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.Originally Posted by Animeniax
Last edited by UChessmaster; Fri, 11-30-2012 at 05:24 AM.
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 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.
“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?”
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.
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.
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.
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).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.
Meanwhile JK Simmons' Jameson was spot on perfect and would have had an Academy nomination if he had had more screen time.
“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 think its pretty clear that before you even saw 1 minute of this film you already had made up your mind about it.
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.
“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?”
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.
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 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?
“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?”
Quotes from page 1.....
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
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.
Last edited by Kagemane_no_Jutsu; Fri, 11-30-2012 at 10:59 PM.
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.
Last edited by Animeniax; Sat, 12-01-2012 at 12:03 AM.
“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 give up :/
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
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.
It`s a money grab, that doesn`t means it`s bad though, i don`t see how it`s worse 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
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.
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.
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 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.
“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`d love to talk about the story on the original, except that it doesn`t has one.
Last edited by UChessmaster; Sat, 12-01-2012 at 02:18 PM.
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
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.
“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?”
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 (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.
I swear you read things people write to you and somewhere between your eyes and your brain it gets lost in translation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
