more of an effect.

Well said, I thought that the film was very exploitative in that way, almost trying to crush the hopes of many kids by suggesting that they can't get anywhere in life if they're geeky, except for if some freak accident happens to them. An even more shocking thought is that older children who know that the radioactive/mutant spider thing isn't real and would never happen could see that, an impossibility, as their only hope. What are we doing to our children by suggesting that there is nothing they can do? I also thought that the film was cheesy in the extreme, but that belongs in another thread.

Definite spoilers ahead...



There is however the fact that even when he becomes the hero, he doesn't get the girl - even though I was practically shouting at the screen when he walked away, and I don't think it was the right choice that may be Hollywood's way of trying to balance out the rest of the story - and you have to remember that it is the same story as told in the comics, and in many other movies/books - not just a one-off occurence.

Originally posted by Kameleon
There is however the fact that even when he becomes the hero, he doesn't get the girl - even though I was practically shouting at the screen when he walked away, and I don't think it was the right choice that may be Hollywood's way of trying to balance out the rest of the story - and you have to remember that it is the same story as told in the comics, and in many other movies/books - not just a one-off occurence.

SPOILERS

In the end he will probably lose more again, just as he does in the cartoon and comics. It just doesn't quite wash though, if Hollywood really wanted to prove a point MJ would have died in the fall, it would have been a lot more impressive to kill that singular person so that he can save the little kids, even that scene suggests that if you make one choice then you are not pushing enough and you should have chosen both. Also the Green Goblin worked his way up as a scientist and worked hard only to go mad, even that is somewhat contrary.

I wonder if the writers even saw what they were doing.

I was using Spiderman as a random example, i could have based it on any number of films but since it broke box office records it seemed like the most logical.

Peter Parker's dreams are not fulfilled. In fact, his life is made more complicated. In the trailer, he describes his dual life as Spider-Man as a "curse", in keeping with the theme "with great power comes great responsibility". He's not happy because as a result of his accident; he's estranged from the girl of his dreams (because she'll never understand him), he kills his best friend's father and his beloved Aunt May is almost slain by the Green Goblin.

I think the movie skewed the Peter Parker character a little bit to make him seem more geeky than he needed to be. In the comic books, for example, Peter is just a normal kid. To the best of my knowledge, he never wore glasses and he wasn't so maladjusted that even the bus driver piled on.

It is my opinion that the media stereotypes and to an extent romanticises geeky kids; they always have bad hair and wear glasses but it seems that some brainy-type is always there to save the day (ie-Velma). However, in the process of becoming the hero, they usually undergo a makeover; often not as drastic as turning into Spider-Man, but if you look at the girl in The Princess Diaries, there is a remarkable difference in her appearance from the beginning of the movie to the end. It seems to me that the message is that if you take a smart, geeky-looking kid to the Gap and buy them a nice car, they will become cool and save the world, and to me, that's not positive.

I see it more like escapism than anything.
The kids see a figure, average joe become somebody.
There are many stories in real life very similar to this.
However it doesnt happen due to some freak accident.

Kids in the US seem to have a very tough life.
With all the shootings, suicides etc, being a kid is not an easy thing.
Spiderman is a way for many kids to escape and be something they arent.
I agree that it is not good.
Rather it is more like showing kids that you can solve all your problems only if you are a superhero or something.
As an average person, you are pretty much stuck where you are, and will have a dismal time solving your problems.

Also a point i think someone made here.
People come to the movies, to see the good guy get it all.
How many of the people who saw the movie would have been pissed if NJ dies?
I know out of my friends many would say that part sucked.
In the movies, the good guy always has to win and even get the girl.
That is why i loved the ending when he walked away.
It was the typical scene.
Out of my friends around 10 said he should have accepted her offer.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Peter Parker's dreams are not fulfilled. In fact, his life is made more complicated. In the trailer, he describes his dual life as Spider-Man as a "curse", in keeping with the theme "with great power comes great responsibility". He's not happy because as a result of his accident; he's estranged from the girl of his dreams (because she'll never understand him), he kills his best friend's father and his beloved Aunt May is almost slain by the Green Goblin.

However his photographic career does begin to suceed, does it not? That was one of his dreams that came to fruition.

It seems to me that the message is that if you take a smart, geeky-looking kid to the Gap and buy them a nice car, they will become cool and save the world, and to me, that's not positive.

I agree.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Peter Parker's dreams are not fulfilled. In fact, his life is made more complicated. In the trailer, he describes his dual life as Spider-Man as a "curse", in keeping with the theme "with great power comes great responsibility". He's not happy because as a result of his accident; he's estranged from the girl of his dreams (because she'll never understand him), he kills his best friend's father and his beloved Aunt May is almost slain by the Green Goblin.

If I had heard that "with great power comes great responsibility" thing one more time, Spiderman would have been the first movie I have ever walked out of. Sure, he kills his mate's father, but he has turned evil and in the final fight he proves he cannot be trusted at all. And yes, his aunt is almost killed by the Green Goblin. Stress almost. If she was killed, and he managed to save only the children in the bus and not Mary-Jane, then I would be able to stomach all this "life as a super-hero ain't all it's cracked up to be" stuff. But then the film would probably have earned a 15 rating (or whatever the US equivalent is) - I think that this should have happened anyway, but the "happy" ending was probably one of the things that got the violence past the censors.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
However his photographic career does begin to suceed, does it not? That was one of his dreams that came to fruition.

I've always been under the impression that Peter's photography is more of a hobby and a means to pay the bills than it is his dream vocation. It happens that he's good at it, but he's a far better scientist (in the comics, he develops the web formula on his own, not as a side effect of the spider bite) than photographer.

And if I were faced with the choice of having a successful job as a freelance news photographer and not getting the girl (Kristen Dunst--yummy!; I'm going to do a rain dance before the opening of the next movie) and killing my best friend's dad, I'm giving up photography.

It is my opinion that the media stereotypes and to an extent romanticises geeky kids; they always have bad hair and wear glasses but it seems that some brainy-type is always there to save the day (ie-Velma). However, in the process of becoming the hero, they usually undergo a makeover; often not as drastic as turning into Spider-Man, but if you look at the girl in The Princess Diaries, there is a remarkable difference in her appearance from the beginning of the movie to the end. It seems to me that the message is that if you take a smart, geeky-looking kid to the Gap and buy them a nice car, they will become cool and save the world, and to me, that's not positive.

I wrote something very similar to @HLD's comments about a year ago on a server list--while referring to one of the Andy Hardy films, starring a young Mickey Rooney. My point at the time was that opera is a "mother-in-law" story, an easy way to get a laugh for advertisers who perpetuate the view of its being for snooty twits; and that if you want opera to become a hot property, it has to develop enough merchandise-ability so that some big company throws a few million at some high talent advertising firm.

Example: in one of the enormously popular Andy Hardy films of the late 30's/early 40's (the "average" hometown boy growing up), there's a girl who spends all her time acting in an affected, learned fashion, reading books and hanging out by herself. Of course, she wears glasses. By the end of the film, after having spent time going out with a boyfriend, she's given up the books, and lo and behold--she no longer needs glasses. The point is, of course, that glasses back at that time were viewed as a symbol of being an "egghead," a "drip," a person who was anti-social, overly intelligent, and an object of fun. (And no, there were no contacts back then.)

This view of eyeglasses was typical at that time, and you can see it elsewhere, too, a variety of more or less entertaining cultural artifacts. But thirty years or so later, some fashion designers casting about for new products to make money from recognized the potential of selling designer glasses. Huge doses of money were pumped into advertising campaigns that showed models and movie stars wearing glasses. The message is an obvious codicil to HLD's: you'll be cool when you buy and wear what we tell you is cool, and not before. Hollywood hasn't changed. Mother-in-law jokes are still used to reinforce plenty of messages; they've just changed the wrappings.