Spider-Man 2 (2004) Comic Influences

[thecolorsblend]

Failure is one of the central themes in Spider-Man 2. All three of Raimi's movies deal with the idea of responsibility in the face of trying circumstances. Spider-Man 1 is about dealing with power. Spider-Man 2 is about dealing with failure. Spider-Man 3 is about dealing with success. All three things can be equally corrosive to the human soul if they're handled in an irresponsible manner. Peter has to learn how to deal with these experiences in order to transition from the boy he is at the beginning of the first film...

I've been criticized for making similar observations. I viewed Peter as rather dismissive of MJ's troubles in SM3. He never really listened to her. Things were going pretty well in Peter's world and he didn't seem to have much time for MJ and her drama.

One could argue that MJ treated Peter in a similar way in SM2. But I think the difference there is that Peter wasn't giving MJ any real evidence that he wasn't a total screw up. In SM3, they've both laid all their cards on the table and Peter simply has less of an excuse.

It kind of makes it understandable that MJ got close to Harry before pulling back in regret. Harry was offering her a support system that Peter simply wasn't at the time.

Far from being a criticism, I really appreciate the mature fashion in which these relationships are developed. MJ and Peter take turns looking like jerks to the audience and it really shows a lot of faith on Raimi's part that he trusted viewers to not eventually completely turn on the characters.

And honestly, that's really why I think we might've dodged a bullet with Raimi leaving the franchise. A new trilogy would've needed to tell its own story and it's open to debate how much character development was left in the tank for Peter and MJ. Then again, it's only implied that they came back to each other. Maybe there were new directions to go in. But I enjoy the ambiguous note that SM3 ends on. You can view the dance as a new beginning for the couple... or you can view it as each of them closing the door on the other in a tender, sensitive way.

Still, I don't see what more could be said with those iterations of the characters that's truly groundbreaking. Maybe it really was time for a reboot.

[Silver Nemesis]

It's really a shame, but the ending to SM3 does indeed feel like a rightful conclusion to the entire series, and I agree that it might have actually worked out for the better for the series to end this way. One thing I like about SM3's ending, is how much it's in contrast to the previous two films endings. Rather than continue on with the theme of a grand finale with Spider-Man swinging around New York, SM3's ending is alot more tender and solemn. Right down to Mary Jane's nightclub singing, "I'm thru with Love", to Peter arriving, holding his hand out, and non-verbally asking MJ for a slow dance, to them slow dancing closely together with the final closeup of Peter's face evoking strong, but quiet emotions. If I had to interpret them, I would say that they are feelings of euphoria, devotion and feeling at peace he only gets when he's with MJ. About the best comparison, in my mind, I could make, is the ending of the original 1976 Rocky with Adrian telling Rocky she loves him, with Rocky's non verbal response being that of quiet, but pure jubilation.

The Rocky comparison is a good one. That scene was definitely a solemn note to end the trilogy on, but it also felt appropriate. Notice that SM3 is also the only movie in the trilogy not to feature a variation of the sixties TV theme over the end credits. I know at the time it wasn't intended to be the final entry in the series, but it works well as one. It's the end of the Green Goblin saga that began in the first film. A fourth movie would have marked the beginning of a totally new saga.

I've just been reading up on the deleted scenes from Spider-Man 3, and it sounds like this is another one of those films that would seriously benefit from an extended cut. Many of the problems with the third act could be fixed using deleted footage. There are numerous fan edits out there, as well as an authorised Editor's Cut that was quietly released in 2017. I haven't seen the Editor's Cut yet, but I gather that it still omits many of the deleted scenes and is streamlined to the extent of being 2 minutes shorter than the theatrical cut. I suppose that's one way to go, but I'd prefer to see an extended version with the missing scenes restored. I won't list all the deleted scenes here, but I will just highlight a few that would help improve the movie's third act.

Instead of the awkward first meeting between Venom and Sandman, there was originally a different sequence of events. Firstly there was this scene, where Marko takes on the form of a sandcastle so he can see his daughter in a park.

Following this there was to be another scene in the park where Eddie tracks down Sandman using his new Venom senses and tells him that his daughter can be cured provided he can raise the money for the treatment. Eddie then offers to front the cash if Marko will help him kill Spider-Man.

This would have made it clear that Marko didn't actually want to kill Spider-Man but was only doing so to help his daughter, which is more consistent with his motivation throughout the first half of the film. By contrast, the theatrical cut makes Sandman look like a vengeful killer and doesn't offer any explanation for why he suddenly relents during the final battle. So why does he relent?

Well, after Marko first becomes Sandman he was meant to visit a character named Dr Wallace, played by Adrian Lester. Wallace was then meant to show up during the finale, having collected Marko's wife and daughter from their home, and persuade Captain Stacy to let them on to the construction site. The wife and daughter would have gone up in a lift and arrived just in time to stop Marko from killing Spider-Man.

They tell Marko that his daughter's condition is incurable and beg him to stop. There would then follow a conversation between Sandman and Spider-Man where Marko reveals what happened with Ben and Peter forgives him. They have a similar conversation in the theatrical cut, but this one would have happened earlier in the finale and in a different location, with Marko's family present. So Sandman definitely got short changed in the theatrical cut.

Eddie and Gwen also had some extra scenes. There was one where Eddie goes to see Gwen at her house after losing his job and she dumps him. Then there was a scene of him wandering the streets despondently before ending up in the church. Gwen and Captain Stacy were both meant to be present during the finale, and Gwen would have had a larger presence at Harry's funeral. It sounds like her subplot would have received some closure in the final act. Instead the theatrical cut has her abruptly vanish after the jazz club scene only to reappear very briefly at the funeral.

Then there's the conversation between Harry and the butler. Apparently this was originally intended to be a hallucination and there would have been at least one earlier scene to foreshadow this. So the idea was that the butler wasn't really there, but rather was a manifestation of Harry's conscience trying to make him confront the truth about his father. Kind of like Matt hallucinating about Fisk in Daredevil season 3. There was also an alternate scene of Peter asking Harry to help him save M.J., as well as an earlier scene where M.J. visits Harry and asks him to forgive Peter before Venom kidnaps her.

So Harry's volte-face made more sense in the original script and was built up to more gradually, and the plot hole about the butler knowing the truth regarding Norman was eliminated entirely.

The good news is that all of the scenes I've mentioned here were shot, so the footage is out there somewhere. I maintain that the theatrical cut of Spider-Man 3 is still a decent film and that the first two thirds are solid, but with a little careful editing that final act could be significantly improved and the picture as a whole elevated to a higher standard. Hopefully Sony will do it at some point.

I've been criticized for making similar observations. I viewed Peter as rather dismissive of MJ's troubles in SM3. He never really listened to her. Things were going pretty well in Peter's world and he didn't seem to have much time for MJ and her drama.

One could argue that MJ treated Peter in a similar way in SM2. But I think the difference there is that Peter wasn't giving MJ any real evidence that he wasn't a total screw up. In SM3, they've both laid all their cards on the table and Peter simply has less of an excuse.

It kind of makes it understandable that MJ got close to Harry before pulling back in regret. Harry was offering her a support system that Peter simply wasn't at the time.

Far from being a criticism, I really appreciate the mature fashion in which these relationships are developed. MJ and Peter take turns looking like jerks to the audience and it really shows a lot of faith on Raimi's part that he trusted viewers to not eventually completely turn on the characters.

There's definitely a role reversal in SM3. In the second movie Peter is attacked by the press, loses his job, has to give up his dreams, watches the person he loves drift towards someone else, keeps his pain to himself so as not to burden his friends, and is comforted in the final scene by M.J. In the third movie M.J. is attacked by the press (the theatre critics who trash her performance), loses her job (she gets fired from the musical), has to give up her dreams (at the start of the film she's acting on Broadway, and by the end she's back to waitressing like she was in the first movie), watches the person she loves drift towards someone else (Peter and Gwen Stacy), keeps her pain to herself so as not to burden her friends (she doesn't tell Peter she was fired because she doesn't want to ruin his big day), and is comforted in the final scene by Peter.

Even before the Symbiote amplified his aggression, Peter was already becoming arrogant. The success had gone to his head, and in shedding much of his insecurity his ego went too far in the opposite direction. Nowhere is this more evident than in the scene where he tells Gwen to kiss him, knowing that M.J. is watching, and in the scene at the restaurant where he's planning on proposing. Mary Jane is trying to tell him something important, but he keeps turning it around and making it about himself. It's not until the jazz club scene, where he actually hits her, that he has his moment of clarity and recognises that the problem lies in his attitude and not hers. Then he finally admits he was putting his own needs ahead of M.J.'s: "You said a husband's gotta put his wife before himself. I'm not ready."

And this ties into one of the other main themes in Spider-Man 3, which is forgiveness. "Well, you start by doing the hardest thing: You forgive yourself." Almost every character in the movie is on a journey of contrition. Harry and M.J. both forgive Peter, and Peter himself forgives Marko. You could also say that Peter and Marko forgive themselves, since both characters are wracked with guilt by the end of the film and both are looking for absolution. The one character that proves incapable of forgiveness is Brock, who persists in his vendetta against Peter until the bitter end. I like how both Peter and Eddie end up taking refuge in the church, albeit for very different reasons, and just as one becomes free of his demons the other becomes possessed. That feels more like something you'd expect from a Daredevil story than a Spider-Man adventure. That's probably why I like it.

As much as I would have loved to have seen more Spider-Man films under Raimi's direction and cast, I don't know if this particular conclusion could have been matched. There's just a certain sense of finality about it that makes it very appropriate that SM3's ending, concludes this Spider-Man's story arc.

And honestly, that's really why I think we might've dodged a bullet with Raimi leaving the franchise. A new trilogy would've needed to tell its own story and it's open to debate how much character development was left in the tank for Peter and MJ. Then again, it's only implied that they came back to each other. Maybe there were new directions to go in. But I enjoy the ambiguous note that SM3 ends on. You can view the dance as a new beginning for the couple... or you can view it as each of them closing the door on the other in a tender, sensitive way.

Still, I don't see what more could be said with those iterations of the characters that's truly groundbreaking. Maybe it really was time for a reboot.

There could be some clues to what Raimi's fourth film might have been like in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Into the Spider-Verse heavily references the Raimi films, right down to using audio samples of Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben and recreating various iconic scenes from the trilogy. Including this:

Amongst the iterations of Spider-Man that feature prominently in the film is an out-of-shape middle-aged version who is divorced from Mary Jane. Apparently the filmmakers considered approaching Maguire to voice him, but finally decided against it. While this isn't literally the Raimiverse Peter, he does bear some obvious similarities to him. I've read online speculation that this Peter's divorced status was inspired by what would have happened in Raimi's SM4. This may not be true, but I've heard that the script by James Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross began with Peter and Mary Jane married, only to end with them divorced because Peter cheated on M.J. with Felicia Hardy. Supposedly Raimi was unhappy with this script and disliked the way it made Peter seem like a jerk (especially after he'd already gone through his jerk phase in SM3). He felt it needed a lot of work, but Sony had already announced a release date and wouldn't give him an extension. And that's why the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with the reboot.

I get the impression Raimi took the backlash against SM3 very personally. The movie wasn't a failure by any means, but there was certainly a lot of negativity surrounding it, and I don't think Raimi had ever experienced criticism on that scale before. His next project, the horror comedy Drag Me to Hell (2009), was very much a return to his roots. That movie is him taking a break from Spider-Man to show what he's capable of doing when the studio isn't interfering in his work. There was no way he was going to make Spider-Man 4 unless he knew he could knock it out of the park, and Sony were never going to allow him the freedom he needed to accomplish that. So things really did turn out for the best, both for Raimi and the fans.

[thecolorsblend]

Amongst the iterations of Spider-Man that feature prominently in the film is an out-of-shape middle-aged version who is divorced from Mary Jane. Apparently the filmmakers considered approaching Maguire to voice him, but finally decided against it. While this isn't literally the Raimiverse Peter, he does bear some obvious similarities to him. I've read online speculation that this Peter's divorced status was inspired by what would have happened in Raimi's SM4. This may not be true, but I've heard that the script by James Vanderbilt, David Lindsay-Abaire and Gary Ross began with Peter and Mary Jane married, only to end with them divorced because Peter cheated on M.J. with Felicia Hardy. Supposedly Raimi was unhappy with this script and disliked the way it made Peter seem like a jerk (especially after he'd already gone through his jerk phase in SM3). He felt it needed a lot of work, but Sony had already announced a release date and wouldn't give him an extension. And that's why the whole thing fell apart and we ended up with the reboot.

I originally deleted a few extra remarks I made. But since you kind of touch on them above...

One reason I was infuriated by OMD was that Marvel has spent all these decades telling us that Spider-Man is the "relateable" superhero. And yet, a common experience among Millennials (the upper spectrum of whom were in their mid-twenties when OMD came out) was coming from a broken home. And here was Peter in a seemingly happy and stable marriage. If Peter is Mr. Identifiable and if the writers obviously wanted the Spider-Marriage ended (which they clearly did), why not write in Peter and MJ getting divorced in the comics?

The older I get, the less I believe in Peter and MJ as a couple anyway. I just have a tough time seeing it these days. So why not tackle a truly challenging subject without clean and easy answers for readers to puzzle through? OMD as written is such a cheap, no-fault copout that I despise it even more now than I did when it first came out back in 2006 or 2007 or whenever.

I get the impression Raimi took the backlash against SM3 very personally. The movie wasn't a failure by any means, but there was certainly a lot of negativity surrounding it, and I don't think Raimi had ever experienced criticism on that scale before. His next project, the horror comedy Drag Me to Hell (2009), was very much a return to his roots. That movie is him taking a break from Spider-Man to show what he's capable of doing when the studio isn't interfering in his work. There was no way he was going to make Spider-Man 4 unless he knew he could knock it out of the park, and Sony were never going to allow him the freedom he needed to accomplish that. So things really did turn out for the best, both for Raimi and the fans.

Quite true. I'll never completely forgive fans for how they ripped SM3 apart. I'd be the last guy to argue that SM3 is perfect. But still, I enjoy it a damn sight more than Superman II AND I'M A SUPERMAN GUY!

Very frankly, Raimi had earned more loyalty from Sony than he was ultimately shown when it comes to SM4 (before the plug was pulled). The best thing for Sony to have done after SM3 was put the franchise on hold for maybe three or four years and allow the principals to explore other projects and recharge their creative batteries a little bit before coming back for another trilogy.

I think you could argue based on SM3 as a finished product that Raimi needed a break after SM2 and he never got it. After TDK, Chris Nolan seems to have had virtually unlimited freedom with TDKRises. In fact, some bigwig from WB made it very clear circa mid-2010 that as far as WB was concerned, Nolan could take as much time to develop a third Batman film as he thought was necessary. I forget the guy's name but you could tell that the last thing WB wanted to do was upset the apple cart with Nolan. Whether or not that was the right policy, that was still the policy.

But it looks like Sony became more and more hands on and dictatorial with Raimi as time went by in spite of the fact that he had repeatedly proven himself. Very strange way to maintain relations with the talent who make these films. But it's become clear in recent years what a dumpster fire Sony is.

[Dagenspear]

It's true that Peter's emotional reason for not stopping the robber is different in the film, but I'd argue the underlying moral message about responsibility is still the same. Both the 2002 movie and Amazing Fantasy #15 present the idea that it's not only wrong to misuse power, but that it's equally wrong to not use it when doing so would help others. This message is repeated by Octavius in the second movie when he speaks of intelligence: "Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift. And you use it for the good of mankind." The same principle applies to power. In the first movie, Peter chooses not to exercise his power – and by extension, not to exercise responsibility – for selfish emotional reasons. In doing so, he allows a gun-toting criminal to go free without regard for the other people he might hurt. And the consequences of this irresponsible act are visited back on him in tragic proportion. In the comics his inaction was motivated by hubris, while in the movie it was motivated by spite and a desire for revenge. But in both stories we see Peter's selfish emotional drives overriding his sense of moral obligation. While the emotional context is indeed different, I'd say the moral problem – of refusing to help someone in need for personal reasons – remains the same.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

I'm not gonna argue whether it's better or not. But Sam Raimi seemed to have a similar mindset, to me, based off of what he says in the commentary for SM1:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

I think similarly about it not erasing the responsibility lesson.

M.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

The Harry scene, as far as I know would've played out differently, where MJ, who hadn't been captured in this version, would come to Harry and talk to him. I think the line that was in one of the trailers would've been in this scene, where MJ says: "We've all done terrible things to eachother, but we have to forgive eachother or everything we ever were will mean nothing."

I'm not sure if the butler scene would've remained or not though, but with a different context. But also I think the point of Harry helping isn't necessarily that he 100% accept the truth that his dad killed himself, but more that he'd rather help his friends than obsess over revenge. Though also I think someone who cared about Harry would have a hard time telling him that his dad was insane and became the green goblin and tried to kill his friends and killed himself. And after hearing, Harry could start to think Peter was being truthful before when he told him that his dad killed himself, as I think it's not likely for someone to grab the glider and hit Norman with it.

As was already told to you, Gwen was going to be kidnapped instead of MJ. I think the idea of it being Betty could've been interesting, but I also think Gwen can also serve as a parallel in a way to MJ, with connection to Eddie paralleling Peter. And I actually like her in the movie. I can see your point about many moving parts though.

While I think breaking into 2 parts could've been interesting, as far as I understand it, Sam Raimi was essentially told to do Venom for this movie. And the Gwen shift apparently came in midway through production. And the original version of the script was apparently going to have Vulture and Sandman originally, but supposedly Sam was told to do Venom instead.

Into the Spider-Verse is worth seeing, but make sure your expectations are in check. It's not the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, any more than the recent MCU films are. But it's good. It puts a fresh spin on the material, it's nicely animated, and it contains lots of Easter egg allusions to older Spider-Man films, comics and TV shows. I don't think it's as good as Spider-Man 2, but I like it a lot more than Homecoming. And it gets bonus points for having Kingpin as the main villain.

I think it's better than MCU's Spider-Man in ways.

A lot of fans are insistent on the younger and more comedic characterisation these days. You mentioned the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I wonder if that's partly to blame. I saw an episode of that on a plane once, and I was surprised at just how far they went with the comedy. Especially compared to the nineties Spider-Man carton, which was far more dramatic. I suppose the popularity of Deadpool might also be a factor. Everyone seems to want Spider-Man to be a fourth-wall-breaking teenage chatterbox, but as you point out, that's not how he was depicted in most of the comics or animated shows prior to this decade. I like humour in my Spider-Man stories too, but I also like a little drama and darkness.

I think similarly with this and it's an issue I've had with the MCU Spider-Man movies. Not necessarily darkness, but more some heaviness. The character doesn't have to mope to develop the weight on the character more.

But I agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

I'm not sure if that's more selfish than marrying someone and consumating that marriage and living with them until they decide to leave them. How does she string Peter along anymore than Peter himself does by trying to woo her with poetry and asking her out to eat with him, while she's engaged?

I guess the randomness of Ben's murder is what works for me in AF #15. It is pretty long odds that Ben would get killed by the very same thief Peter allowed to escape. But for me, that's the entire point. He was always going to kill somebody. Peter was directly affected by his own inaction.

And while I understand your point about Peter's lie in SM1, the fact remains that in AF #15, Peter was a jerk for absolutely no reason whereas he was a jerk in the movie with some justification. In AF #15, Peter had a massive chip on his shoulder and his powers allowed him to act upon that. He wanted to take care of May and Ben in a negative sense and for all the wrong reasons. He was more selfish in SM1, and for no apparent reason. It's been forever since I've seen the movie but I don't remember Peter's school life being so terrible in SM1. Whereas he was rather a social pariah in AF #15.

Idk, I suppose there's room for disagreement here. But so far, I'm not satisfied with ANY of the Uncle Ben/origin stories in the films.

Peter's reason was wrong. There's no justification in him taking revenge.

Peter was made to chase the bus as the busdriver laughed at him along with the students and kept going. He was messed with by Flash in that movie too. This girl wouldn't let him sit down next to her, a guy told him he was lame, someone tripped him.

Peter's action was more evil than selfish, like in the comics. It was a purposeful, vindictive action he made with malice of forethought. The only sympathy comes from us thinking we might do the same thing, but we'd all equally be just as much in the wrong too. And I think Sam Raimi agrees based on what he says in the SM1 commentary:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

I'd say the point of that scene is similar. He walks away and I think we're supposed to get that he feels guilty about and I think that leads into the fire scene.

Truly devious nature? She doesn't marry him and goes to the person she actually does care about at the end of the day. For all intents and purposes she's not trying to hurt the guy as far as I think we're supposed to get. Should she wait for Peter, whose rejected her?

[The Joker]

One reason I was infuriated by OMD was that Marvel has spent all these decades telling us that Spider-Man is the "relateable" superhero. And yet, a common experience among Millennials (the upper spectrum of whom were in their mid-twenties when OMD came out) was coming from a broken home. And here was Peter in a seemingly happy and stable marriage. If Peter is Mr. Identifiable and if the writers obviously wanted the Spider-Marriage ended (which they clearly did), why not write in Peter and MJ getting divorced in the comics?

The older I get, the less I believe in Peter and MJ as a couple anyway. I just have a tough time seeing it these days. So why not tackle a truly challenging subject without clean and easy answers for readers to puzzle through? OMD as written is such a cheap, no-fault copout that I despise it even more now than I did when it first came out back in 2006 or 2007 or whenever.

Agreed.

OMD was a horribly executed story in removing the marriage between Peter and Mary Jane in the comics, and I don't really feel as if time has eased or lessened the negative impact that story had on the readership now more than a decade ago. I seem to recall that the Editor in Chief was quite open about his intentions on getting Peter & MJ split up for years prior to OMD. I  mean, didn't Marvel even attempt to make Peter a widower by having MJ supposedly die in a freak airplane accident or something to that effect?

For some reason, I guess making Peter a widower or divorcee was just taking things too far. So let's just have him make a deal with, essentially, the devil and pretend the marriage never happened.... A truly brilliant idea from those involved. I don't think anyone was shocked when the marriage was undone, but more disenfranchised on HOW it was undone.

The marriage to me, was something I could take or leave. By the time I became a regular reader, the marriage had been in place for a number of years already, and it wasn't something that I found particularly off putting as a then-new reader. Course the time frame I became a new reader couldn't have come at a more controversial time; Clone Saga, Ben Reilly is Spider-Man, revamped villains, no Peter Parker is Spider-Man, John Byrne's Chapter One, ect. However, thanks to reprints, Masterworks, and reading some of the older stuff, I was fully aware of the previous eras of Spider-Man. Which helped me get a better understanding of the character, since the then-current stuff was so in flux. For me, the most "Identifiable" Spider-Man ever really got, as a kid discovering this stuff, was the Lee/Ditko era of Spider-Man. Which isn't a knock on other writers/artists, it's just that era was the apex, thanks to the Marvel Method of having Ditko illustrate the entire book, and Lee providing dialogue after the fact, and no other subsequent collaboration has ever again reached those heights.

[thecolorsblend]

Mmm. Reread this thing. And I'm not seeing a reference to Amazing Spider-Man Annual #01.

The reason this is significant is because I think that annual provided the inspiration for Peter occasionally losing his spider powers because of the weight of his responsibility. Virtually the exact same thing happened on page 06 of the annual.

Meaningless Trivia: That annual is also the earliest example I've ever seen of an in-story full page splash with Spider-Man duking it out with Electro. There may be something earlier than that which I've never heard of though.

[Slash Man]

Noticed a few parallels when reading through the Michelinie/Larsen run of the 90s (courtesy of the Return of the Sinister Six Epic Collection).

The first comes in Amazing Spider-Man #342. For context, this is part of the Powerless arc, in which Peter voluntarily undergoes a procedure to remove his superpowers. This concept alone shares similarities with Spider-Man 2, but the beginning of issue 342 in particular has a very similar scene; Peter and MJ happen upon a couple being mugged in an alley. Peter is tempted to jump in and help, but is talked down by Mary Jane. He works around it by smashing a store window to scare off the muggers with the ensuing alarm.

Obviously, this isn't recreated shot-for-shot in Spider-Man 2, where a retired Peter Parker is forced to look away from a beating in an alley, against his conscience. These instances are also preceded by a similar scene in the original Spider-Man No More arc, where Peter stops an armed robbery outside of his Spider-Man suit after giving up the mantle.

Another issue, #350 features an appearance by Uncle Ben in Peter's imagination to help him deal with a difficult decision he's grappling with. Both here and the film essentially have Uncle Ben reminding Peter of his responsibilities that come with his superpowers. Comic Peter takes his advice, movie Peter rejects him. In the comics, this was spurred by a concussion, in the movie, it was just a manifestation of Peter's conscience.

This one could very well just be coincidence, but I'm not sure how many times Uncle Ben has appeared and had a conversation with Peter after his death.