LogFAQs > #961012777

Mensis posted...

Which I imagine Sony might. This movie basically acted as a soft reset for Hollands Spider-Man and the Sony villains.

It's like the thing people always used to point out about the Batman movies. You go to all the trouble of coming up with ridiculously over-the-top villains that often wind up being far more interesting or cool than the main character, who you'd love to see show up again, and then they kill them off and the end of their first movie so they can never use them again.

And then you get stuff like the end of The Dark Knight, where they seem like they'd finally wised up and kept the Joker alive, only to have real life get in the way and not be able to use him anyway.



SpeedDemon20 posted...

I think the saddest part is that Peter has to rent his own apartment in New York without any support.

That's pretty much the most comic-accurate version of the character. Peter was always borderline poor.

Part of the Superior Spider-Man storyline (where Doc Ock basically takes over Peter's brain) is pointing out just how terrible Peter is at life management. He's pretty much a genius, yet rather than use that to get a great job or even start his own business/research company, he just freelances for the Daily Bugle and lives at close to subsistence level, constantly on the verge of getting evicted.

Then Ock basically gets to be Peter for a few months, and by the end he's running a scientific company worth tons of money, because he goes out of his way to actually try and be productive and successful rather than just spending all his time Spider-Manning. Which ironically makes Spider-Man more effective, because now he has funding, tech, and isn't constantly worrying about getting thrown out of his apartment. And he probably winds up helping the people he cares about more as as scientist than he ever did as Spider-Man.

But status quo is god, so of course Peter eventually loses all that once he gets his life back.