Have they altered Spider-Man too much in the comic to movie transition.
April 9, 2007 1:08am CST
Personally, I don't think so: They stayed pretty faithful to the comics on this count. I only noticed a few differences from comic-to-movie: First, I'm pretty sure- not sure, sure, but pretty sure- that Mary Jane Watson wasn't his next-door neighbor since second grade. I'm pretty sure that Aunt May's friend, Anna, had a niece named Mary Jane coming into town. That's when Peter met her. Second, I'm pretty sure that the wrestling ring robber didn't shoot Uncle Ben until some time after the wrestling match- I was under the impression that the same guy tried to break into their house while Peter was out, met with resistance, and shot Uncle Ben. Also, I thought that the field trip was to Norman Osborne's company, and that the class was watching a demonstration of a radioactive ray. Then, a spider lowered itself (unplanned) into the beam and bit Peter. Other than those minor nitpicks of a comics nut, I think that they left Spider-Man pretty pure. What do you think? Did they stay mostly faithful and true to the comics, like they should, or did they make it like Eragon and Cheaper By The Dozen? And by that I mean, did they take the original material (in this case, the book), rip it up, urinate on it, boil it, cut it up, pour the pieces in mud and other foul substances, stomp on the pieces, chew it up, can it, uncan it, process it, bury it in soft peat for three months, can it again, repeat the same process with skunk spray, dead fish, and old gym socks thrown in, and then resell it as a McDonalds hamburger? What do you think?
• United States
10 Apr 07
Ahh, another comics fan! How nice! Oddly, I share the same opinion as you on basically all counts, except I caught something else: Wasn't the wrestler named Crusher Hogan? Anyway, no, I think that they stayed as true as they could to the comics, without going overboard on time. I wish the same could be said for all literature-film adaptations.