Movie: The Amazing Spider-Man

[Munsu]

Well, it looks like there'll be no Spiderman 4... but a reboot of the franchise instead. Not sure how I feel about this:
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/

[Sapphire]

What? I thought you had to wait at least twenty years to do that.

[Testarossa Autodrive]

I'm skeptical considering how shit the third one was. Each film had their own issues, but a reboot is kind of confusing at this point. Other than profit, I don't know why they would want to try and ruin a great comic book legend with shitty adaptations. I think I'll wait to see more info before I make a solid decision on how I feel.

[Penner]

I just wish they made a more hardcore NC-17/R-Rated movie with Carnage as the villian... but that won't happen ;(

[rockmanj]

Well, I don't really trust Avi Arad's decisions, as he and the other suits totally screwed up Spider-man 3. They basically forced Sam Raimi to put Venom in 3, even though he didn't want to. I'm not holding my breath on this to be a good thing.

[itadakimasu]

some bullshit. I read about the possibility of this happening a week or 2 ago since neither Tobey or Raimi were ready to do spiderman 4... I read that it was a timing issue w\ Raimi and another film and that the studio wanted the movie to be made and released in a certain time frame that wouldn't be possible for him.

rebooting a franchise that isn't very old is just a bad idea imo. are they going to reboot xmen also?(aside from origins movies)

[Carnage]

"This time around, the series will place Peter Parker in a more contemporary setting, as a teenager battling today’s issues."

Spider-Man 4: Sands of Afghanistan

I agree with Sapphire they should have waited another 5 years at least before rebooting.

[Animeniax]

All valid points. The Spider-man movies are too recent and already contemporary. This sounds like a Hollywood money grab.

I'd love an NC-17 Spider-man but that would lose 75% of the potential viewership since Spider-man has always been for kids.

[Death BOO Z]

so, what, again with uncle Ben getting shot? more of the "it was my fault" soup?
weren't three movies about the horrible love life of Peter Parker enough? I don't see any reason to have spidey waste half a movie about coming to terms with his powers, and then another half movie about fighting the goblin.

it's been tedious, the beginning of each superhero story is the most boring part. Spiderman has finally reached the stage that he can actually have an interesting plot (there has to be at least one decent storyline in the hundreds of comics that can be made into a movie), and they decide to reboot it?

[Psyke]

Spider-Man 2 was awesome. Spidey 3 sucked hard, but if they can bring back the feel of the first 2 movies, that wouldn't be too bad. But seriously, I'm hoping it's going to be fresh without ruining it for fans of the original comics.

[UChessmaster]

The reason for this reboot is because raimi wanted the vulture as the main villian, while sony wanted the black cat, sony is going to lose the license for spider-man movies and will have to give the rights to marvel, since they are against the clock, they don`t have the time to argue with raimi and come to an agreement so they basically said "fuck it".

[itadakimasu]

"The original plan was to keep the Spider-Man gang together for one last film in 2011 before rebooting the series in 2012. When it became clear that Raimi would not be able to make the summer 2011 release date planned for Spider-Man 4, the studio opted to scrap Spider-Man 4 altogether, and focus solely on the series reboot."

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/

This article is saying that the reboot was already planned, and that since Raimi pulled out... they simply scrapped spiderman 4 and moved along w\ the reboot. I was under the impression that it was a matter of throwing a movie together ( which it still is )

[Shadow Skill]

It's going to be epic fail.

We have 3 spiderman movies which flesh out Spiderman to how people like him to be fleshed out.

A reboot would ruin the comic and any movie adaptations.

Hollywood is full of idiots. Sony does not have any intelligent people working for them. Sony has a good track record of ruining shows/movies and running then in to the ground 6 feet under.

My thoughts on the matter.

[Raven]

The Hulk reboot turned out ok after only one movie. Maybe this will too. Although I don't like the idea of some shiny-ass effeminate vampire playing Peter Parker.

[XanBcoo]

The Hulk reboot turned out ok after only one movie.
I never saw the movie, but I didn't think The Hulk reboot was an origin story. That's why it did well.

DeathBoo already mentioned this. The Spiderman franchise is at a point now where they don't have to waste time with an origin story. They should be making The Dark Knight, but instead they're wasting time on Batman Begins. There's not a person who would go see this Spiderman reboot who doesn't already know the character.

If they can create an original, moving, and gritty character-study within the framework of Spiderman's origin story, it will be good. I have a feeling we're going to get the opposite: A hackneyed and trite origin story with "gritty" elements tacked on for the sake of selling tickets.

[Animeniax]

The first Hulk movie was terrible, and only partly because it featured Jennifer Connelly with A cups instead of her usual D cups. So a "reboot" movie was a good idea, as it should have been the way the first movie was made.

It's the same as the Batman "reboot". Not really a reboot, but a correction of the previous movie offerings which did a terrible job of telling the Batman story.

The Spider-man movies were great (3 not so much, but not as bad as other superhero movies). The series doesn't need a reboot. It needs a great script and great direction.

[itadakimasu]

true...

The Hulk w\ Eric Bana was pretty bad. I really liked the last one w\ Ed Norton though.

[Animeniax]

Part of the problem with a movie about The Hulk is that he is a pretty one-dimensional and straight-forward character, so you need a strong supporting cast. This is in contrast to Batman and Spider-man and other superheroes/mutants who can stand on their own for at least a movie or two, and can be supplemented with super-villains as the series progresses.

I didn't see the second The Hulk movie. But I think a successful movie would show more about Bruce Banner in random everyday life, someone pissing him off, and he turns into the Hulk and smashes them. I think a true super-villain would also help the story, instead of the usual US Army trying to kill him, but that would suck because what super-villain could beat the Hulk?

[darkshadow]

I actually didn't like Incredible Hulk as much as Hulk, simply cause of the more accurate backstory and the FAR more accurate portrayel of the hulk himself.
The leaping insane distances, his physique, actually growing when getting angry and heck simply his movements all felt so much better.

Sure the action was good in Incredible Hulk, and heck I don't care that much about what they want to do with the backstories and such, but the second movie didn't capture the hulk as what he is to me.

And as such I think a reboot this soon for spiderman is a big mistake.

[XanBcoo]

Here's what this movie would look like if Wes Anderson got a hold of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KfHEoZDKI

[Penner]

The guy's Owen Wilson voice was spot on, i thought it was him talking until i saw the guy on screen :P

[Penner]

So apparently some british actor named Andrew Garfield got the role of Peter Parker in the new Spiderman reboot movie.

Here's a few comments he has about it (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/18171/garfield-comments-on-spider-man-)

[Animeniax]

That's weird how the live action actor looks like the re-imagined drawn Peter Parker from reboots of the Spider-man comic books.

I prefer the original nerd/geek Peter Parker to the re-imagined dork/"cool guy in nerd clothes" persona.

[rockmanj]

Are you talking about the normal Marvel continuity Peter Parker? I would be interested in seeing an "Ultimate" version of Spider-man; i.e an actual teenager with the big spider eyes.

[UChessmaster]

First look at the new Spider-man suit. (http://img91.imageshack.us/i/andrewgarfieldspiderman.jpg/)

[Carnage]

First look at the new Spider-man suit. (http://img91.imageshack.us/i/andrewgarfieldspiderman.jpg/)

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4213/slowpokepokemon.gif

[Penner]

Man he looks super skinny lol

[Psyke]

More pic (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/114283-new-spider-man-set-pictures-surface)s out earlier this week.

[Animeniax]

I see Martin Sheen is supposedly cast in the film. I wonder if he's playing J. Jonah Jameson? No way he does as good a job as J.K. Simmons.

[UChessmaster]

Uncle Ben

[Penner]

Apparently J. Jonah Jameson won't be in the movie...

Source (IGN) (http://movies.ign.com/articles/114/1144625p1.html)

They might aswell not have him, since there's no way they can cast anyone better than J.K Simmons :P

[Shadow Skill]

I can't see this being better than the 3 Spiderman movies with Tobey.

This reboot sounds like another Hollywood screw up.

[Death BOO Z]

the only thing that bugs me is seeing the whole origin ordeal again, uncle ben, may, great responsibility, yadda yadda.
I do like them bringing Dr.Connors, I guess they're going to play on the father figure aspect of him (contrasted to uncle ben and Richard Parker), I hope it works well on the science side of spiderman, and not only on the geek loser stuff.

I'm not completely sure about the suit, the head seems to be in a screaming red color.

[Animeniax]

Has there been any word on who the villain will be? Please no more Green Goblin or Hobgoblin.

[Penner]

I think i read somewhere that "The Lizard" was going to be the villain..

[Munsu]

We got the title for the new movie, editing the thread title now:
The Amazing Spider-Man

And a new poster:

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4061/amazinggarfield.jpg

[XanBcoo]

Really wanna touch that suit.

[Psyke]

Teaser trailer is out.


http://youtu.be/_XayxMPrUP4

[Munsu]

Anyone seen it yet? I would've thought someone would've commented on this movie by now. Will probably go watch it next week.

[Ryllharu]

I saw it. It was okay. Better than the first Tobey Maguire Spider-Man, way better than 3rd, but not quite as good as the 2nd in the original set.

Andrew Garfield is great as Peter, and Emma Stone is always good. Sally Field is a great Aunt May for how little screen time she seems to get. The problem lies in the pacing, it's not good. A lot of the middle parts are quite slow, and honestly pretty dull. Those parts of the movie feel like they don't fit and break up the narrative flow.

Also, for a film that was supposedly shot in 3D, going to see it in 3D is a complete waste of money. There's really not that much depth to the shots taken, and a lot of them are close-ups as well, so the background just blurs out anyway. Take the glasses off, and the film isn't even fuzzy.

Plotwise, it is serviceable. The only issue I really had with it plotwise was that they seem to go out of their way to avoid major points of the Spider-Man mythos, to make it feel more "fresh," but it just comes off a little weird. It's obvious they base the new films on Ultimate Spider-Man (as with many of the Marvel films), but they don't want to really go all way into it, and stick with a lot of the mainstays of the regular series.

tl;dr
Is it worth seeing? Yes, but make sure you don't waste your money on the 3D version if that is an option. Cast is great, pacing is not so great, story is pretty good, but they made some odd choices.

[Kraco]

I liked this better than the old Spider-Man movies. It's true this won't be winning any awards and there were certain flaws in it, especially in the script, but I liked the darker atmosphere (both literally and figuratively), which reminded me of the difference between the old and new Batman movies. One big thing for me personally is that I never much liked the old Spider-man nor his actor Maguire. This new Spider-man was kind of wilder, rougher, and was having more fun, and I had no such problems with this new actor, Garfield, either. The big bad villain was so laughable that this felt more like an introduction movie, though.

Edit: Ryll made his post while I was idling, so I thought to note I watched this on purpose in 2D, and during the whole movie there were only a couple of scenes that I imagined would have been nice in 3D. I've grown kind of weary of the whole 3D craze and intend to watch only select movies in it, movies I imagine really benefit from it.

[Munsu]

I always opt to watch movies in 3D even if by the end of it it's not worth it. I figure it would be my only opportunity to watch it that way. If the movie is good enough, I will always have the option to watch it in 2D later on.

Anyways, will look forward to seeing this then.

[Carnage]

I thought it was pretty bad to be honest. Certain parts of it felt very spiderman-esque, such as the quips during the fights, but by and large the transitions from scene to scene were done very poorly, and Andrew Garfield didn't make a very good Peter Parker. Sure Peter is supposed to be awkward, but Andrew just made it uncomfortable. Plus, the romance and death in the movie happened so quickly that it was hard to empathize with the characters. Overall I think the director tried to fit too much into the movie and the product just became a series of plot points, there wasn't a real flow to the film.


I definitely enjoyed Spiderman 1 & 2 much better than this reboot. I really wish Marvel never sold the rights to Sony in the first place, it would have been amazing to see what they could do with their crown jewel considering how popular their Iron Man movies are.

[Splash!]

I really liked this movie. Maybe it's because I loathed the earlier trilogy and thought both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were terrible in them.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

I posted this in the dark knight rises thread in response to some schmuck but I think its a bit more on topic here...

the spidey movies (1-2 of course) were amazing to me in their day. But they just don't hold up after the allure of actual seeing spiderman in live action fades away. The costumes resemble power rangers, and everythings so brightly lit its as tho the entire world takes place 5 feet from the sun. Sam Raimi's direction wasn't terrible, at times I enjoyed it like when Doc Oc was ominously climbing Harry's building. But overall the directing was too over the top and encroaching on the rest of the elements. Its like he wanted it to be first and foremost a sam raimi film and THEN to be spiderman.

Tobey was good for what he was told to do.... which was a fly on the wall shy dorky personality. Which wasn't terrible, but it isnt what you think of when you think spiderman. AND they spent way too much time on fucking mary jane watson. I love the way they put Gwen Stacey into the actual plot instead of just "get kidnapped, get saved, get kissed, fucking hell, really?"

btw, who is Splash? Is that a name change or did you just stop posting here for a while?

[Animeniax]

Not sure what you think of when you think of Spiderman (prob the bulge in his pants), but the Maguire Parker was spot on. The Garfield version is the newer hipster version from the 2000s, which is not what or how Peter Parker is. I imagine he appeals more to hipsters like yourself, but that's another character. Hipster Parker is almost as bad as black Nick Fury.

[UChessmaster]

Not sure what you think of when you think of Spiderman (prob the bulge in his pants), but the Maguire Parker was spot on.

No, Peter was shy for about half a chapter before he got bit by the spider, afterwards he became more secure of himself and was showed to be funny/sarcastic. The Peter in the movie was stuck on personality 1 the WHOLE damn trilogy.

[Animeniax]

No, Peter was shy for about half a chapter before he got bit by the spider, afterwards he became more secure of himself and was showed to be funny/sarcastic. The Peter in the movie was stuck on personality 1 the WHOLE damn trilogy.

Not in the original series and through the 1990s. He was more confident as Spiderman, hence the funny quips, but as Peter Parker he was still nerdy and awkward. And if you didn't see the subtle changes in his personality spanning the three movies, then you weren't paying attention (again, prob the bulge in spandex).

You might as well complain that Bruce Wayne acts the same in all three new Batman movies.

[Splash!]

btw, who is Splash? Is that a name change or did you just stop posting here for a while?

Nope, no name change. Just a long time lurker and very rare poster.

[UChessmaster]

Not in the original series and through the 1990s. He was more confident as Spiderman, hence the funny quips, but as Peter Parker he was still nerdy and awkward.

Yeah, he was so awkward originally, that`s why he hanged out with the rich kid, the football star, the super model and the prom queen.

[Animeniax]

Yeah, he was so awkward originally, that`s why he hanged out with the rich kid, the football star, the super model and the prom queen.

If you had read any of the original comics up through the early 90s-2000s, you'd know better. Since you haven't, it will be a waste of time to cite all the backstory that proves you wrong. So here are some synopses from wiki:

"Peter Parker, a teenage high school student and person behind Spider-Man's secret identity to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could relate."

"Over the years, the Peter Parker character has developed from shy, nerdy high school student to troubled but outgoing college student, to married high school teacher to, in the late 2000s, a single freelance photographer, his most typical adult role."

"Despite his superpowers, Parker struggles to help his widowed aunt pay rent, is taunted by his peers—particularly football star Flash Thompson."

Personality

"As one contemporaneous journalist observed, "Spider-Man has a terrible identity problem, a marked inferiority complex, and a fear of women. He is anti-social, [sic] castration-ridden, racked with Oedipal guilt, and accident-prone ... [a] functioning neurotic". Agonizing over his choices, always attempting to do right, he is nonetheless viewed with suspicion by the authorities"

[UChessmaster]

Wow, you`re actually right, world`s end must be close.

[Animeniax]

Wow, you`re actually right, world`s end must be close.

Way to take defeat like a man.

[UChessmaster]

Credit where credit`s due.

[Kraco]

I never had such problems with Spider-man's personality back in the days reading the comics (a long time ago), but even though Maguire's movies might have portrayed him somewhat correctly (more correctly than this new movie), I still hated Maguire's Spider-man, and no small thanks to the actor himself. Maybe I just didn't like the looks of his mug... The source faithfulness aside, I liked the energetic nature of the new one. In the end it would have been useless to make this movie if they had been too afraid to change a thing or two.

[Animeniax]

Not sure why the hate for Maguire. Did he play unlikeable characters in other movies? Is he a db irl?

I think most detractors of the new movie feel it was useless to make this new movie. Too soon for a reboot and no point to it besides making some money.

[darkshadow]

Tobey was alright as parker, but he wasn't a great spiderman. Plus the suit was completely out of reach of what a highschool kid could make himself; that composite perfect webbing on the suit? C'mon...
Even if amazing is buying his webfluid, him using natural webbing instead of webshooters was a slap in the face, almost as much as using the green goblin scenario for MJ instead of Gwen.
I'm also sure amazing will start making his own eventually in the sequels.

The previous trilogy was a mess lore wise, the only thing it got right was uncle ben.
Amazing was infinitely better than the entire trilogy combined.

[Carnage]

I love how people are giving Maguire shit for his Peter Parker act when Stan Lee himself said that he was the perfect choice to cast. And no, the pacing in Amazing was horrendous; Spiderman 1 & 2 were much, much better.

[UChessmaster]

I put in doubt Stan Lee`s ability to properly cast someone. Spidey 2 was better? maybe, part 1? never.

[Carnage]

I put in doubt Stan Lee`s ability to properly cast someone. Spidey 2 was better? maybe, part 1? never.

You know, because your opinion of who reflects Peter Parker is much more critical than they guy who invented the character.

[Splash!]

What exactly do you expect Stan Lee to say? He surely isn't going to insult the actor at the center of one of Marvel's biggest franchises (in terms of revenue) after the fact.

[Abdula]

You know, because your opinion of who reflects Peter Parker is much more critical than they guy who invented the character.

Actually yes. I was wondering what the hell you meant by your earlier post. As if Stan Lee's opinion somehow invalidated UC's. Not sure how to properly explain my reasoning without some long run-on post. I will just say that the fact that Stan Lee is the creator of Spiderman does not mean that he knows best who should play the character in a movie. That belongs to the director who really should be the one to have final say on who he feels would best embody the character he is trying to portray.

Secondly, Stan Lee seems to have no casting ability whatsoever. This is the same guy who said Ben Affleck was a great Daredevil and David Hassellhoff was a good Nick Fury :rolleyes:.

Splash has another valid point.

[UChessmaster]

What he said.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Not sure what you think of when you think of Spiderman (prob the bulge in his pants), but the Maguire Parker was spot on. The Garfield version is the newer hipster version from the 2000s, which is not what or how Peter Parker is. I imagine he appeals more to hipsters like yourself, but that's another character. Hipster Parker is almost as bad as black Nick Fury.

Like UChess said Garfield's Spidey was awkward and shy in school and even around Gwen throughout the entire film. But despite being awkward and nerdy he was still standing up for the kid getting beat up... as much as you could tell it was against his nature he did it anyway. Thats the type of character I appreciate, ones that are multi-dimensional and have different angles to them. And as the movie progressed so did he. You can especially see that when he was defending spiderman to the Captain. Clearly that scene was there to show that this kid who would have never said a word of disagreement to someone like that especially his girl's father, was now suddenly not as much fearless as he was brave in the face of fear if it meant doing what he believed in. THAT is what made me love this film and appreciate the subtle acting of Garfield.

So idk where you guys make him out to be this "hipster spiderman" just because he has a skateboard?? Are you kidding? Yeah I guess I can relate cause I was awkward in school and liked to skate. And despite him being shy and all he was still a cool guy underneath But I guess you just related more to the one dimensional Tobey?? He was a dork at first and then suddenly he's spidey and he's the most confident guy the second the glasses came off. Another small thing I really liked the glasses not being thrown out.

Oh an one last thing... Garfield was already a risk taker since he skated, so it wasn't like he was a total stranger to taking risks like jumping over gaps and such. So the transition to taking a risk and using the webs wasn't such a drastic one like Mcguire's seemed to me.

And remember this is coming from someone who LOVED the first 2 movies. The 2nd one obviously a little more than the 1st. Maybe I'm just a bit disenchanted by the supposed big ending of the trilogy and haven't let go my hate for souring two great films by ending it on sucha shitty note. It seemed like they weren't even sure if they were going to end it. I thought the venom spidey was cool when he fought sandman and all... but besides that they completely fuckd that movie. It shoulda ended with a battle between spiderman and sandman after he overcame venom. And then Eddie Brock should've been introduced and foreshadowed the next, and shoulda been, 4th and final film. But I digress.

I think you guys who are hating this clearly great, not perfect, but great film are looking at it with hate blinders on because like someone said already; they think its too soon for a reboot or they liked the original trilogy so this feels like blasphemy. Which I understand but hopefully you'll give this film another chance and take some of the things I said about it into consideration next time you see it.

[Animeniax]

Tobey was alright as parker, but he wasn't a great spiderman. Plus the suit was completely out of reach of what a highschool kid could make himself; that composite perfect webbing on the suit? C'mon...
Even if amazing is buying his webfluid, him using natural webbing instead of webshooters was a slap in the face, almost as much as using the green goblin scenario for MJ instead of Gwen.
I'm also sure amazing will start making his own eventually in the sequels.

The previous trilogy was a mess lore wise, the only thing it got right was uncle ben.
Amazing was infinitely better than the entire trilogy combined.
All of the Marvel movies make a mess of the material and lore of their heroes. Wolverine, the X-men, Thor, Spider-man, etc all had their stories changed significantly for the movies. And Peter Parker is a genius with access. If anyone could come up with the materials and design for an advanced looking costume, it'd be him.

I wasn't too happy at the natural web goo in the first movie instead of the mechanical ones, but if you're going to question his ability to fabricate a costume, then you have to question the ability of a teenager to make synthetic web goo and the devices that can reliably dispense that goo. Also, it's not a stretch that he produce the webbing naturally, considering his spider-abilities.

[Animeniax]

Actually yes. I was wondering what the hell you meant by your earlier post. As if Stan Lee's opinion somehow invalidated UC's. Not sure how to properly explain my reasoning without some long run-on post. I will just say that the fact that Stan Lee is the creator of Spiderman does not mean that he knows best who should play the character in a movie. That belongs to the director who really should be the one to have final say on who he feels would best embody the character he is trying to portray.

Secondly, Stan Lee seems to have no casting ability whatsoever. This is the same guy who said Ben Affleck was a great Daredevil and David Hassellhoff was a good Nick Fury :rolleyes:.

Splash has another valid point.It depends on which Peter Parker you are a fan of I guess. As I pointed out earlier, the modern geek Parker is not the same nerd Parker that Stan Lee created and that Maguire portrayed. You guys are obviously fans of a newer, cooler Parker, such as KNJ mentioned, one that will stick up for a kid getting picked on. But Peter Parker from the original Spider-man comics was the kid getting picked on.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Flash fuckd with him too at the start of the film. And then fuckd him into the ground after he stood up for the kid.

ANd you got that backwards. Garfield's the nerd Parker and Maguire is the dork or geek Parker.

[Animeniax]

Science whizzes are nerds and dorks, not geeks. Garfield's is more the hipster doofus.

But whatever, people will like the Peter Parker they identify with. Just like they'll be happy with a black Nick Fury.

[fahoumh]

Just like they'll be happy with a black Nick Fury.


When the character resurfaced in 2002 in The Ultimates, he had been redesigned to look like actor Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson did not originally give his consent for Marvel Comics to use his likeness in their redesign of the Fury character for The Ultimates,[4] and first appeared with this revised look in The Ultimates #1, as drawn by Bryan Hitch. The similarity is even noted within the comic itself, in a scene in which the Ultimates discuss who they think should play each of them in a hypothetical movie about the team. Fury's answer for himself is "Mr. Samuel L. Jackson, of course, no discussion." It was only after seeing the redesigned Nick Fury in the first issue of The Ultimates that Samuel L. Jackson learned of the use of his likeness and contacted Marvel in order to secure the role of Nick Fury in any future Marvel movies.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Nick_Fury

So it seems like this version appeared in comics 6 years before his first appearance in a movie (Iron Man came out 2008), even though his design was based on the actor that would eventually play him. That's kind of a mind-fuck.

[Animeniax]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Nick_Fury

So it seems like this version appeared in comics 6 years before his first appearance in a movie (Iron Man came out 2008), even though his design was based on the actor that would eventually play him. That's kind of a mind-fuck.All true. Marvel changed him to a black character in the Ultimate universe. I understand the need to diversify their characters, but I think it could be better done with new characters instead of changing existing ones. Nick Fury is a somewhat minor character in the big scheme of things, but it irks me for some reason that they changed his race.

[Splash!]

Science whizzes are nerds and dorks, not geeks. Garfield's is more the hipster doofus.

Hipster doofus, really?

It's ironic that you would make this point because the BIGGEST problem I had with Maguire's Parker is that in no way did I get the feeling that he was an intelligent individual. Sure, there was a lot of awkwardness and social ineptitude but that was about it. I definitely did not sense a brilliant young mind somewhere in there, even though the script tried to pass him off as one.

In my experience, truly intelligent people (even if they are socially inept) have pretty rich personalities in their own ways. I actually got that from Garfield's character, in spite of his 'hipster' persona. I just got nerd and dork from Maguire.

So for me, it was more like nerdy doofus vs witty hipster. I prefer the latter.

[Ryllharu]

Totally agree that the original trilogy forgot to make Parker actually smart. Spiderman2 fixed that to an extent, because he was actually able to ask intelligent things to Doc Oc. So...then they ruined it in the third again.

The biggest problem with that was the Maguire's Parker produced his own webbing inside his body, while Garfield not only reverse engineered the OsCorp BioCable, he built the webshooters. I do wish they had showed that, at least in the training montage.

You could immediately tell that Garfield's Parker was an intelligent nerd through a few of the subtle hints they tossed in there. The remote activated, servo-driven door lock being the most obvious.

[darkshadow]

All of the Marvel movies make a mess of the material and lore of their heroes. Wolverine, the X-men, Thor, Spider-man, etc all had their stories changed significantly for the movies. And Peter Parker is a genius with access. If anyone could come up with the materials and design for an advanced looking costume, it'd be him.

I wasn't too happy at the natural web goo in the first movie instead of the mechanical ones, but if you're going to question his ability to fabricate a costume, then you have to question the ability of a teenager to make synthetic web goo and the devices that can reliably dispense that goo. Also, it's not a stretch that he produce the webbing naturally, considering his spider-abilities.

All those franchises you listed, cept tobeyman, actually adapted the lore in a very sensible way; spiderman trilogy was a complete and utter mess lore wise for more than the reasons I listed.
Making web goo and mechanical devices isn't a stretch because parker is supposedly a genius, he fixes things, he builds things; he isn't a tailor/fashion designer/cosplayer.
The costume they built for the movies is seriously something even professional cosplaying teams have a hard time trying to reproduce.
Amazing's costume however looks like something that was cut and pasted together, heck the shoes he wears are actual shoes, not some formfitting spacewear tobey conjured up out of nowhere.

And yes natural webbing is a fucking stretch because parker never had this ability up until a bit before civil war where he underwent some changes aside from natural webbing (stingers and such), which was in ~2005, the movie came out in 2002.
Oh and parker no longer has natural webbing in the comics either, they disappeared after civil war.

So yeah while they were good movies in their own right, they crapped allll over spiderman lore so they can go fuck themselves into oblivion now that amazing is here.

[UChessmaster]

All true. Marvel changed him to a black character in the Ultimate universe. I understand the need to diversify their characters, but I think it could be better done with new characters instead of changing existing ones. Nick Fury is a somewhat minor character in the big scheme of things, but it irks me for some reason that they changed his race.

Seems you don`t know this already, so i`ll GLADLY let you know that Fury is now black in 616 as well.

[Animeniax]

Seems you don`t know this already, so i`ll GLADLY let you know that Fury is now black in 616 as well.
I stopped reading comics seriously circa 1990s. I've read a few since then, but with all the changes/crossovers/alternate universes it got too ridiculous.

[UChessmaster]

There`s been changes/crossovers/alternate universes LONG before 1990.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

So yeah while they were good movies in their own right, they crapped allll over spiderman lore so they can go fuck themselves into oblivion now that amazing is here.

HA! Damn right!!

Amazing wasn't the greatest film but it was a perfect origin story IMO. You feel like you actually know who Peter Parker was/is with the flashbacks to his parents. Showing where Peter gets his genius from was a little touch I appreciated. And the way they incorporated his father's research into not only being involved with Connors but also Osborn in such a hypehypehype way of setting the score for the upcoming sequel.

Oh and while we're on the topic of "Tobeyman" (thankyou ds) and his costume, it wasn't just his that seemed totally out of place. Was the Glider suit that became the Green Goblin suit originally designed that way?? It was meant for military use was it not? So then can someone explain to me why it looked the way it did..... completely ridiculous? Even putting aside the BRIGHT green coloring, that mask alone hardly seems like something they'd want to use to impress the military. And anyway even lets say Norman changed it to make it look that way after the fact, it still looked like something out of the Power Rangers movie.

[Animeniax]

There`s been changes/crossovers/alternate universes LONG before 1990.

Yes of course there were, but not to the degree since then. I think the stories/characters started getting dull/stale around that time so the companies started doing weirder crossovers/alternate lines. I think that's about when the 2099 series came out. A lot of fans moved to the independent publishers like Valiant/Defiant and Dark Horse around that time, rather than see their favorite characters changed or expanded in ways that were contrary to the heroes we knew and loved.

[UChessmaster]

I get the impression that you don`t like it anymore because it`s different, not because it`s "worse", a lot of changes are good, and helped the characters so much (Aquaman, Animal Man), seeing the character staying the same for over 50 years would be boring as fuck.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Change is great and a necessity but I also tire quickly of all the alternate realities and such. One or two wouldn't be so terrible but when every day theres another popping up it gets to be near impossible for anyone to follow a single story.

Right now I'm just jumping around and finding some gems like this Batman 'Black Mirror' book. Probably my favorite comic to date. It'd be nice to be able to follow a continual story but there's so many 'this guys back from the dead with no explanation', and 'in an alternate reality he fell from the sky and landed in our reality' it just really gets to be too much.

[UChessmaster]

There are two universes in dc that crossover every now and then and two universes in marvel that crossover once in the last 12 years...

If you want Batman comics, get Pain and Prejudice, an absolute master piece.

[Dark Dragon]

For starter, i'm a big fan of the 90's Spiderman cartoon.

Which is the reason why i hated Tobey's Spiderman. It just felt to me like he was very good at being awkward as peter, but that was it. His portrayal of Spiderman didn't work for me, because i just felt like it was Tobey in a costume and a complete lack of personality for Spidey.

Amazing certainly has it fair share of problem, but i think people are just not giving it a fair chance because they want to constantly compare it to the original trilogy. There are too many people that went into this movie thinking "there's no need for a reboot" so you can't even enjoy a pretty good movie.

Even while comparing the two, i still have to say that i prefer amazing and definitely like Garfield's smartass fast talking portrayal of Spiderman that is very similar to what i know from my childhood.

[fahoumh]

The weekend before last, I saw this with my friend who is also a childhood fan of Spider-Man and I have to say I really liked it. I would also say I liked Garfield's portrayal of Peter and Spidey much more than Tobey's.

[Penner]

Just watched this yesterday, i had pretty low expectations going in but i was very pleasantly surprised, i like the new guy much more than Tobey.

Love it when things flip my expectations and i get surprised in a good way like this.

[Archangel]

Just watched this yesterday, i had pretty low expectations going in but i was very pleasantly surprised, i like the new guy much more than Tobey.

I prefered his spiderman to Tobey's spiderman but his Parker ( which entails what, 90 or 80% of this role? ) was downright painful to watch. Felt like i was watching Twilight, and i've never even watched Twilight.

[TwisT]

Thought this was superior in every way to any of Tobey's movies. I liked Peter although there was some really awkward and corny scenes. Some of the awkward once i have no problem with because Peter is supposed to be all nerdy and shit and as is universal law that nerds are awkward around the opposite sex.
Ben and May was better. Maybe I'm just dazzled or starstruck by the big names. Big fan of both Martin Sheen and Sally Fields and i thought they where excellent.
Loved this Gwen over Tobey's MJ. Loved Gwen's dad.
Loved the Lizard as the villain. Much better then any villain in Tobey's versions. Had some problems with him though. Biggest one being how the swat that got hit by the gas grenade started to get reptile skin in mere seconds.
Loved how Spidey used his homemade web shooter instead of it being a mutation.

But most of all, Andrew's Spidey was 10 times better then Tobey.

[Animeniax]

Finally saw this movie today. The only improvement was the love interest, and that was only as far as the actress they chose for the role (though I'm a fan of Kirsten Dunst, she was wrong for the MJ role).

Everything else was pretty bad, both as a standalone movie and as a reworking of the Spider-man origin story. They had big names in some of the roles, but they were minor characters and didn't contribute at all. Jonah Jameson as his antagonist was much better than Capt. Stacey, and Simmons did a much better job than Leary. Like Carnage said, the director tried to cram too much into the movie (which was 2.5 hrs long), and there were a ton of plot holes because of this.

@Twist: you thought the Lizard was a better villain than Doc Ock?? The Lizard was basically a clone of the Doc Ock from the second movie, in background, purpose, outlook, and even in redemption. The visual effects for Doc Ock were also much better than with the CGI Lizard.

Not comparing the two movies, I'd still say this was a B movie as far as comic movies go.

[UChessmaster]

Comparing amazing to spidey 2 is a bit unfair no? how about you compare it to spidey 1?

[TwisT]

I did. Maybe it's because of left over residue from my comic book days. But there Octo is a joke. Sure he has some brainy plan that gives spidey some problems for a short while but once Spidey foils Octo's plans Octo vs Spidey becomes a joke. Octo get so outclassed by Spidey that what else the the word "joke" can you use to describe him? Octo, Rhino, Shocker, Vulture, Scorpio(n?). There is a list of them in the comics that you can never judge in any other way. They where a match for Spidey back in the 80s when they where the strongest once he could face. But even then they never really felt scary. Kraven, Green Goblin and Hobgoblin where the real threats. When you picked up the issue in the store and saw Green Goblin you knew Spidey where gonna have big trouble. Then came Venom and from him came Carnage. That's what a real nemesis is. They outclassed Spidey in every way. Venom even knew Parkers secret identity which made him the biggest threat of them all (forgot if Carnage ever knew it but i don't think so). If not for the symbiosis weakness to fire and sound (Carnage didn't have this one), Spidey would have lost big time.

Lizard was somewhere in the middle of those groups. In the beginning he would outclass Spidey in a 1on1. Thanks to Dr Conners knowing Parkers secret, Lizard of course knew too. The Lizard also had that whole predatory instinct and rage thing going. Much like Venom. This made him feel like a threat. Although at the end before i stopped buying them he had become somewhat of a pushover.

So anyways when i watched Spiderman 2, Octo never felt threatening to me. Even though i know Spidey will beat the Lizard in the end because he is the main character you still feel some suspense when Spidey is the actual prey and not the predator. But since i dont remember Spiderman 2 that well and you have spouted all this nonsense i will rewatch it sometime this week and try to forget any knowledge i have from the comics and try and judge it for the movie it is.

[Animeniax]

Comparing amazing to spidey 2 is a bit unfair no? how about you compare it to spidey 1?

Besides the villains, I was mostly comparing the first movie to the reboot movie. I preferred that the first movie followed the true origin story of Spider-man, including the "with great power, comes great responsibility" motto that defines Peter Parker as Spider-man. I didn't get the feel of that in the reboot, and I also didn't feel the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle. The death of Uncle Ben is a major driving force in his life as a superhero, and the new movie didn't give enough weight to that.

I thought Peter's discovery and testing his new powers was more realistic and better done than in the new movie too.

As for the villain, the Lizard is a pretty crappy villain, period. The Goblin isn't a great movie villain, but Dafoe played the part well.

[Animeniax]

I did. Maybe it's because of left over residue from my comic book days. But there Octo is a joke. Sure he has some brainy plan that gives spidey some problems for a short while but once Spidey foils Octo's plans Octo vs Spidey becomes a joke. Octo get so outclassed by Spidey that what else the the word "joke" can you use to describe him? Octo, Rhino, Shocker, Vulture, Scorpio(n?). There is a list of them in the comics that you can never judge in any other way. They where a match for Spidey back in the 80s when they where the strongest once he could face. But even then they never really felt scary. Kraven, Green Goblin and Hobgoblin where the real threats. When you picked up the issue in the store and saw Green Goblin you knew Spidey where gonna have big trouble. Then came Venom and from him came Carnage. That's what a real nemesis is. They outclassed Spidey in every way. Venom even knew Parkers secret identity which made him the biggest threat of them all (forgot if Carnage ever knew it but i don't think so). If not for the symbiosis weakness to fire and sound (Carnage didn't have this one), Spidey would have lost big time.

Lizard was somewhere in the middle of those groups. In the beginning he would outclass Spidey in a 1on1. Thanks to Dr Conners knowing Parkers secret, Lizard of course knew too. The Lizard also had that whole predatory instinct and rage thing going. Much like Venom. This made him feel like a threat. Although at the end before i stopped buying them he had become somewhat of a pushover.

So anyways when i watched Spiderman 2, Octo never felt threatening to me. Even though i know Spidey will beat the Lizard in the end because he is the main character you still feel some suspense when Spidey is the actual prey and not the predator. But since i dont remember Spiderman 2 that well and you have spouted all this nonsense i will rewatch it sometime this week and try to forget any knowledge i have from the comics and try and judge it for the movie it is.

Talk about nonsense man, what a peculiar reason to hate a movie character, because you didn't think much of him as a comic character?? What about the portrayal of the character in the movie, the execution and special effects, and the actor's work? Molina did a great job with his character. Rhys Ifans as the Lizard didn't do anything to set his role apart. And like I said, they were basically the same character with the same goals and motives.

[UChessmaster]

Besides the villains, I was mostly comparing the first movie to the reboot movie. I preferred that the first movie followed the true origin story of Spider-man, including the "with great power, comes great responsibility" motto that defines Peter Parker as Spider-man. I didn't get the feel of that in the reboot, and I also didn't feel the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle. The death of Uncle Ben is a major driving force in his life as a superhero, and the new movie didn't give enough weight to that.

I thought Peter's discovery and testing his new powers was more realistic and better done than in the new movie too.

As for the villain, the Lizard is a pretty crappy villain, period. The Goblin isn't a great movie villain, but Dafoe played the part well.

I haven`t seen it so i can`t really comment, Dafoe was ruined by the corny as fuck script and a mask that was stolen from a power ranger`s set. A good Norman perphaps, but GG was ruined hard.

[Animeniax]

I haven`t seen it so i can`t really comment, Dafoe was ruined by the corny as fuck script and a mask that was stolen from a power ranger`s set. A good Norman perphaps, but GG was ruined hard.

Which one haven't you seen, The Amazing Spider-man? I need to go back and watch Maguire's first Spider-man again, it's been a while.

I am pretty sure it wasn't a mask in the comics, it was his actual goblin face. The mask in the movie made the best of it without having to use extensive makeup on Dafoe, which is a cop out but that's Hollywood. I thought the dialogue for Norman was stilted and corny too, but still better than anything the Lizard said.

And not to sound like a xenophobe, but what's with 2 Brits playing the lead roles in an American movie about an American hero?

[UChessmaster]

Which one haven't you seen, The Amazing Spider-man? I need to go back and watch Maguire's first Spider-man again, it's been a while.

I am pretty sure it wasn't a mask in the comics, it was his actual goblin face. The mask in the movie made the best of it without having to use extensive makeup on Dafoe, which is a cop out but that's Hollywood. I thought the dialogue for Norman was stilted and corny too, but still better than anything the Lizard said.

And not to sound like a xenophobe, but what's with 2 Brits playing the lead roles in an American movie about an American hero?

I haven`t seen amazing. The goblin wears a mask, but it`s not a stiff one, it`s kinda rubbery so he actually has facial expressions.

[Animeniax]

I haven`t seen amazing. The goblin wears a mask, but it`s not a stiff one, it`s kinda rubbery so he actually has facial expressions.

Shit, then we're probably ruining the movie for you a bit. I'll admit I'm completely biased towards the original movies because I didn't see a need for a reboot, so I'm being overly harsh with my comparisons.

[UChessmaster]

Lol it`s fine, i`m waiting on the dvd to come out. As for the reboot there was no real choice since raimi and tobey were out and fox NEEDED to make a movie if they want to keep the rights.

[Animeniax]

I thought it was Sony that was losing the rights, so they wanted to milk the franchise for one more movie before it went to Fox or some other company. Either way, there's a sequel for the Amazing series coming, which I think has been mentioned.

[UChessmaster]

Yes that`s what i meant, sony, and they can keep the right as long as they make movies, so NOT making amazing 1 would be a horrible idea from an economical point.

[Animeniax]

I read up a little on the deal, and some want to blame Sam Raimi for the mess that was Spider-man 3 and the failure to come to an agreement on a 4th movie. I don't think that a 4th film with Raimi would have been any better than a reboot, especially if Sony meddled with the script again. They kinda covered most interesting scenarios with the first 3 movies already.

Yes it made sense for Sony from a financial standpoint, but it sucks that money co-opts creativity and history. I think a 4th Raimi film would have made them as much money as the reboot movie did. Of course with a reboot, they can make a sequel, whereas a 5th movie wouldn't be likely.

[UChessmaster]

Spider man 4 going to have the vulture, with felicia hardy as his daughter who would then become the vulturess...

[Animeniax]

Yikes, the Vulture as a movie villain? I hadn't considered it, but Spider-man had some of the crappiest villains to deal with. To think, if Sony hadn't shoe-horned Venom into the third movie, they could have had a blockbuster fourth movie.

[Death BOO Z]

Finally got around to watch it. Some parts better than Sam Rileys' trilogy, and some parts worse. Still, a good movie.
'
I liked the UncleBen murder in this film more than the classical one, less complicated and more 'realistic' (something that could happen), so it does make for better Drama. I heard some people compare it to Batman, but I didn't feel it.
Emma stone is amazing, even if her character is tangled in every existing plot of the movie, and BullyFlash does work, (basketball-dunking Peter is a bit too much, though).
I'm not a fan of the recent spiderman habit of having every single villain belong to Osborn. I see that they want to establish a 'big' villain, but I think it diminishes every badguy beneath him, and makes oscorp look like a company that solely hires crazy obsessed scientists.

The evil plot of "turn new-york to lizards" looked so much like Batman Begins "fear gas!" and Sherlock Holmes "Whatever-thing", it's getting old.

[Animeniax]

I guess you mean Peter's involvement in Uncle Ben's death being simpler, because the actual death of Uncle Ben is less realistic. In the Amazing origin, Uncle Ben encounters the criminal walking down the street, sees his gun on the ground and goes for it... a 65ish year old man goes for a criminal's gun? Not likely. In the original, Uncle Ben is killed during a home robbery. In Raimi's origin version, Uncle Ben is car-jacked and killed. Which seems most realistic to you?

I agree, Emma Stone is amazing and does a great job in this movie (I wasn't that big a fan before).

And the Lizard's master plan was the biggest plot hole of the movie. Unless I missed the part where he improved the formula, the transformation doesn't occur instantly and it doesn't last. But once he sprays some cops, they instantly begin transforming into lizards. And so much for a master plan, the transformation doesn't last.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

People are talking about Elektro being a villain in the next installment. I always liked him on the cartoon in the 90s, he stood out pretty well amongst the litany of spidey villains.


What do you guys think of it?

[Archangel]

I think i want a film with a decent Venom, and if i can't get that i want Carnage.

[Animeniax]

Electro was an awesome villain in the original Spider-man cartoon. I don't know if he's well known enough or has an interesting enough backstory to be a movie villain, which might be ok since then they can create his background without pissing off fans of the original.

But yeah, Venom done correctly would be the best villain for a new Spider-man movie.

[Ryllharu]

Electro was an awesome villain in the original Spider-man cartoon.
I hope you're not talking about the 60s series, where he was a joke, like most of the villains on that show.

I assume you mean the 90s version (very much not the "original" cartoon), where he is a disciple/son of the Red Skull, and a completely different character (in other words, not Max Dillon) with the same appearance as the original.

A bit different and quite a bit more sinister, agreed. But I found him to be very whiny and immature for a German/Russian spy...or whatever he was supposed to be.

The actual Electro appears in the comics and all other versions of the cartoon. Far more mundane origins the majority of the time.

edit 2:

Found the episode! (starting at 10:58)

http://marvel.com/videos/watch/604/spider-man_1967_episode_02

[Animeniax]

I doubt anyone knew there was a 60s cartoon until you researched it. But yeah, I meant the 90s cartoon that was popular and made Spider-man more popular. Electro was good in that, from the vague recollections I have about the series from 20 years ago. If I watched it now, I'd probably not like it as much. Still, I don't think he'd make a good villain for a movie.

[Ryllharu]

Researched it?

It aired multiple times on US cable channels. I watched numerous episodes then. That's how I knew about it in the first place. Same as Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (1981) which has been on for numerous years. Firestar ftw. So even if I had never known about the campy trash 60s one, I certainly would have known about the 80s version.

Even for you, this was a piss poor attempt to save a little face.

edit 2:

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I researched your claim just now. Turns out you were right. In fact, no one has ever heard of 60s spiderman (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=60s+spiderman&FORM=HDRSC2) before I just revealed its existence.

[darkshadow]

I doubt anyone knew there was a 60s cartoon until you researched it.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_madk3hYQBB1rwv51ko1_500.jpg

Hahahahahahahahaha, it's just stunning how you can never produce a single good post.

[Animeniax]

@Ryllharu: There you go again, reading too much into statements and getting butthurt over them. When I said "researched" of course I just meant "looked it up," which is fair enough considering the advent of wikipedia. When I said original, I meant original for me (and most anyone born after 1980) which would certainly not be the 1960s series. And when I said "no one knew about the 1960s series," of course you took that to mean no one in the history of man knows about it, when obviously I meant no one on this forum.

[Animeniax]

Hahahahahahahahaha, it's just stunning how you can never produce a single good post.

Oh yeah, the existence of a meme based on an image from the 1960s show obviously means the 17 year old who created it knew about the show and watched every episode of it. Or... he did an image search, found a goofy image of Spider-man he could use in a meme, and rolled with it. You proved me wrong yet again, Watson!

[darkshadow]

Oh yeah, the existence of a meme based on an image from the 1960s show obviously means the 17 year old who created it knew about the show and watched every episode of it. Or... he did an image search, found a goofy image of Spider-man he could use in a meme, and rolled with it. You proved me wrong yet again, Watson!

http://www.lawlz.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/60s-spider-man-meme-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg

[fahoumh]

@Ryllharu: There you go again, reading too much into statements and getting butthurt over them. When I said "researched" of course I just meant "looked it up," which is fair enough considering the advent of wikipedia. When I said original, I meant original for me (and most anyone born after 1980) which would certainly not be the 1960s series. And when I said "no one knew about the 1960s series," of course you took that to mean no one in the history of man knows about it, when obviously I meant no one on this forum.
I was born in 1981 and used to regularly watch that "acid trip" 60s Spider-Man cartoon when I was a kid, like 5 or 6 years old.

[Shadow Skill]

They show the 60s Spiderman up here in Canada on Teletoon Retro every night.

[Splash!]

I doubt anyone knew there was a 60s cartoon until you researched it.

You mean to say you have never seen this intro on TV before in its original form? If anything, I thought everyone knew about the 60s cartoon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o4-YtEd6Tk

[Animeniax]

You mean to say you have never seen this intro on TV before in its original form? If anything, I thought everyone knew about the 60s cartoon.

Yeah I've heard the song before, didn't know which series it was from.

[Archangel]

Why is it so hard for you to say, "oh yeah i was wrong, my bad"?

It wasn't even an argument until you made it into one.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Why is it so hard for you to say, "oh yeah i was wrong, my bad"?

It wasn't even an argument until you made it into one.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Animeniax]

Why is it so hard for you to say, "oh yeah i was wrong, my bad"?

It wasn't even an argument until you made it into one.

Because it was a little mistake that someone felt the need to blow out of proportion just to one-up me. You just as easily could have asked why he couldn't have ignored the error and made his point. Plus I like to argue :p. Plus do you really think it's that easy for someone to change their ways? I mean, it's been years and you still can't take a photo with a shirt on.

[Ryllharu]

Because it was a little mistake that someone felt the need to blow out of proportion just to one-up me. You just as easily could have asked why he couldn't have ignored the error and made his point.It's not about "one-upping" you. It's evidently an ego thing for you, but not for me.

It's about proving you don't know shit about comic books or their adaptations when you like to pretend you do. The point is keeping others from getting misled by your misinformation.

I don't know in what universe "the original" automatically implies "original to me," and not what the word "original" actually means.

[UChessmaster]

Electro? meh, i think a properly done Green Goblin that *spoilers* kills gwen *spoilers* is what amazing 2 needs.

[Ryllharu]

I'd rather see Scorpion. It sets up a nice comparison, playing off the tone set by the first reboot movie.

Conners is smart and strong, a proper nemesis for the nerdy, clever and agile Spiderman. Scorpion is superior in physical ability, but somewhat stupid (by comparison) and very easily agitated. It would really allow them to show off more of Spiderman's defining superhero characteristic, his brains coupled with his snarky attitude.

That was one of the major failings of the original trilogy. Making the webbing biological instead of a product of chemistry and technological webshooters took a lot out of what makes Peter stand out. The thing that resonated with me in the new film was the servo-driven door lock. Right from the start, I knew they'd do Peter's intellect justice.

They'll save Green Goblin for the third movie.

[Animeniax]

It's not about "one-upping" you. It's evidently an ego thing for you, but not for me.

It's about proving you don't know shit about comic books or their adaptations when you like to pretend you do. The point is keeping others from getting misled by your misinformation.

I don't know in what universe "the original" automatically implies "original to me," and not what the word "original" actually means.

Or... that I'm recalling from memory things I haven't read/watched for years (15-20 years in this case). You act like it's my goal to mislead and its your mission to correct. Either way, my point was that Electro was a decent villain from whatever depiction in whichever series where he was a decent depiction, thus there is potential for him as a movie villain.

The servo door lock seems to really impress you as a demonstration of Amazing's Peter's technical abilities, but it seems like a gimmicky way to demonstrate his hyper intelligence. And he uses Bing to perform a search for his parents instead of Google.

[Splash!]

The servo door lock seems to really impress you as a demonstration of Amazing's Peter's technical abilities, but it seems like a gimmicky way to demonstrate his hyper intelligence.

Right, the proper way would be to show how he reverse engineered Oscorp's bio-cable for his webbing instead, oh wait...

Also, there was nothing gimmicky about the servo lock. It showed the audience that he had experience building electromechanical devices before his web shooters. And it DOES showcase his intelligence a lot better than anything in the first and third movies in the original trilogy. Besides, there were other things included in the movie to point out that his intellect went beyond building a few gadgets.

Lastly, I am not sure what his choice of Bing has to do with anything. It was clearly for product placement purposes, and may have well been a fictional search engine instead.

[Animeniax]

That's one way to look at it, except they didn't show him building the servo lock, just using it. For the movie-goer who easily mistook Peter for a hipster skater guy, the use of the lock wouldn't suggest to them that he built it himself, but more likely bought it from Radio Shack.

I'll admit the new movie did a better job of demonstrating Peter's intelligence through other means than the lock, but what exactly does he specialize in? If Amazing is to be believed, he's a mechanical engineer. But according to canon and Marvel, Peter's education is in biophysics with doctorate studies in biochemistry. Not exactly useful for building your own web-shooters.

[Splash!]

That's one way to look at it, except they didn't show him building the servo lock, just using it. For the movie-goer who easily mistook Peter for a hipster skater guy, the use of the lock wouldn't suggest to them that he built it himself, but more likely bought it from Radio Shack.

I'll admit the new movie did a better job of demonstrating Peter's intelligence through other means than the lock, but what exactly does he specialize in? If Amazing is to be believed, he's a mechanical engineer. But according to canon and Marvel, Peter's education is in biophysics with doctorate studies in biochemistry. Not exactly useful for building your own web-shooters.

I wasn't aware that Radio Shack sold servo controlled sliding bolts as a complete package, but even if they did, I don't see how "oh he bought that" would be anyone's first reaction to that scene.

Also, Peter's knowledge of Biophysics and Biochemistry were clearly emphasized over his gadget making skills. Reverse engineering the bio-cable and the decay-rate algorithm stuff (sure it's Hollywood science, but it served it's purpose) had very little to do with "Mechanical Engineering". However, according to canon, he DID build those web shooters himself so it only makes sense to show that he had some experience building gadgets, and didn't automatically acquire those skills at the precise moment the plot required it.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Yeah and just cause someone is highly focused on one field doesn't mean he's not adept in others. Its not like they had him build the Iron Spiderman suit (hint Marvel get Disney and Sony in a room together and spank them till they do crossovers)

[Splash!]

Also, it is interesting to bring Peter's background in Biophysics/Biochemistry up. Isn't The Amazing Spiderman the only movie of the 4 that actually highlighted this?

In the first and the third movie, he was a complete moron. The second movie is the only one in which they tried to show him as intelligent through his interactions with Dr. Otto, but even then, they had him talking about Nuclear Physics...

[Animeniax]

Well physics is physics and requires the same strong base for bio or nuclear disciplines, but that's the same for engineering skills. Agreed, the Amazing movie did a better job of demonstrating Peter's intelligence overall. What I don't like about it is his depiction as a cool kid with intelligence, something along the lines of the movie Hackers from 1995 that depicts computer geeks as cool kids. I think the first movies did a better job of making Peter a shy nerd, both in dress and demeanor, which is equally important as his intelligence as far as development of the character goes.

What I'm happy about is remembering circa 1999-2000 the talk that a Spider-man movie would never materialize. It had been stuck in development for years with different directors and budget problems, with most writing it off as a pipe dream. 12 years later, we have 4 movies and a bright future for more to come. That's progress, even if we can't agree on all the details.

[Animeniax]

Update: I just watched the first Raimi Spider-man again and I still don't like that they made Peter a hip loner in the Amazing movie. It is notable in the Maguire movie, Peter is the nerd and his buddy Harry is the one defending Peter from bullies. In Amazing, they switched that around, and whether that was intentionally juxtaposed from the Raimi first movie or just a coincidence is up for debate. I find it hilarious that Garfield's Peter Parker looks just like James Franco's Harry Osborn from the Raimi movie.

[UChessmaster]

Just saw it, about a million times better than the original.

[Animeniax]

When was it last that you saw the original movie? And remember you're comparing a 10 year old movie to a modern one.

[UChessmaster]

About 5 years ago, how is age relevant? my favorite movie is in black and white lol

[Animeniax]

Age is relevant in the case of Spider-man because of technical aspects for special effects and the maturation of superhero movies. Also, the release of new Spider-man comics that significantly change the character of Peter Parker during that time will affect your opinion of the two movies.

[deadlydreamx]

I've never read any of the spiderman comics and have no idea how he is/acts in them. I personally really enjoyed this new spiderman over the old Tobey one.

[UChessmaster]

Age is relevant in the case of Spider-man because of technical aspects for special effects and the maturation of superhero movies. Also, the release of new Spider-man comics that significantly change the character of Peter Parker during that time will affect your opinion of the two movies.

Special effects: I thought they were bad then, i think they are bad now, regardless CGI affects about 0.1% of my opinion of a movie unless it`s shoven down my throat, Avatar style.

Peter`s personality: I don`t think it changed that much, sure he CHANGED, but the guy has over 700 issues, he`s bound to change a little bit, if any he hasn`t changed enough. I though both Peters were bad, the original one was painful to watch while the new one was too much of a hipster for me, that said i can look past that because i understand that the movie also needs to cater to THIS generation of viewers, and they did a few good things, such as showing his superior intellect, so amazing`s Peter wins for me but not by much.

[Animeniax]

So what about the new movie made it a million times better than the original? The stories were about the same, the villains were average. I'd give you the improved love interest character, but I know that doesn't matter to you.

To be honest, I recently rewatched the first Tobey movie, as I mentioned, and was disappointed in a lot of it. However, back when I saw it in 2002, it was the greatest superhero movie to date. I just think it's hard to compare it the more modern superhero movies since they've gotten so much better.

@deadlydreamx: what did you like about the new one so much? And do you remember how you felt when you saw the original one, not having to compare it to a newer one?

[UChessmaster]

So what about the new movie made it a million times better than the original? The stories were about the same, the villains were average. I'd give you the improved love interest character, but I know that doesn't matter to you.

Better main character (not by much, but there you go), MUCH better female lead (since there actually is one this time around), better villain (since this one has a plan for a change and his scenes are not corny like ALL of GG`s scenes), an actual story, better spider-man (he actually makes jokes and stuff), i think a better question would be what does the original does better than the new one?

[Animeniax]

Better main character (not by much, but there you go), MUCH better female lead (since there actually is one this time around), better villain (since this one has a plan for a change and his scenes are not corny like ALL of GG`s scenes), an actual story, better spider-man (he actually makes jokes and stuff), i think a better question would be what does the original does better than the new one?

For me, sticking to the original story of his origin was a big plus, as well as Peter's nerd personality versus hip geek. I think we'll never reconcile that difference of opinion since you're more familiar with the re-imagined Peter and I'll always prefer the original version. I (and most everyone) preferred JJ Jameson as an antagonist, and the overall lighter mood of the movie.

[UChessmaster]

For me, sticking to the original story of his origin was a big plus, as well as Peter's nerd personality versus hip geek. I think we'll never reconcile that difference of opinion since you're more familiar with the re-imagined Peter and I'll always prefer the original version. I (and most everyone) preferred JJ Jameson as an antagonist, and the overall lighter mood of the movie.

What do you mean the original story? You keep saying the origin in Amazing is bad because is not bervatin to the comics but neither movie stuck to it 100%, can you show me M.J on Amazing Fantasy 15? Can i see a panel of him using organic shooters? Amazing Peter was a hipster, but he was also a nerd, original was just a loser. I couldn`t care less about Jameson, he was the most one dimensional character in human kind.

[Animeniax]

I mean the origin story of how Peter became Spider-man and learned he has to use his powers to help people. Where he fights in the wrestling match, then lets the thief get away, then Ben gets killed by the thief, he catches up to the thief and realizes it was the same guy, then Peter learns, "with great power comes great responsibility."

I think it's much more compelling than a grocery store robbery where the crook gets away, a 70 year old man wrestles with him for his gun, then Peter goes searching amongst the criminal underworld for a blond guy with a tattoo. It was especially ridiculous that he seemed to be having fun and joking around while searching for his uncle's killer.

You're in the minority about Jameson. His portrayal in the movie is awesome. And Peter was a loser in the original comics.

[Splash!]

I mean the origin story of how Peter became Spider-man and learned he has to use his powers to help people. Where he fights in the wrestling match, then lets the thief get away, then Ben gets killed by the thief, he catches up to the thief and realizes it was the same guy, then Peter learns, "with great power comes great responsibility."

I think it's much more compelling than a grocery store robbery where the crook gets away, a 70 year old man wrestles with him for his gun, then Peter goes searching amongst the criminal underworld for a blond guy with a tattoo. It was especially ridiculous that he seemed to be having fun and joking around while searching for his uncle's killer.


It is pretty clear that the makers of Amazing did not have the affordance to stretch out the Uncle get Ben gets shot scenario and use the "with great power comes great responsibility" bit for the very reason that it had already been done not too long ago.

If anything, I was actually quite impressed with their handling of that part of the story and how they were able still include that plot element in without making it feel like a simple rehash of the original movie.



You're in the minority about Jameson. His portrayal in the movie is awesome.

He doesn't care for the portrayal because he doesn't care about the character itself. I don't really understand why you are obsessing over Jameson so much either.

[Animeniax]

It is pretty clear that the makers of Amazing did not have the affordance to stretch out the Uncle get Ben gets shot scenario and use the "with great power comes great responsibility" bit for the very reason that it had already been done not too long ago.

If anything, I was actually quite impressed with their handling of that part of the story and how they were able still include that plot element in without making it feel like a simple rehash of the original movie.That's fair, but it's still dumb to rewrite something as integral to the motives and shaping of the character as Uncle Ben's death. The fact that they had to avoid rehash of this core element is another reason it was too soon for a reboot.


He doesn't care for the portrayal because he doesn't care about the character itself. I don't really understand why you are obsessing over Jameson so much either.Then it's another reason why you don't like "Spider-man", but some generic superhero. No other superhero had to deal with the shit Peter had to put up with from Jameson and public opinion, all the while trying to do good and save the city. They tried to make Capt Stacey that character in the Amazing movie (suggests how important an element it is) but failed because Leary's Stacey was very forgettable (and not even how the character was written in the comics).
Meanwhile JK Simmons' Jameson was spot on perfect and would have had an Academy nomination if he had had more screen time.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

I think its pretty clear that before you even saw 1 minute of this film you already had made up your mind about it.

[Animeniax]

I'm surprised you're not going with, "you probably haven't even seen the movie." If you actually read my comments, you'd see how meaningless your trite statement is. I justify each reason why I didn't like the way the Amazing movie portrayed particular characters and handled particular elements of the Spider-man story.

[UChessmaster]

Then it's another reason why you don't like "Spider-man", but some generic superhero. No other superhero had to deal with the shit Peter had to put up with from Jameson and public opinion, all the while trying to do good and save the city. They tried to make Capt Stacey that character in the Amazing movie (suggests how important an element it is) but failed because Leary's Stacey was very forgettable (and not even how the character was written in the comics).
Meanwhile JK Simmons' Jameson was spot on perfect and would have had an Academy nomination if he had had more screen time.

The X-Men, Daredevil, Batman.

I like spider-man, just cause i don`t like JJJ doesn`t means i don`t like spider man, JJJ is a stupid character, in the comics, in the animated series, in the movie, he hasn`t changed at ALL during 50 years and almost 700 fucking issues, he`s always pulling the same shit and blaming spider-man even though he saved his ass, his son`s ass, his father`s ass, his wife`s ass and cleaned his messes (scorpion, smithy) SEVERAL times, he`s the most unbelievable character in the whole franchise, he`s nothing but a caticature and needs to stop existing. There are many other ways of treating spider-man like a menace without it being so weak, amazing pulled that off just fine.

[Animeniax]

I knew the X-men would be mentioned. Recall though, they're mutants in a universe where normals fear and hate mutants, many of which were evil and posed risks because they could not control their abilities. Spider-man never really had to deal with that hatred even though he's in the same universe. He was hated because JJ Jameson single-handedly tried to turn the public against him.

You may not like the character, but you should think of him as a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'reilly. Yes they're idiots and most of what they say are lies and distortions of the truth, but a large number of people still listen to them and believe them. The issue here is how the movie handled the character, and the original movies did a great job of that. They even injected some humor into JJJ's character, while maintaining his a-hole character. So that kinda kills your argument that he's the same one-dimensional character. Meanwhile, the Amazing movie changed Capt Stacey into a soulless, meaningless character. Where's the anger for that?

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

I'm surprised you're not going with, "you probably haven't even seen the movie." If you actually read my comments, you'd see how meaningless your trite statement is. I justify each reason why I didn't like the way the Amazing movie portrayed particular characters and handled particular elements of the Spider-man story.



Quotes from page 1.....

Exhibit A:

All valid points. The Spider-man movies are too recent and already contemporary. This sounds like a Hollywood money grab.


Exhibit B:


The Spider-man movies were great (3 not so much, but not as bad as other superhero movies). The series doesn't need a reboot. It needs a great script and great direction.



And I thought Dennis Leary did a pretty damn good job as Cpt. Stacey. The ending with him was very emotionally driven and despite only being introduced to these characters (in this form) I was able to connect with them. I think if you observe the film more closely you'd see that Cpt. Stacey wasn't intended to be this multi-dimensional character with tons of screen time. He's more of a facet for Gewn Stacey's connection to Peter and in the end when he (do we need spoiler tags for a film discussion thread?) dies you're actually more invested in how this will affect Gwen and Peter than you are so much with Cpt. Stacey's death. Which is perfect because this leads into Amazing 2, obviously the intention from the beginning.

[Animeniax]

I guess we can't comment on a movie before it's released, and then revise our opinions once we've seen it. I think it's pretty clear you read my posts from page 1 and made up your mind that I would never like the new movie.

edit: so basically Capt Stacey is reduced to a throwaway character to reinforce the love interest of the main character? Since when is that needed? It's his love interest for shit's sake. Looks like you're seeing too much in the character that isn't there to justify your admiration for a poorly written film.

And re-reading my posts from page 1, I stand by my assertions. The movie is a money-grab, as we have seen. It wasn't the result of some great story that needed to be put on film or a director's vision that needed to be realized. Sony wanted to retain the license so they made another movie. Sure that makes business sense, but it's still a money-grab. The middling direction and script of Amazing proved even a reboot can't help the series.

[UChessmaster]

I give up :/

[Kraco]

If it truly was a money-grab, I wouldn't have liked it more than the old Spiderman movies. I'm a European with refined tastes, for heaven's sake. Besides, living in Finland, I can recognize a bad movie when I see one; God knows this country has produced no end of lousy movies. Only Japan, of countries with a long tradition in movie making, can probably compete with us in that respect.

[UChessmaster]

It`s a money grab, that doesn`t means it`s bad though, i don`t see how it`s worse than the original.

[Kraco]

I wrote as much at first, but before pressing the Post Reply button, I thought to check the dictionary definition of this "money-grab", and it turned out to be something designed to produce easy money with minimal effort. Obviously some effort was invested into this movie, so it can't apply.

[UChessmaster]

Honestly? most super hero movies are money grabs anyway. And this movie is STILL better than the original, it`s a pity there are so many outside factors working against amazing, if this movie came first than raimi`s people would be singing a different tune.

[Animeniax]

I don't think there's any "winning" to this discussion, just different viewpoints and it's fairly obvious no one is changing anyone else's opinion about it. We'll like what we like.

I don't think Amazing is a bad movie, I personally just don't like it's handling of the Spider-man characters. I think the divide for fans of the comics comes when Marvel started its alternate universes in the early-mid 1990s and revised characters with new origin stories. I understand that they needed to refresh characters for a new, younger audience. Doesn't mean that I (or other fans of the original) have to like it. If Amazing was a good movie though, it'd be harder to tear the story apart, which I've done to a fair degree.

[UChessmaster]

I`d love to talk about the story on the original, except that it doesn`t has one.

[Animeniax]

The first movie was almost entirely origin story and set up of the Peter/Harry Osborn/MJ relationship for the sequel movies. At the time, it was enough that the movie covered that, as it was the first superhero movie that covered the hero's origin in detail. People were so looking forward to how a movie would handle the technical/special effects elements of a character like Spider-man so they forgave the absence of other elements like story.

I think Amazing benefited from that to a degree, but there's also talk that the movie was too long because it tried to include both an origin and something of a story. The story was still pretty weak.

[Ryllharu]

Comparing Amazing to the Sam Raimi version structurally, implying one is better than the other, is foolish. They're exactly the same. Replace Goblin with the Lizard, Jameson with Gwen's father, and you're there. They even share the "hero's mentor is actually the villain" plot-point.


At the time, it was enough that the movie covered that, as it was the first superhero movie that covered the hero's origin in detail.You should probably have clarified this line, because it is easy to misread.

First superhero movie that ever did a hero's origin in detail? It's not even the first Sam Raimi superhero movie with a full origin story and a solid plot. That would be Darkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkman) (and quite the good movie). There are a number of other movies from around that time which do the same. Superman in '78, Supergirl, Rocketeer, Swamp Thing, The Phantom (goofy, bleh movie), etc.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

edit: so basically Capt Stacey is reduced to a throwaway character to reinforce the love interest of the main character? Since when is that needed? It's his love interest for shit's sake. Looks like you're seeing too much in the character that isn't there to justify your admiration for a poorly written film.


I swear you read things people write to you and somewhere between your eyes and your brain it gets lost in translation.

[Animeniax]

Comparing Amazing to the Sam Raimi version structurally, implying one is better than the other, is foolish. They're exactly the same. Replace Goblin with the Lizard, Jameson with Gwen's father, and you're there. They even share the "hero's mentor is actually the villain" plot-point.

You should probably have clarified this line, because it is easy to misread.

First superhero movie that ever did a hero's origin in detail? It's not even the first Sam Raimi superhero movie with a full origin story and a solid plot. That would be Darkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkman) (and quite the good movie). There are a number of other movies from around that time which do the same. Superman in '78, Supergirl, Rocketeer, Swamp Thing, The Phantom (goofy, bleh movie), etc.

They had different goals and production requirements that affected what they did in the movie. Raimi's movie was the first major motion picture in the modern era featuring a superhero of Spider-man's pedigree and history. I remember distinctly the online discussions leading into the movie wondering how they'd pull off the special effects and CGI a character like this would require, as it hadn't been done before. Darkman, etc were hardly the same caliber of movie with a major character financially or technologically. I think in trying to be faithful to the canon, they spent the majority of the movie on origin, particularly the setup of the Osborn love/hate relationship with Peter that would be a common thread in all 3 movies.


I swear you read things people write to you and somewhere between your eyes and your brain it gets lost in translation.
Go back and read your post and maybe you'll see it, but I doubt it. You implied Capt Stacey's primary role in the movie was to reinforce Peter's relationship with Gwen. Not only is this ridiculous, as she's the love interest and that does not require reinforcement in any story without being redundant, but you're reading too much into it. Basically you're saying Peter loves Gwen, and Peter loves Gwen +1 because her dad asked him to take care of his high school sweetheart. He didn't even get her pregnant. The Stacey character was misused and discarded to add senseless "depth" to a weak story.

[darkshadow]

They had different goals and production requirements that affected what they did in the movie. Raimi's movie was the first major motion picture in the modern era featuring a superhero of Spider-man's pedigree and history.

How can you be this fucking stupid? Spiderman's "pedigree"? Did you just denounce Superman as the fucking (america) cultural icon that he is?
And even if you try to use "modern era" and "pedigree" bs to support your shitty argument, X-Men was still made first.

I'm really looking forward to you arguing that xmen wasn't a "major motion picture" or isn't of the same "pedigree" as spiderman, like the fucking idiot you are.

[Animeniax]

Superman is indeed a major superhero, but realizing his abilities on film is a lot simpler than what you have to do for a character with Spider-man's abilities, not to mention his enemies' abilities. X-men was first, but again, most of their special abilities don't require the kind of special effects wizardry that Spider-man requires. Plus they were extremely light on origin and background stories for each of the characters in X-men, so they could concentrate more on story.

The original Spider-man movie was in a class by itself. Comparing it to more modern superhero films should take that into account, especially a rebooted Spider-man.

Oh and here are the requisite niceties you seem to thrive on: you're a fucking idiot, and you swallow.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

This is clearly just a simple case of a nostalg-fag.

So your reasoning as to why Ryllharu is wrong to say the original and reboot are nearly identical in structure is because you personally had never witnessed an origin story containing "special effects wizardry"???


If you had actually watched this film with an open mind than you would have noticed that it's digital effects is equally revolutionary being one of the most innovative uses of the RED IMAX camera in any film. While Raimi's film did of course break new grounds, the same can undoubtedly be said for the Amazing Spiderman.

[Animeniax]

This is clearly just a simple case of a nostalg-fag.

So your reasoning as to why Ryllharu is wrong to say the original and reboot are nearly identical in structure is because you personally had never witnessed an origin story containing "special effects wizardry"???


If you had actually watched this film with an open mind than you would have noticed that it's digital effects is equally revolutionary being one of the most innovative uses of the RED IMAX camera in any film. While Raimi's film did of course break new grounds, the same can undoubtedly be said for the Amazing Spiderman.

But no, you again miss the point of the argument. There were complaints of a lack of story in the original movie compared to the Amazing movie, which is contradicted by Ryllharu's comments about identical structure. The original movie had other obstacles that the Amazing movie didn't have, such as a fleshed-out origin story which hadn't been done for a major character requiring a lot of special effects and budget to pull off, which was my point. Raimi's film did it when such special effects were still in their infancy.

[Ryllharu]

The original movie had other obstacles that the Amazing movie didn't have, such as a fleshed-out origin story which hadn't been done for a major character requiring a lot of special effects and budget to pull off, which was my point. Raimi's film did it when such special effects were still in their infancy.I started this post writing several paragraphs, proving how you're wrong on both a technical and thematic standpoint, but it's really futile.

I'm honestly at a loss for why you have such a hard-on for the original Spiderman movie. You've been going to increasingly desperate lengths to justify why it is better.
(Note: it isn't.)

"Grasping a straws," doesn't even cut it, you're grasping at monomolecular wires.

[UChessmaster]

If Animeniax is actually Sam Raimi, that would make PERFECT sense.

[Animeniax]

I started this post writing several paragraphs, proving how you're wrong on both a technical and thematic standpoint, but it's really futile.

I'm honestly at a loss for why you have such a hard-on for the original Spiderman movie. You've been going to increasingly desperate lengths to justify why it is better.
(Note: it isn't.)

"Grasping a straws," doesn't even cut it, you're grasping at monomolecular wires.

I'll admit the trilogy colors how I see the first movie because it makes more sense in light of what occurs in the 2nd and 3rd movies, so it's easier to forgive some of deficiencies of that first movie. I mentioned earlier that I recently saw the original movie again and I'll admit it wasn't particularly spectacular after 10 years and the maturation of the genre.

So it's not so much that I love the original movie as it is I dislike how they handled the Amazing movie. At it's core it's a money grab and that will always be a strike against it, as most agree it was too soon for a reboot. But changing the origin story, changing the Peter Parker character, and the treatment of the supporting characters really made it hard to like the new movie, plot holes and weaknesses aside.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

If Animeniax is actually Sam Raimi, that would make PERFECT sense.

lolololololollls


btw Sam Raimi's director of photography made it look like someone came all over the lens. Everythings so unnaturally lit. Bleh.


Anyway man I'll give you this much: Amazing isn't a perfect film. While I don't believe anyone here claimed it to be even close to it..... its not a bad one either tho.

Saying something made by Hollywood is a "money-grab" is like saying something made by Wes Anderson goes against the norm.

[Animeniax]

It must suck that you guys don't believe in anything or feel any strong connection to something. I guess that comes with being a part of the "meh" generation where shit flies by so fast and you can google search your way through life without actually having to think about anything. I wondered what comic/cartoon/book character they could make significant changes to that would upset you, but I doubt there are any. Most of what you guys have experienced in the last few years is all rehash and mostly unoriginal, so you don't know what it feels like to have something you grew up with and loved changed for the sake of making a quick dollar by some Hollywood studio. Lucky you.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

Listen man. I was the BIGGEST fucking Spiderman1 fan. I saw it over and over, talked about it on the school bus, hell I had the damn soundtrack. The 2nd film, even more so, now that soundtrack kicked ass.... the trailer song, dashboard confessional, played by a band I already loved. The story was sortof lack luster to be completely honest. Just as the 1st one was, and threefold for the 3rd. While Doc Ock was always an interesting villain... and portrayed on the big screen no differently, I simply didn't enjoy that there were really only 2 main aspects of the film. Love interest and villain. Something I believe led to the more intertwining story we just saw recently in Amazing.

Gwen Stacey was integral to the story, not just as a love interest as you've deemed to calling her, but as an essential plot driving character. While MaryJane was involved more in the 1st film I thought everything was too crammed into a small package. Not to say the package wasn't filled with good story and characters; but having the origin, Uncle ben, Pete getting bullied, Mary Jane, Harry Norman and Oscorp, The Daily Bugle, AND the Green Goblin.... without a doubt the most iconoclast villain of the spiderman series (you can say its Venom but you'd be wrong) all having their own little stories being fleshed out not just being supporting roles. It never has the time to step back and say... "holy shit this is Spiderman".... Tobey never puts on a figurative mask, only a literal one. He doesn't make any hilarious little quips and deal with stress by talking nonstop while under the mask. We don't see the type of dynamic acrobat style techniques we see from Amazing that we're all so accustomed to in the Spideyverse. And then on top of all that to kill of Green Goblin in the first fucking film is just sacrilege. Maybe if they would of had Harry really take up the mantle instead of just clipping newspapers and at the last minute making a deal with Doc Ock, then maybe it could have panned out alright. But instead he comes back in the 3rd in more overly stylized outfits and is back to being a dunce before the 2nd act. We see a lightning shred of potential for what the story could have been where he forces MaryJane to dump Pete in a heart wrenching scene that is probably the only good part of that movie.


Okay I could go on for days obviously but I'll tap out here. I'll say this tho..... You say that "our" generation doesn't hold anything sacred and we only want new new new new, well my friend if you were really the spiderman fan you claim so hard to be than you would notice the same exact contrasting aspects of the Raimi trilogy to the classic stuff. While everyone here can see it so clearly, that Amazing is so much more truthful to the comics, and at the same time in an updated way... it feels much more grounded in a reality we actually exist in. Peter Parker suddenly feels like someone I personally can relate to (even if I can't build cool shit), and it feels like its in the 21st century (even if no one uses Bing).


Simple as that..... :rolleyes:





Edit: Okay lemme rephrase that: You're a spidey fan, okay great, but I really just think you're letting nostalgia take hold and because those movies (the 1st one I'm sure especially) held an important moment in your life where we did see one of our most beloved superheroes in real life human form. And you were right Spiderman 1 was in fact a huge step up as far as big blockbuster movies go.... even having Xmen come before it (it did, right?) nothing felt the same as the first movie. Clearly it was an important moment in my life, I was obsessed after that one..... but I guess it comes down to different tastes and different styles. Just as Tobey and Garfield have different acting approaches, and Raimi and Marc Webb have different directorial styles. Anway...

Its been a pleasure.

[Buffalobiian]

Guys, lay off the insults. Next person to do it next gets a temp ban of some sort.

[Animeniax]

@KnJ: Alright best post from you that I've read yet, and yeah I read the entire post. It's been fun discussing the two movies/franchises.

Now we can wait for news about the sequel to Amazing. To be fair, as I mentioned, it's hard not to compare the entire first trilogy to the one Amazing movie, which isn't really fair. How they handle the sequel and tie-in to the elements of the first Amazing will go a long way to making Amazing 1 a worthwhile movie.

[Kraco]

It must suck that you guys don't believe in anything or feel any strong connection to something. I guess that comes with being a part of the "meh" generation where shit flies by so fast and you can google search your way through life without actually having to think about anything. I wondered what comic/cartoon/book character they could make significant changes to that would upset you, but I doubt there are any. Most of what you guys have experienced in the last few years is all rehash and mostly unoriginal, so you don't know what it feels like to have something you grew up with and loved changed for the sake of making a quick dollar by some Hollywood studio. Lucky you.

I think you have it backwards. If they hadn't made significant changes, then it would have been nothing but 100% money-grab. The first Spiderman movie is hardly is so outdated yet it would have required a rerelease like some movie from the 60's or 70's when there was no CGI. No doubt a big part of making this movie was the mentioned licensing issue, but looking at it from a different perspective, making a restart so soon forced them to make it different. Naturally some people would like it less, some more. It's infinitely better being different than being the exact same, from anybody's pespective. This way it offered a chance to be better for some people, while the rest can forget it.

[UChessmaster]

I wondered what comic/cartoon/book character they could make significant changes to that would upset you, but I doubt there are any.

http://i50.tinypic.com/21necdv.png
Mary Jane Watson Parker.

http://i49.tinypic.com/30rqr2p.gif
The Green Goblin.

Ever heard of those? that`s 2 out of 3 main characters ruined but hey, JJJ is true to the comics for those whole 10 minutes he appears in the trilogy, so it`s ok.

[Kraco]

Mary Jane Watson Parker.


Haha. She looks like straight out of Bratz.

[UChessmaster]

Haha. She looks like straight out of Bratz.

MJ is my favorite character ever, she has a lot of awesome images.

http://i45.tinypic.com/294rtqe.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/dhebzr.jpg

[Animeniax]

So what did they change about MJ or GG in the first movie that was so significantly different to ruin them, compared to the changes made to Peter in the Amazing movie? You don't seem to realize or refuse to admit that the death of Uncle Ben and the hounding of JJJ are two core elements of Peter and Spider-man that are both his driving force and a large part of the conflict that he feels as a "hero".

I think it's hilarious that the comic cover you posted to show some supposed major change in MJ also includes a prominent image of the Daily Bugle calling Spider-man a menace.

[UChessmaster]

So what did they change about MJ or GG in the first movie that was so significantly different to ruin them, compared to the changes made to Peter in the Amazing movie? You don't seem to realize or refuse to admit that the death of Uncle Ben and the hounding of JJJ are two core elements of Peter and Spider-man that are both his driving force and a large part of the conflict that he feels as a "hero".

MJ: Is not MJ in any way shape or form aside from the hair color and the name, as a matter of fact she`s not even a character, she`s an object to be kidnapped and used as bargain chip by whatever villain is up this month, princess peach style. A plot to motivate the main character to do stuff, just like a car full of kids thrown of a bridge or a derailed train. The original MJ is a strong woman, so different from the dumb "refrigerator" women that plagued most super hero comics, strong personality, party girl, unlikely heroine compared to Gwen, but in the end she won Peter`s heart, the chemistry between them is so amazing in the comics i can`t describe.

GG: A) Every scene he was in was corny, EVERY. SCENE. HE. WAS. IN.

B) He had no motives whatsoever, no plan besides killing those business people and recruiting Spider-man, to what end? why does he needs spider-man? is it to spread his Goblin gas? conquer/destroy the world? Does he needs his radioactive sperm? What does he wants to do exactly?.

C) The suit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrhJiD3AEg4

May: Deliver us!
GG: Finish it!
May: From eeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!
GG: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Making Peter a hipster is nothing, NOTHING compared to what they did to MJ and GG.

The changes to Peter made him relevant to this age, the changes to MJ and GG effectively downgraded them.


I think it's hilarious that the comic cover you posted to show some supposed major change in MJ also includes a prominent image of the Daily Bugle calling Spider-man a menace.

And? JJJ is a part of spidey`s universe wether i like it or not, would you like me to edit it out Mr. Raimi? Uncle`s Ben death and JJJ have been discussed about a million times already, you`re the one that wont acknowledge it. You can even read it in this same page, why would i repeat the same?

[Animeniax]

MJ: Is not MJ in any way shape or form aside from the hair color and the name, as a matter of fact she`s not even a character, she`s an object to be kidnapped and used as bargain chip by whatever villain is up this month, princess peach style. A plot to motivate the main character to do stuff, just like a car full of kids thrown of a bridge or a derailed train. The original MJ is a strong woman, so different from the dumb "refrigerator" women that plagued most super hero comics, strong personality, party girl, unlikely heroine compared to Gwen, but in the end she won Peter`s heart, the chemistry between them is so amazing in the comics i can`t describe.

GG: A) Every scene he was in was corny, EVERY. SCENE. HE. WAS. IN.

B) He had no motives whatsoever, no plan besides killing those business people and recruiting Spider-man, to what end? why does he needs spider-man? is it to spread his Goblin gas? conquer/destroy the world? Does he needs his radioactive sperm? What does he wants to do exactly?.

C) The suit.

May: Deliver us!
GG: Finish it!
May: From eeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!
GG: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Making Peter a hipster is nothing, NOTHING compared to what they did to MJ and GG.

The changes to Peter made him relevant to this age, the changes to MJ and GG effectively downgraded them.

And? JJJ is a part of spidey`s universe wether i like it or not, would you like me to edit it out Mr. Raimi?

You seem oddly obsessed with the proper depiction and elaboration of what amounts to side characters in a movie. Of course they can't devote too much screen time to developing MJ. Not only do most viewers not care, but in the original comics she wasn't this amazing character that would justify elaborating on in a movie. She was Peter's love interest, the "it" girl he wanted but couldn't have. Her role was to show Peter's inadequacy and inferiority that he spends the rest of his life trying to resolve.

GG had about as much motivation and development as the Lizard, but somehow the Lizard is held up to be some iconic villain? Why the double standard? And the crappy GG suit isn't any worse than the crappy CGI Lizard.

The fact that you downplay the change from outcast nerd to hipster is about all the evidence needed we'll never see eye to eye on this. Like I said before, you subscribe to a revamped Peter that Marvel changed for a new audience, and that's tragic. He's no longer the underdog loser nerd who rises above expectations and shows kids what they can be. The lessons to treat power with respect and responsibility are gone. Even Captain America included that as a central character and plot point. But Amazing Spider-man is just some cool kid who got his new iPhone 5 and lookit what he can do with it! I see how that appeals to today's youth.


Uncle`s Ben death and JJJ have been discussed about a million times already, you`re the one that wont acknowledge it. You can even read it in this same page, why would i repeat the same? I repeat it because you continue to not acknowledge how important those elements are to the character and how their omission or change in the Amazing movie is much more significant than changes to MJ or GG. Of course, you don't feel that way because your Spider-man is a modern bastardization that downplays the significance of those elements.

[UChessmaster]

You seem oddly obsessed with the proper depiction and elaboration of what amounts to side characters in a movie. Of course they can't devote too much screen time to developing MJ. Not only do most viewers not care, but in the original comics she wasn't this amazing character that would justify elaborating on in a movie. She was Peter's love interest, the "it" girl he wanted but couldn't have. Her role was to show Peter's inadequacy and inferiority that he spends the rest of his life trying to resolve.

GG had about as much motivation and development as the Lizard, but somehow the Lizard is held up to be some iconic villain? Why the double standard? And the crappy GG suit isn't any worse than the crappy CGI Lizard.

The fact that you downplay the change from outcast nerd to hipster is about all the evidence needed we'll never see eye to eye on this. Like I said before, you subscribe to a revamped Peter that Marvel changed for a new audience, and that's tragic. He's no longer the underdog loser nerd who rises above expectations and shows kids what they can be. The lessons to treat power with respect and responsibility are gone. Even Captain America included that as a central character and plot point. But Amazing Spider-man is just some cool kid who got his new iPhone 5 and lookit what he can do with it! I see how that appeals to today's youth.

I repeat it because you continue to not acknowledge how important those elements are to the character and how their omission or change in the Amazing movie is much more significant than changes to MJ or GG. Of course, you don't feel that way because your Spider-man is a modern bastardization that downplays the significance of those elements.

My spider-man? stop being so pretentious, i`ve read each and every amazing issues and more issues you could ever dream of. You don`t care about MJ, and shrug her off as a secondary character while announcing J fucking Jameson needs an award? ok.

The Lizard had a plan, i`m not going to explain it though, i`m sure you can remember what it was.

Ugh, you know what? fuck this, i`m going to take DS`s advice.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

You seem oddly obsessed with the proper depiction and elaboration of what amounts to side characters in a movie. Of course they can't devote too much screen time to developing MJ. Not only do most viewers not care, but in the original comics she wasn't this amazing character that would justify elaborating on in a movie. She was Peter's love interest, the "it" girl he wanted but couldn't have. Her role was to show Peter's inadequacy and inferiority that he spends the rest of his life trying to resolve.

GG had about as much motivation and development as the Lizard, but somehow the Lizard is held up to be some iconic villain? Why the double standard? And the crappy GG suit isn't any worse than the crappy CGI Lizard.

The fact that you downplay the change from outcast nerd to hipster is about all the evidence needed we'll never see eye to eye on this. Like I said before, you subscribe to a revamped Peter that Marvel changed for a new audience, and that's tragic. He's no longer the underdog loser nerd who rises above expectations and shows kids what they can be. The lessons to treat power with respect and responsibility are gone. Even Captain America included that as a central character and plot point. But Amazing Spider-man is just some cool kid who got his new iPhone 5 and lookit what he can do with it! I see how that appeals to today's youth.

I repeat it because you continue to not acknowledge how important those elements are to the character and how their omission or change in the Amazing movie is much more significant than changes to MJ or GG. Of course, you don't feel that way because your Spider-man is a modern bastardization that downplays the significance of those elements.

I'm sorry to get back into this again but I'm only gonna say this stuff one last time......

First off I'm starting to get the feel that Animeniax's Spiderman was the one written by Stan Lee. Thats the only explanation I can come up with. If I had to make an educated guess I'd say in those early, early, ancient, issues Maryjane and GreenGoblin were less essential to the comic.

Okay jumping around a bit here.... You said that updating Parker from "outcast nerd" to "hipster" is what proves Amazing isn't true to its source material. Well my friend ya see in TODAYS WORLD someone who spends most of their time on their computer, building intrinsic gadgetry, skateboarding by themselves, and NOT HAVING ANY FRIENDS AT HIGHSCHOOL... is the definition of an outcaste nerd. Simply because he has a decent style of clothing and has an iphone doesn't make him any less an outcast.
Case closed.



Oh and...

You don`t care about MJ, and shrug her off as a secondary character while announcing J fucking Jameson needs an award? ok.

lmao

[Ryllharu]

Ani's source on Spiderman is the 90s cartoon. He's never touched a Spiderman comic book.

While a quality cartoon, even I knew it wasn't canon while it was originally airing. A fair amount was sanitized for the Fox audience Saturday mornings. Dunst's Mary Jane is far more like the cartoon's.

[Animeniax]

My spider-man? stop being so pretentious, i`ve read each and every amazing issues and more issues you could ever dream of. You don`t care about MJ, and shrug her off as a secondary character while announcing J fucking Jameson needs an award? ok.

The Lizard had a plan, i`m not going to explain it though, i`m sure you can remember what it was.

Clearly then you know there's a difference between the original Spider-man portrayed by the Raimi movie and the modern one portrayed in the Amazing movie. Isn't the modern one also Hispanic/black mix or is that yet another revision of the comic character? I'm still stuck on how you can hold changes to MJ and GG as more damning than changes to the core character. If the Lizard had a master plan, then so did GG. And JK Simmons portrayal of JJJ deserves an award, even if the character itself isn't so vital.



Ugh, you know what? fuck this, i`m going to take DS`s advice.
That's fine, I was already finished discussing this until you brought up MJ again. Though shouldn't you just call people you don't agree with fucking idiots and racists and then storm off in a tantrum?

[darkshadow]

Hahaha a tantrum?
Don't mistake me saying something like "go die in a fire you sack of shit" as me harboring any sort of animosity towards you, it's just something a terrible human being deserves, being you or anyone else, hypothetically.

Oh and for the 50 billionth time as stated in this fucking thread by everyone:

the original Spider-man portrayed by the Raimi movie
Raimi's movie didn't portray the original spiderman you terrible human being.

[Animeniax]

Yep, a tantrum, like little kids do when they don't get their way. In your case, it's when you lose arguments. I love imagining you punching one of your action figured in frustration every time we chat.

You can dither on things the first movie did incorrectly in their portrayal of Peter, like not directly making him intelligent by making little doo-dads and using biological web shooters instead of mechanical, but the original movie got more things right than wrong, especially the core elements of his character and drive. The Amazing movie did other things to represent a new Peter, which isn't really Peter at all, but the movie did a lot of things poorly which a lot of you seem to gloss over in its defense.

[Animeniax]

So I found this website http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=39377 about the varying ways that Spider-man's origin has been handled/retold over time and in different mediums. While Raimi's isn't exactly the same as Ditko/Lee, it's a shitload closer than Webb's and keeps the key traits and events intact.

[Kagemane_no_Jutsu]

How original of you! How do uchess's teets taste?
Stay on topic or they'll lock this thread.

Oh cmon! Thats funny... it meant no harm.

Yeah idk bout that link you posted.... if I were Sam Raimi I'd not only be posting on message boards but also writing articles as well.

[Animeniax]

Yeah idk bout that link you posted.... if I were Sam Raimi I'd not only be posting on message boards but also writing articles as well.

Not sure why you're disputing the material in the article. The writer has some credentials and is knowledgeable about Spider-man. He doesn't show any particular bias or preference for any of the origin stories, just lists them.

[Sapphire]

Have some "leaked" spiderman 2 footage (http://pulse.therpf.com/article/105380/the-amazing-spider-man-2-comic-con-leaked-footage) from comic-con!

password: junkyard