#81  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Can anyone who is familiar with the Gwen Stacy/ Mary Jane thing clue me in on that? In that I mean, well, what is the history of these 2 characters, when does Gwen Stacy go away and Mary Jane come in? Are these characters from 2 different universes of the story? I am not a comic book guy, so please forgive my ignorance!
Basically, Gwen was Parker's first true love. MJ was always around (she may have appeared in a Spidey comic before Gwen), and Peter even pursued her, but she actually dated Harry Osbourne when Peter was dating Gwen. MJ was actually good friends with Gwen. As was mentioned in a post above, she died, and it was really one of the more significant deaths in the Marvel universe.

MJ started to date Peter on and off, but she was always a little flaky in the comics, and Peter had other interests (most notably Felicia Hardy).

I used to read a lot of Spiderman comics, but as I got older I haven't kept up. I'm sure there are other versions of the story and possibly even some revisionist history, but what I wrote is the basic gist of their relationships.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post

A minor complaint that I cringed at the moment I saw it was when Peter
Spoiler:
catches the football and throws it at the goalpost and bends it......eesh. Obviously a fooseball would pop before bending a metal pole

I had a lot of minor issues like that with the film, such as:

Spoiler:
Peter dunking from 20 feet away, having his whole body above the rim (so his vertical was over 10 feet) and shattering the backboard. Then, Spiderman shows up shortly after. No one puts two-and-two together?

What kind of high school has two chemical compounds in the open on the same table that, if combined, creates an explosive?

Why did the father on the bridge get out of his car and start running without taking his son out first?


As for the oft-mentioned character at the end:

Spoiler:


I don't think it can be Norman. They made such a big deal about how close he was to death. Doesn't seem like he'd be up and about like that. But it has to be someone from Oscorp. Miles Warren (aka The Jackal) is a scientist who was close to Gwen Stacy. They could probably alter his history a bit in this universe and say he's a scientist for Oscorp. He would be my guess.


Last edited by Darth Kenshin; 07-04-2012 at 10:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:30 PM
I think people are seriously nitpicking. I liked it a lot more than Raimi's first attempt, and I even like it slightly more than Spider-Man 2. A lot of people bashed the creators behind it for going 'darker' but it's definitely fitting. I loved every cast member more than anyone in the original trilogy. I preferred Gwen Stacey over Mary Jane. I thought the Lizard was properly handled, as was Uncle Ben's death. The only problem I really had was Spider-Man searching for Uncle Ben's murderer for 30 minutes then all of the sudden it's no longer important. I look forward to the sequel in two years--I really am interested in seeing what they do with Green Goblin and possibly killing off Stacey.

The problems I have with the movie are as follows

1. What happened to the SWAT team that the Lizard turned into his comrades? It only shows them at the end as being partially lizard, I thought they would have fought for him?

2. After the bridge sequence, what happens to Dr. Rajit Ratha? I guess he decided he didn't want to visit the Veteran hospital anymore?

3. The crane sequence was definitely the worst part of the movie.

8/10

Last edited by Roy Batty; 07-05-2012 at 08:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-04-2012, 11:58 PM
8/10
Spiderman is by far my favorite Super Hero. I grew up watching him swinging in New York. Tobey MaGuire has practically become family.

So naturally when I heard that there would be a Spiderman film without him in it I was skeptical. And when I found it that it was pretty much going to be a reboot I was kind of pissed.

I didn't go into this film with the highest of expectations. But I was excited nonetheless. To see my favorite super hero for the first time since Spiderman 3(which failed on many levels) was going to be a treat. And I am glad to say I was pleasantly surprised.

We all know the story of Spiderman. His real name is Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield). A skinny kid that has been picked on for most of his life. What this film does is add storylines that were never explored. Like what about his parents?

Well his dad Richard Parker (Campbell Scott) is a scientist. Which explains where Peter gets his love for science. And ends up having to leave town. He leaves Peter with uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and aunt May (Sally Field). His partner Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) is not seen again by the family.

We go back to where Peter is an awkward teenage. In this film they switch out Mary Jane for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who provides the best performance in the film. I got a lot of love for Kristen Dunst. But Emma Stone blows her performance out of the park as far as being Peter Parker's love interest. Emma Stone is simply Gwen Stacy.

Gwen has an interesting story that will be shown in the sequels coming up for sure. But for now she is a girl that Peter wants to get with. But doesn't know how.

In his room he is given information from his uncle Ben about Curt Conner. He gogles him and his father. He decides to pay a visit to Oscorp where Connors now works. There he finds out that Gwen is a tour guide there much to his surprise. He also gets that famous bite from that radioactive spider.

Then you know how it is. He finds out in a strange way that he has power. He isn't sure what to do with them. Then he loses his uncle Ben to some robber. And realizes that he should use his new powers to help people.

Twist are the villain for starters and Gwen Stacey's dad who is a cop named George Stacy (Dennis Leary). Leary provides a good performance as Captain Stacy who is looked to lock up Spiderman who he believes has an agenda and is not a vigilante. But he will realize what Spiderman truly is.

Andrew Garfield may not be Tobey Maguire. But he gives a solid performance and Peter Parker/Spiderman.

The films does away with a good bit of what is shown in the original spiderman films and the comic book. But that doesn't make it a lesser movie. There were a few things that I was frustrated with. But with a reboot you must only judge the film on it's merits and not on the merits of the other films.

I know these characters really well. I know them inside and out. It was a fun ride to be on. I hate 3D and I am so happy I don't have to pay the extra money for it. But in a few scenes the 3D actually shows it worth.

The Amazing Spider-Man isn't the best Spiderman movie. But it is always entertaining and in the end gets the message that Spidey always has for us across.

Last edited by Flimmaker1473; 07-05-2012 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-05-2012, 06:29 AM
Anyone wanna speculate as to who the guy in the shadows was at the end of the credits because I don't think it was Norman Osbourne.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-05-2012, 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Anyone wanna speculate as to who the guy in the shadows was at the end of the credits because I don't think it was Norman Osbourne.
Yeah from what little I saw of him the guy was just too lanky to be Osbourne. I'm leaning toward Miles Warren/The Jackal. The Chameleon is another good possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-05-2012, 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboJoeBob View Post
Yeah from what little I saw of him the guy was just too lanky to be Osbourne. I'm leaning toward Miles Warren/The Jackal. The Chameleon is another good possibility.
I could definitely see The Jackal, but I read on another site it was possibly Electro.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:05 AM
"In the Ultimate Marvel universe, Electro has been reimagined with powers as a product of bioengineering. "

I looked up more info on Electro and read this about the Ultimate Electro (Part of the Ultimate Spider-Man universe). I think they will do this to electro and possibly make him a biochemist. He will probly work for Norman Osbourne. I think it WAS electro in the scene. The thunder and lightning outside the prison says it to me. No other indications gave away who it could possibly be (even tho i think the actor aounded alot like he was mimicing William Defoe's Green Goblin voice).

What I like about spiderman ( my favorite comic characters) is that they have so many characters that could hit the big screen.

A remake of Green goblin would be ok.
Mysterio would be cool.
Shocker would be ok especially if he teamed with the rhyno maybe as a duo or working as mercenaries for a larger more prominent villian.
Venom (Never done justice)
Carnage( a maximum Carnage movie would be epic)
Doc OC (Can be redone but has to be done right and BETTER than Raimis which is a tough task)
Hobgoblin (maybe he can. I guess...idk about this one. Too much like green goblin)
Cardiac (would look cool)
Kingpin (hell yes)
Chameleon (only as a minor villian working for the major villain)
hammerhead (could work....easy really. Not a major character tho. )
Hydroman (IDK...i think hes lame)
Miles Warren (could work...just dont try anything from clone saga PLEASE)
Kraven The Hunter (YESSSSSSS. Gerard Butler PLEASE!!!!)
Lizard (hell yea but probly in another set of films. I see the 1st 3 being Spiderman in HS.Then 3 more of Peter in college working for J Jonah...maybe im crazy but it could work.lol)
Morbius (dont think he can work)
Sandman (if redoen team with Shocker and Rhino. Maybe team up lesser villians as sinister 6?idk)
Vulture (could work alone or teamed as a lesser minor villian)
Spencer SMythe (def could work)
The SPot) (LAME...but hey maybe theyll make him cool. lol)


Sorry...just a hyped Spider-Man fan.lol.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I think people are seriously nitpicking.
I agree, there are many instances I've seen where people seem to be "reaching" for a complaint.
I still like the first two Raimi compilations much more, and I really think too much time was spent with his origin this time around. If it was 30 minutes of "origin" shit and then the movie itself it would have even been better.

Quote:
The problems I have with the movie are as follows

1. What happened to the SWAT team that the Lizard turned into his comrades? It only shows them at the end as being partially lizard, I thought they would have fought for him?

2. After the bridge sequence, what happens to Dr. Rajit Ratha?

3. The crane sequence was definitely the worst part of the movie.

8/10
Spoiler:

1. The SWAT team was turned into lizards, but they were busy being half-dead lizard-men until the "cure" saved them all and presumably made them normal again.


2. Who? (lol)
- more seriously... this is one of the three major threads of the movies' subplots that gets tossed aside too blatantly. He was basically there to drop a file with two zeros for Parker to see. After that, I don't even really know why he was still in the movie.
My guess is he was like "fuck this shit! I'm going back to India!"

Spoiler:

3. I agree that the crane sequence was really fucking dumb, but I understand what they were going for here. First, it's the idea that the people of NY support Spider-man and even though the authorities might not respect him, the people are there for him no matter what.
To further strengthen the idea of Spidey and the city's relationship, it was the support from THE PEOPLE that inspired Spider-man to push himself to a level that he wasn't capable of on his own. He wouldn't have made it to the tower in time to stop Lizard, but thanks to (the ever-convenient) guy paying back his son being saved, the city fed the strength and desire back into Spider-man just as Spider-man revitalized hope with the people of NY.

Although I found it pretty cheesy myself, I understand the reasoning behind it, and there is even some of that in the Raimi Spider-man movies (most notably the subway car sequence where Parker is unconscious and everyone comes together to help him while unmasked and choose to not disclose his identity). All three movies had a scene similar to this.

Last edited by KcMsterpce; 07-05-2012 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Anyone wanna speculate as to who the guy in the shadows was at the end of the credits because I don't think it was Norman Osbourne.
If we're continuing with the whole cross-species biology thing, any animal/insect would work, which Spidey has a lot of. Rhino, Scorpion, et al. But the one that makes the most sense is CHAMELEON.

But then the question raised is, How did he get into the cell? Well, this could be answered if it was in fact MYSTERIO.

Those are my two best guesses. The man playing him, Michael Masse, isnt exactly a huge star. So I doubt it's Green Goblin.

Anyway, for the sequel:

--Bigger budget. A lack of action and some poor CGI spots showed that the smaller budget needs a bit of bloating.
--Hire a new composer. SHREEK. SHREEK. Doesnt belong in a Spider-Man film
--New director. I suppose some idiot producer loved the irony of hiring a man named WEBB to direct Spider-Man but he just isn't the guy for the job. The directing was about the same as Tim Story for Fantastic Four. The action sequences fell REALLY flat and the entire crane sequence was just too much.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:15 AM
It's kind of hard to fairly judge this movie. I think if the Raimi films didn't exist or there was a lot more time since them, I would have loved the hell out of this movie. But because it's a reboot that happened so soon and decides to fully tell the same origin story that everyone has seen or heard a million times before, there were a lot of parts that just seemed redundant even if they were well done. The part of the story I enjoyed the most was easily the mystery about Peter's parents and it's no surprise that was something the last trilogy didn't even touch.

On the positive end, I thought the entire cast was excellent. I was never a huge fan of the "lovey" plots in Raimi's movies, but I didn't mind the character stuff here. The Lizard wasn't quite as bad as I expected, but he wasn't good. It just annoys me that out of all the villains in all the Spider-man movies made so far, they've all had the same hook. Tragic accident or experiment gone wrong turns misunderstood, but good guy into sympathetic villain (the only exception was Venom in SP3, but we all know how well they handled that). I know that's always what the Lizard was, but he had some unnecessarily freakish similarities with past SP movie villains that seemed out of place. I still think the best way to use the Lizard would have been in combination with Kraven. Have Peter trying to stop the Lizard knowing who he is and that he has no control while Kraven tries to hunt them both.

And finally, there were a lot of unresolved plot points. It was clearly intentional, but it made the movie feel more like it was a TV pilot trying to keep people tuned in for the rest of the season. I don't know how that's going to turn out.

Last edited by moose1132; 07-05-2012 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:19 AM


Alternate costume.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Oh, and also, as cool as it was for the trailer, the First-person-web-slinging has got to go.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moose1132 View Post

And finally, there were a lot of unresolved plot points. It was clearly intentional, but it made the movie feel more like it was a TV pilot trying to keep people tuned in for the rest of the season. I don't know how that's going to turn out.
I figured out why we never saw that guy again.





Official stills that were never actually in the movie. Some stuff was cut out.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
But with a reboot you must only judge the film on it's merits and not on the merits of the other films.
Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:09 AM
My thoughts:

The Amazing Spiderman (Marc Webb, 2012)



I was one of the nerds who stuck up my nose and shook my head at the idea of the movie when I first heard about it. Then they brought on Marc Webb, Andrew Garfield and a different villain and I got more comfortable with it. All in all I think it is a case of 'too soon' still, with the Hulk reboot they skipped the origin story, with the Batman reboot they decided to show it, whereas in this movie there is a lot that we've seen before, it just has a slightly different tone to it. That complaint aside, its a pretty good summer blockbuster. Garfield and Stone are great and whilst the way the story plays out is a bit too typical and cheesy the screenplay by Alvin Sargent and co. does elevate it. I can't really put my finger on why but I always feel that of all the superhero movies that have a "what it means to be a hero" speech the ones both here and in Spiderman 2 are the only that have come close to being genuinely inspirational. Hopefully the next film will follow in the footsteps of Raimi's trilogy and have a sequel that is better than first, then the points of comparison will get interesting.
8/10

Last edited by Natty; 07-05-2012 at 11:12 AM.. Reason: Bumping it up from a 7 to an 8
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Oh, and also, as cool as it was for the trailer, the First-person-web-slinging has got to go.
Haha, I actually had the reverse opinion. Thought the POV looked awful in the trailer but suited the movie. I was just expecting to see swinging in the first trailer and they delivered this weird CGI first-person nonsense, didn't like it. Don't remember it featuring that much in the film though.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-05-2012, 02:05 PM
as far as not judging it on the other films:

If this was The Incredible Hulk, remaking a movie that most everyone hated (Ang lee's Hulk) you are more forgiving, because the first attempt was crap, PLUS The Incredible Hulk was very creative in how they handled the origin story, not simply rehashing everything, they used creative story telling to not do the exact same thing Hulk had done.

This movie, I mean, Literally, that first hour is nearly exactly the same as the original. I felt like I paid to see one of those AMC "See it again" things, where they play an older movie on the big screen again for one night only!

If the original Spider Man was maybe 20 or 30 years old, that would be a bit forgivable, but the originals are barely 10 years old... and they were wildly successful. To simply UN-creatively rehash the exact storytelling and method that the original used, to me it was just lazy!

And that goes for the rest of the movie too, even though it was a new villain, there really was not anything creative or NEW in this movie.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-05-2012, 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
But with a reboot you must only judge the film on it's merits and not on the merits of the other films.
I agree, my advice to those who haven't seen it, judge it for its own film, seperate it from Raimi's trilogy.

Comparing it now I think this one took itself a little more seriously, less cartoony, less cheesieness, better acting, better action scenes and the emotion felt a bit more real.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-05-2012, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
as far as not judging it on the other films:

If this was The Incredible Hulk, remaking a movie that most everyone hated (Ang lee's Hulk) you are more forgiving, because the first attempt was crap, PLUS The Incredible Hulk was very creative in how they handled the origin story, not simply rehashing everything, they used creative story telling to not do the exact same thing Hulk had done.

This movie, I mean, Literally, that first hour is nearly exactly the same as the original. I felt like I paid to see one of those AMC "See it again" things, where they play an older movie on the big screen again for one night only!

If the original Spider Man was maybe 20 or 30 years old, that would be a bit forgivable, but the originals are barely 10 years old... and they were wildly successful. To simply UN-creatively rehash the exact storytelling and method that the original used, to me it was just lazy!

And that goes for the rest of the movie too, even though it was a new villain, there really was not anything creative or NEW in this movie.
I personally feel that this is simply examining the film on the surface, though. Yes, it is the origin story again, but in tone, texture, theme, and characterization it plays out quite differently and feels like a decidedly different take on the same material, at least to me. Throughout history the same stories have been re-told with different spins and by different artists, particularly in the comic book world. I'm sorry you didn't like it and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's fair to judge this film based on the criteria that it's "too similar" to another film. Furthermore, your comment about time makes no sense to me. If this exact same film were made in 20 or 30 years, it would be the same film it is now and thusly should be judged specifically for its own merits. I am a big proponent of the critical vacuum, which is to say that when viewing a film one should throw everything out the window and watch it with a clean slate and for only what it presents. As humans this can be difficult and it is rarely done, but I still attempt to strive for it. I guess we'll just have to disagree here, and again you are more than welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-05-2012, 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Yes, it is the origin story again, but in tone, texture, theme, and characterization it plays out quite differently and feels like a decidedly different take on the same material, at least to me.
Agreed. I was surprised. I didn't expect to like it at all, but I came out fulfilled. I would have preferred they go the Fincher way where they tackle the whole origin story in the first 10 minutes and go on with it and explore the themes that revolve around the Spider-Man universe. That was always the 'iffy' part for me, that they're doing it from scratch - again. But they made the origin story worth my while I thought. I did think that there were moments that were a bit too rushed when they shouldn't have been.

For instance

Spoiler:
When uncle Ben dies, there's like little to no room for the mourning, they just move on with it. Sure there's that one scene with aunt May crying and all but that's all. What I thought was something that deserved at least a little bit of an emotional punch - just wasn't even there. If I remember correctly Raimi tackled that with a bit of emotion


But all in all, this take isn't bad. I think Andrew Garfield actually fits the bill for Spider-Man.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:30 PM
The Amazing Spider-Man confirmed as part 1 of trilogy - http://bit.ly/N2dUuG
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-05-2012, 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
I personally feel that this is simply examining the film on the surface, though. Yes, it is the origin story again, but in tone, texture, theme, and characterization it plays out quite differently and feels like a decidedly different take on the same material, at least to me. Throughout history the same stories have been re-told with different spins and by different artists, particularly in the comic book world. I'm sorry you didn't like it and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's fair to judge this film based on the criteria that it's "too similar" to another film. Furthermore, your comment about time makes no sense to me. If this exact same film were made in 20 or 30 years, it would be the same film it is now and thusly should be judged specifically for its own merits. I am a big proponent of the critical vacuum, which is to say that when viewing a film one should throw everything out the window and watch it with a clean slate and for only what it presents. As humans this can be difficult and it is rarely done, but I still attempt to strive for it. I guess we'll just have to disagree here, and again you are more than welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.

I see what you are saying... but I just disagree (respectfully of course!) I didnt think the origin story was handled differently really at all

(very mild spoilers here)

Spider Man: Peter Wrestles, guy robs the bookie, after bookie was dick to Parker. Parker says "Not my problem" and lets thug take off... thug somehow runs into uncle ben, thug kills uncle ben.

Amazing SM: Peter is at a convenience store, guy robs the clerk after clerk was dick to parker. Parker says "Not my problem" and lets thug take off... thug somehow runs into uncle ben, thug kills uncle ben.

I get it.. origin story, stay true to the story.. BUT then, just dont do an origin story, or if need be, do a story that has parker already as Spider Man with flashbacks.. the story telling was very linear in it's exact sameness!

Ya.. a lot of stories have been retold and "Re-imagined" and all of that, but most of those were stories that had different version of those stories to tell. They have the same DNA but their execution is different. There are nods to the previous incarnations, but not an hours worth of the exact same thing we already saw!

My comment about time is this: Sometimes movies are remade to update it for a NEW generation. "Hey, Total Recall came out in the early 90's, I love that movie, but there is a new generation of film goers who pry have never heard of Total Recall, lets make a new one with some differences" ok, im game for that. Spider Man is still THIS generation. Kids today know Spider Man, they have seen SPider Man, they enjoyed Spider Man... so yes, if this movie was made 20 years from now, it is more forgiving, because they are making it for a new generation of film goers who don't know the old Spider Man movie!

I agree that all movies should be judged on what they are by themselves, hell, I am a HUGE Michael Bay fan because I dont compare them to anything other than what they are, big balls out action flicks, and I can enjoy them because of that. BUT when you reboot a franchise that is still fresh in the minds of everyone, comparisons will be made! I mean, they are rebooting a franchise whose initial movie ushered in the modern day Opening Weekend Box Office Record Breaking. First movie to ever open a weekend over 100 million, (116 Million), it was a massive success both commercially and critically, people still watch it, not just fan boys, just every day people still watch it. It didn't need a reboot, but I get why they did it (i get it, i dont agree with it) but in doing it, the first hour plays like Gus Van Sant's Psycho.. an almost shot for shot remake, it just felt lazy and uninspired to me. There are a million different ways to reinterpret that origin story while staying true to the comics, as well as a million different devices a film maker can use to freshen it all up to make it feel new.. the writers and director of this movie used none of those and just did the exact same thing that had already been done!

And the thing is, I LOVED (500) Days of Summer, I remember renting the movie the first time, and then going out the next day to buy it, i LOVED it that much.. the director is very capable.. but on this movie, it was just very lazy.

Now.. i will say that with this origin story out of the way, hopefully the second movie will be epic, because now perhaps they can play with more story devices and arcs that feel fresher.

Hopefully, but again, even the second half of the movie with The Lizard felt stale and done before!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
For instance

Spoiler:
When uncle Ben dies, there's like little to no room for the mourning, they just move on with it. Sure there's that one scene with aunt May crying and all but that's all. What I thought was something that deserved at least a little bit of an emotional punch - just wasn't even there. If I remember correctly Raimi tackled that with a bit of emotion


But all in all, this take isn't bad. I think Andrew Garfield actually fits the bill for Spider-Man.
Spoiler:
"Amazing" decided to show, not tell. It's very clear that Peter's impetus towards his path to heroism is his grief and anger over Ben's death. Peter decides to take action because of this and learns along the way that revenge is not the best way for him to come to terms or to get back at the guy who killed Ben, but by helping others in need. I don't want to disparage Raimi's SM because I like it just fine, but that film chose to show Peter's guilt and anger more through direct dialogue and scenes of crying. Both were effective in their own way, though overall I like "Amazing's" characterization of Peter better.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-05-2012, 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Spoiler:
"Amazing" decided to show, not tell. It's very clear that Peter's impetus towards his path to heroism is his grief and anger over Ben's death. Peter decides to take action because of this and learns along the way that revenge is not the best way for him to come to terms or to get back at the guy who killed Ben, but by helping others in need. I don't want to disparage Raimi's SM because I like it just fine, but that film chose to show Peter's guilt and anger more through direct dialogue and scenes of crying. Both were effective in their own way, though overall I like "Amazing's" characterization of Peter better.
No, overall you like the characterization of Peter in your head better because you did all the work and read between the lines. I guess that's one way to go but I found what was actually on screen to be shallow. Some call it lazy.

That's why I agree with this statement so much...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
And the thing is, I LOVED (500) Days of Summer, I remember renting the movie the first time, and then going out the next day to buy it, i LOVED it that much.. the director is very capable.. but on this movie, it was just very lazy.

Now.. i will say that with this origin story out of the way, hopefully the second movie will be epic, because now perhaps they can play with more story devices and arcs that feel fresher.

Hopefully, but again, even the second half of the movie with The Lizard felt stale and done before!
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-05-2012, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
No, overall you like the characterization of Peter in your head better because you did all the work and read between the lines. I guess that's one way to go but I found what was actually on screen to be shallow. Some call it lazy.
I call it subtext. I don't think films should shove everything down your throat. On this we will disagree. Sorry you didn't like the film.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 07-05-2012 at 09:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:43 PM
If you are going to compare it to the other Spiderman movies you are going to hate it. I had to block out Spiderman 1 to really take a look at this movie. If I didn't I probably would have given it a 5/10 or a 6/10 to be nice.

You have to judge the film like it was the first Spiderman film ever created. It is like judging Prometheus like it isn't related to Alien.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:02 PM
Minor things really made this movie crappier than what it should have been.

1) Marc Webb- The direction seemed lazy and a lot of the scenes felt rushed and poorly put together. It was blatant that this man had only helmed one major motion picture before this, and it turned what should have been some pretty emotionally impactful moments, into just blah.

2) The Score- I am surprised that more people aren't talking about this. My God this was awful. I noticed it particularly during the high school fight. What should have been a very up tempo, tense moment, had soft romantic lullabies playing in the background. The music really killed some scenes for me.

3) NO "With great power comes great responsibility" and NO J. Jonah Jameson- Didn't fell right.

4) Spidey became way too good way too quick. They wanna show a true high school Spidey, he should have screwed up once or twice. Didn't happen.

All in all, it felt forced and like stated above, even with a new villian it didn't add anything new.

6/10
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:43 AM
My score : 7/10

The good :

- CGI was better then expected, especially the POV shots.
- Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dunst
- Best Stan Lee cameo ever.
- The webshooters
- Little boring moments, mostly fun and exciting scenes.

The bad :

- The score (is there any good Marvel score outthere ??)
- Aunt May and uncle Ben sucked. Raimi did it right, Webb didn't. Sally Fields just looked angry all the time and I didn't saw uncle Ben, just Charlie Sheen's dad, so I didn't care when he died. Also , I didn't got the feeling Peter Parker learned a lesson from his uncle's death, isn't that what the comic is all about. Speaking of, no 'with great power...' line ??? What's that all about ?
- His spidey sense makes him dodge several bullets at the time but doesn't warn him when he gets shot in the leg...mmm?
- 3D was pointless, except for the last shot.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-06-2012, 04:38 PM
http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/w...ng-spider-man/

This is a really interesting read for anyone who thought the movie didn't flow well or thought there was a lot cut out.

Apparently there was A LOT left out of the final film, some even with finished CGI.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 07-06-2012, 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Can anyone who is familiar with the Gwen Stacy/ Mary Jane thing clue me in on that? In that I mean, well, what is the history of these 2 characters, when does Gwen Stacy go away and Mary Jane come in? Are these characters from 2 different universes of the story? I am not a comic book guy, so please forgive my ignorance!
Soda already covered this, so I don't wanna be redundant, but Gwen Stacy was my primary concern coming into this movie. She was Pete's first love and they killed her off in 1973 (unless you count Betty Brant, which no one does). In the original run of ASM, up to 121 when she died, Gwen was very much the Good Girl. MJ was party girl and not even really a romantic interest for Pete, actually she was almost actually a bad character at first in that she was mean to Harry all the time which was partially responsible for Harry's infamous drug problems and such, while Gwen was the love of Pete's life. And, in a lot of ways, she still is. Her dying was easily the most important comic book moment of the 70's, and in my opinion it would be at least Top 5 on any list of important moments EVER.

Anyway, I was really worried about how they would handle her 'cuz like I said, she was the Good Girl. She was very caring and soulful and just good, with not a trace of the "bad girl" archetype that Hollywood loves so much. I thought for sure there would be a scene of Gwen kicking some guy in the nuts or something to show how strong and independent she is, 'cuz movies seem to think women's lib = shitty attitude, and was overjoyed that there wasn't. The casting had me worried too, as the only thing I remember seeing that Stone chick in prior to this was Zombieland, and her character there was the exact opposite of Gwen. But goddamn, did she knock it out of the park here. I fell in love with her twenty times during this flick, as I'm sure everyone else did, and that is Gwen in a nutshell. It wasn't just her who got it right either, but also the writers and even the wardrobe people, I was very VERY impressed with the way they handled Gwen. Her hair, her eyes, the miniskirts, even the leggings she wears, it was absolutely pitch perfect. They did their homework and obviously had great respect for the source material, and that earns a shit-ton of reps from me. The dude who played Peter wasn't exactly right (but was better than Maguire), but that Stone woman was so right in the role it literally sent chills down my spine at moments. I don't know how they're going to handle her or where they're going to go with it in sequels or whatever, but I was honestly moved by the fact that I got to see Gwen Stacy, the REAL Gwen Stacy (not that Spider-Man 3 horseshit) on the screen for two hours. It was amazing. She's the one character that I thought the movie would be most likely to mishandle completely, and holy shit it turns out she's the one they got exactly right.

Anyhoo, damn I rambled. In the comics she never knew that Pete was Spidey, they didn't meet until college, and there was a whole deal about her thinking Spider-Man was a villain, so the actual events in this movie weren't faithful to their comic relationship but the spirit of it was dead on.

The rest of it was good too. I give it 8/10.

Last edited by Chillingworth; 07-06-2012 at 06:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-06-2012, 08:21 PM
Movie Mini-Review: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

The Amazing Spider-Man

***1/2 out of ***** (7/10) Good

The Amazing Spider-Man is a film which has been faced with harsh criticism well before the movie was actually made. Sam Raimi had originally been in pre-production for Spider-Man 4, but was "fired" from the project when he refused to give into the studio's demands (as he did in the third film, to its detriment). It was then decided that the franchise would be rebooted with an entirely new cast, and would keep Peter Parker in high school in order to make the film appeal more to the current teenagers. Needless to say, this wreaked of everything wrong with Hollywood today . . . sacrificing the creativity of an already established franchise in the name of marketability and essentially remaking a film that is only ten years old. As was to be expected, this film is largely a retread of the original Spider-Man. The origin story here changes many of the details, but the essential plot points remain intact. The second half of the film is not nearly as guilty of repetition, but, in many ways, Curt Connors is a repeat of Norman Osbourne, mixed with certain aspects of Otto Octavius. While repeating Parker's origin was more or less inevitable in this film, the villain was new and should not have borrowed heavily from villains in the previous films. However, this film is very different in terms of execution. The tone here is much more serious and dramatic, and the pacing is much more deliberate. One thing about this film that is actually an improvement over the original franchise is the acting. Every performance in this film is quite solid, and that really does make the film quite delightful. Furthermore, the direction is superb, the action is very well done, and the special effects are top notch. To put it simply, this film was unnecessary and should not have been made; however, the film is also very well-made and highly entertaining. The best that can be said for this film is that it has the necessary elements in place for a truly outstanding sequel. No longer bound to having to retell the origin story, the sequel should feature little of the repetition found here, and should deliver a truly remarkable Spider-man experience. As it is, the movie is very good, but also very familiar. It is definitely worth checking out eventually, but I would not pay full price for it.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-06-2012, 09:55 PM
Here's the thing about Raimi's villains: they were all repetitious. They were all pretty much the same character. A basically decent man who gets driven insane by science or whatever. And I know the whole "source material" argument gets old to people who don't give a rat's ass about the source material, but the Green Goblin was the only one that should've applied to. Octavius was never a good guy, and the fact that Raimi chose to give him almost the exact same origin story (in nature) as Osborn confused me, but it was forgivable because he got almost everything else right. Then he did it again in part three with Sandman, and used a character who's supposed to be bad right down to his core (Venom) as white noise. It's like he only knew how to tell one kind of story. Retconning the Sandman into being Uncle Ben's killer remains THE worst decision in comic book movie history, and Raimi lost all credibility at that point. Doc Ock was different in part two than the comics but that was forgivable 'cuz he got the spirit of it right, and he got the spirit of Venom right but fucked up everything else. Like literally, everything about Venom was wrong. Non-comic fans don't understand why we take shit so personally, and comic fans don't understand why everyone else doesn't, but the one thing that we can all agree on is that Spider-Man 3 sucked on every level.

Anyway, the villains in the Raimi films were redundant as fuck, so that shouldn't be held against this one. In fact, it shouldn't be held against any movie, 'cuz how original can a villain be? Venom should've been the most original thing we'd ever seen on the screen, and my hope is that someday someone will do him right. But even if it got done right, someone would call it repetitive.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:21 PM
Here's some thoughts I wrote up on the film earlier that tries to explain why I loved it:

It's easy enough to say that The Amazing Spider-Man is just the origin of Spider-Man all over again. Though I don't subscribe to it, "been there, done that" is a legitimate complaint. Besides the shifts in tone and texture, though, what this film accomplishes is that at its best it is the origin of Peter Parker. Like the best coming of age stories, the film charts the growth of Peter Parker from a wiseacre, outcast teen into a man. Along the way, as he gains his powers and meets a beautiful, smart girl, he struggles to find his own identity. When the film closes, he knows who he is. He is a hero, and he fights for the well-being of his city. Though a bit on the nose, Peter's high school English teacher notes that there is truly only one story told in literature, "Who am I?" That is exactly what this film is about. Who is Peter Parker?

As played by Andrew Garfield, Parker is a smart, slightly arrogant, and a little rebellious teenager. He's an outcast seemingly by choice, not necessarily a "geek" but clearly someone who doesn't fit in and likes being on the outside. Garfield is phenomenal in the role. He captures every aspect of Parker's personality and charts his evolution beautifully. He is someone you can believe as being smarter than everyone else in the room, but also someone who's not entirely comfortable in his own shoes. He's a little neurotic, and Garfield's work is fully fleshed out. He legitimately feels like he is Peter Parker to me. As much as you believe him as the smart yet awkward teenager, you too believe him as the hero. Perhaps most remarkable, though, is his chemistry with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. Emma is also afforded the opportunity to create a rounded and personable character, but it is in the moments she shares with Andrew that they both really shine. They are sexy together, plain and simple. Young love can be portrayed as incredibly cheesy or saccharine, but Andrew and Emma make it seem sweet and genuine.

Conflicted with the disappearance of his parents, Parker looks to his Uncle Ben (and later Aunt May) for guidance. I never thought about it before, but Peter constantly struggles with father figures and the loss of them. In this interpretation of the story not only is his missing father brought to the forefront, but the relationship he has with his Uncle Ben is nuanced and believable. When Peter tells Ben that he makes great dad, it hurts because we all know what's coming, and when it does it's handled with surprise. In these moments Garfield sells the humanity of Peter Parker. Even beyond this, both Dr. Curt Connors (who becomes the film's villain, The Lizard) and Captain Stacey (Gwen's father) serve as de facto father figures for Peter until they each face their respective comeuppances. Peter may look up to these men at different times for the help any teenager would need, but he ends up having to look up only to himself. Though his motivation is initially vengeance, he learns to be more altruistic, and that is when he becomes a hero. Each of these moments in the film are marked with humanity and emotion, and that is clearly the hand of Marc Webb at play.

This is only Webb's second feature film, but he crafts a film with attitude and a completely human tone. Sure, this is a superhero film and it has all of the outlandish elements that come along with that, but at its core the film bursts with humanity. Webb is no slouch in the technical department either as the action scenes are shot fluidly and the web swinging feels tangible and organic thanks to the use of practical effects and stunt men. Much of the film takes place at night, and this New York City looks terrific. Webb's music selection and use of montage makes the film feel like a teenage film first, and a superhero film second. This is a nifty trick, and one I loved. James Horner's score is playful and adds an epic feel when necessary.

There is a scene in the film's final act that could have come off as a disaster (and I suppose some may say it is) that is full of hope and optimism. It ties in directly with a scene earlier in the film, and it shows what being a hero can mean to people and how that can help you down the line. It is a scene that I found incredibly emotionally satisfying, and that, I think, is the film's ultimate coup. Amongst the wonderful characterizations, exciting action, and humanity, this is a superhero film that is filled with hard hitting emotion. I love The Amazing Spider-Man's Peter Parker, and I felt as he did. That's no easy feat.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 07-06-2012 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:09 PM
I thought it was pretty good. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was great and I thought their story was good. My only complaint is that we've already seen the first 100 minutes of this movie already with Raimi's film. I was not excited for the reboot just because we've already seen the origin story of Spider-Man before and it was done pretty well. I thought the Lizard was good and Garfield was good as Parker but yeah, you could pretty much skip the first half of this movie and not really miss much.

But I have some other complaints / questions

Spoiler:
They make such a big deal about Peter discovering the truth about his parents and then don't give us anything. The post credits scene suggests that they will dive into this a little more in a sequel but honestly, I don't want them to spend three movies answering some plot hole that isn't even relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
I thought it was pretty good. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was great and I thought their story was good. My only complaint is that we've already seen the first 100 minutes of this movie already with Raimi's film. I was not excited for the reboot just because we've already seen the origin story of Spider-Man before and it was done pretty well. I thought the Lizard was good and Garfield was good as Parker but yeah, you could pretty much skip the first half of this movie and not really miss much.

But I have some other complaints / questions

Spoiler:
They make such a big deal about Peter discovering the truth about his parents and then don't give us anything. The post credits scene suggests that they will dive into this a little more in a sequel but honestly, I don't want them to spend three movies answering some plot hole that isn't even relevant.
Seems that a lot was cut just before release.

http://io9.com/5924065/why-were-glad...s-untold-story
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-07-2012, 09:02 AM
One thing I really liked about ASM was that Gwen was never REALLY the damsel like MJ was...all 3 times. Yes, she was at Oscorp and being hunted by Lizard, but she wasn't there to be rescued as a damsel...like MJ was all 3 times. Hell, Gwen in SP3 was a damsel to be saved. It's the one thing I dislike about the SM movies was that MJ was always front row and centre when it came to the final battles. First movie it worked nicely, I'll give Raimi that. SM 2 needlessly did that with Doc Oc but it also kind of worked due to how Doc Oc and Peter had that short history together. SM3, just f#$@ed it up royally, be it one of MANY mistakes. So with that, I like that Captain Stacey told his daughter to leave and be safe.
Is it a saving grace for the film? Not really. I personally enjoyed it, not perfect by any means and it has plenty of flaws as does Raimi's series. And I'm probably one of the FEW that liked the body suit Goblin had in SM1 simply cause the mask would take too long for Osborn to just put on any second. So for me, while fans cried bloody murder, I liked that Goblin armour.
Overall, sometimes you just need to sit and enjoy. ASM has its flaws too, but for myself, I found enjoyment in it just as I did with SM1-3...even if 3 is hard to watch.

My only real beef with ASM is I disliked how the robbery lead to Ben's death and I the untold story was still untold. The rest I can enjoy.

Last edited by GodMagnus; 07-07-2012 at 09:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-07-2012, 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Seems that a lot was cut just before release.

http://io9.com/5924065/why-were-glad...s-untold-story
Maybe that will help.

Everything in Amazing Spider-Man feels kind of tame and so muted and I wonder if more development would help? Maybe the story seemed lazy because they were trying to find new ground and that made their differences seem like shortcuts through story and development or maybe they simply cut too much.

It happened bigtime in Incredible Hulk. I like that film a lot but after watching the deleted scenes, I feel it could have been a pure classic had they left some of that stuff in the theatrical cut. ASM can't hit that level because the action seemed average but I'm sure the story could use to gain some more weight.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-07-2012, 10:27 PM
Yes the argument that this is ultimately pointless is valid but it ends up being more organic and earnest than all three of the previous films combined.

I loved, loved, loved the first Spidey when it came out. But over time I feel it has aged rather poorly. It has a wonderfully fun comic book tone and it's still a fun ride but the more think about it the more I find wrong with it (as well as the beloved part 2). I had never read the comic before I saw the first movie, only grew up with the cartoon. As I started reading comics more and more over the years something struck me about the first 2 Spidey flicks. Tobey is a bad Peter Parker. He completely, utterly lacks the resolve the comic book Peter has. Sure he's nerdy and picked on, but he doesn't just mope around and act deflated. He takes his lumps and keeps his chin up. Tobey's Peter just mopes and does nothing about it. He isn't nearly as proactive as Spidey and Peter are supposed to be.
Garfield and Webb got Peter just right. He's smart, he's nerdy but not without his pride. He actually stands up for himself and others. This is a much better Parker then ANYTHING we saw in the Raimi films. And he actively seeks out the villains instead of waiting for the villain to strike again.
And wow is the romance in the first trilogy horrible. Dunst and McGuire have zero chemistry and their interactions only get worse as the series goes on. It's hokey without charm or humor. It's just awkward. Their relationship is never given any proper set up. He just loves MJ because....
It makes her love confession at the end unbelievable and forced.

I'm honestly baffled people are saying the romance in this new film is bad and contrived. There is more genuine spark and chemistry between Garfield and Stone than McGuire and Dunst managed to muster in three films. Gwen is given more to do then just act as an object out of Peter's reach. She's her own person and doesn't just end up being the damsel like MJ did in every damn movie. The whole cast of characters is better imo. Uncle Ben and Aunt May don't just feel like moral mouthpieces spewing overly corny motivational speeches this time. They feel real. Everything just feels more REAL. The acting, the dialogue, the relationships...etc. Even Dennis Leary, the A-typical heavy steals his scenes and brings a refreshing angle to a role that could have been totally forgettable.
I completely understand the opinion that the first hour is just an unneeded retread. I actually never felt that once because I felt more invested in the characters from the get go and Webb actually managed to make the discovery of powers entertaining and fun to watch. The action is also surprisingly strong. Due to better CGI Spidey feels like he actually has weight and mass as he swings through the city instead of just floating weightlessly on webs. The way the camera moves with Spidey in this is exciting and adds personality to the action. The scene where Spidey is swinging from all of those cranes is the single best web-slinging scene in the 4 films to date. I actually got geeky chills watching it. The train scene in SM2 is still the best overall action scene in the series, but the school scene and finale in TASM give it a run for it's money.
The Lizard was awesome looking imo and I personally did not have a problem with his design at all. In fact I'd say he was the most purely intimidating villain of the 4 films. I would have liked a bit more scenes with Connors, but Lizard was a surprisingly effective villain.


I don't hate the first 2 Spider-Man films. Raimi totally nailed the tone and feel of the 60's comic, he crafts good action and GG and Doc Ock are both awesome villains. The origin segment of the first film is great and McGuire gives his best performance in the first film. JK Simmons as JJJ is one of the best casting decisions in comic book film history but as I've become a fan of the comics the Raimi films have been slowly going downhill. I just don't buy into McGuire as Peter/Spidey, the love story, which is the linchpin of the whole trilogy, is awkward and devoid of chemistry.
The Amazing Spider-Man successfully tells the origin with zest while giving everything a much more believable angle. The acting, the dialogue, the character interactions are all just BETTER. While this film does a Batman Begins and pits Spidey in a more ground universe, they never lost sight of the character.

8.5/10
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-08-2012, 12:32 AM
This isn't an indictment of either Dunst's or Maguire's acting because i know they are both very talented but not only was their chemistry lacking in the Raimi versions but they genuinely seemed bored, almost as if they were doing the proverbial reading off of cue cards bit . Please don't get me started on that incessant theme that would play anytime both of them were together and getting all lovey, godawful . I remember my brother and me groaning in contempt at the little chat they had at the cemetery near the end of part 1, cheese infested nonsense, we felt like the scene would never end also ( we got shooshed by some theater patrons but we couldn't help ourselves )

It's genuinely painful to watch them interact with each other in those films, when i watch the films now there is an intense sense of disconnect almost as if they shot their scenes seperately and then they were spliced together later, even people shooting against a greenscreen by themselves show more emotion and depth than those two showed in their scenes together .

I definitely agree with you concerning that aspect of the first trilogy, it's what made them age poorly but for me even in light of that, part 2 is still a highly effective comic book hero movie in spite of itself
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump