It's not about "one-upping" you. It's evidently an ego thing for you, but not for me.Originally Posted by Animeniax
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.
Electro? meh, i think a properly done Green Goblin that *spoilers* kills gwen *spoilers* is what amazing 2 needs.
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
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.
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
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.
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
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.
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)
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...
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Just saw it, about a million times better than the original.
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
When was it last that you saw the original movie? And remember you're comparing a 10 year old movie to a modern one.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
About 5 years ago, how is age relevant? my favorite movie is in black and white lol
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
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.
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.
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
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?
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
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?
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
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.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
