The Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2

j7 was permabanned and I missed it!?

At least I actually can recognize some themeing in the score for IRON MAN, unlike what they went with for IRON MAN 2, which wasn't actively offensive but it was completely unmemorable.

I remember a wise man who once said "It doesn't matter how good your tune is, it's what you do with that matters", or words to that effect. I think it was Elmer Bernstein.

Apparently the same is true for cock size.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

At least I actually can recognize some themeing in the score for IRON MAN, unlike what they went with for IRON MAN 2, which wasn't actively offensive but it was completely unmemorable.

The problem with IRON MAN 2 was that they looked back at IRON MAN, saw what worked, and tried to copy it.

Saw a couple of clips of this on telly earlier ... it's looking not too bad.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

At least I actually can recognize some themeing in the score for IRON MAN, unlike what they went with for IRON MAN 2, which wasn't actively offensive but it was completely unmemorable.

The problem with IRON MAN 2 was that they looked back at IRON MAN, saw what worked, and tried to copy it.

My problem was that it didn't seem to go anywhere. It just kept going places with little build up, shit happening. Only the subplot with Tony's alcoholism seemed to an actual story. I thought it was entertaining, but weak.

Hope that review of the score holds plenty of truth. :D

Film itself just looks like another CGI-soaked Raimi Spidey flick on the ads though. :evil:

Might be just the ads, I hope. I expect it might actually come off differently in theaters, while the ads are very Raimi-esque since that's all anyone ever knew of Spider-Man, and God forbid Sony presents the ads as something... new.

I find myself hoping there's a reason to see this movie.

I'm waiting until after opening weekend to see it, which is unusual for me. I just wanna know if the first 45 minutes is the fucking spider-bite/Uncle Ben/robber/great power, great responsibility origin again so I can show up to the screening late when I see it.

What will set THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN apart from its predecessors is the cast. In all the clips that are out there right now--and Sony has released about 25 minutes of footage, altogether, in their desperation to sell this film--I've been generally impressed. The film will be dismissed because it's redundant, but I'm guessing that it turns out to actually be a superior version of what came before.

This ^. Andrew Garfield is much better than Tobey Maguire, and Sally Field, Rhys Ifans and Martin Sheen are in it!

Harmsway wrote:

In all the clips that are out there right now--and Sony has released about 25 minutes of footage, altogether, in their desperation to sell this film--I've been generally impressed.

Not only that, but someone has edited those 25 minutes together chronologically so we basically have an 18% version of the complete movie already.

Looks like shit to me, honestly. I skimmed it and just wanted to laugh at what I saw, but not in a good way. It'll probably end up being better than SPIDER-MAN 3, but it doesn't look any better to me than 1 or 2.

I do like the cast. I'll probably just rent it.

Is that really what it's come to? Twenty-five minutes of the movie already online ... deliberately? I'd understand if this movie wasn't getting good reviews, but it is. It's almost like Sony is trying too hard to sell it. I mean, I understand people are skeptical about rebooting such a young franchise already, but c'mon.

I'm seeing this Thursday morning. I think I'll hold out.

This is just the logical extension of trailers telling you almost absolutely everything about a movie before you walk into the cinema - except that it's shit (i.e. PROMETHEUS) or some 6 minute long prologue (the last two BATMAN films).

My main "wtf" is that his high school has changed from Midtown High to Midtown Science High.

If it's a "Science High School" (whatever that means), then why are there still football jocks who pick on him for being a geek? Wouldn't being "2nd in his class" at a Science High School make him popular?

It seems like they are trying to explain why a kid from Forest Hills, Queens is going to a High School in Midtown Manhatten but I think the animated Spectacular Spider-Man show did a better job of that by making it "Midtown Magnet High" -- so that it's a Magnet school for those with high aptitude in general -- so Pete and Gwen are Science, Flash is atheletics, MJ is drama and Harry is rich.

I'm not surprised they're trying so hard to sell the film. I guess they only realized post-production that nobody needed or wanted a rebooted retelling of Spider-Man's origin.

It's still Spider-Man, though. I would assume that's enough to get people in the seats.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I'm not surprised they're trying so hard to sell the film. I guess they only realized post-production that nobody needed or wanted a rebooted retelling of Spider-Man's origin.

No, fact of the matter is that they had to make a new movie no matter what because otherwise they'd lose the film rights to Disney, and without the Raimi/Maguire team on board they figured the best course was reboot. Besides, easier to retell the origin again than come up with something new in that short time.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I'm not surprised they're trying so hard to sell the film. I guess they only realized post-production that nobody needed or wanted a rebooted retelling of Spider-Man's origin.

No, fact of the matter is that they had to make a new movie no matter what because otherwise they'd lose the film rights to Disney, and without the Raimi/Maguire team on board they figured the best course was reboot. Besides, easier to retell the origin again than come up with something new in that short time.

It is odd however given that there are so very many tales they could have told, including Reptile, Spider Slayers, Scorpion, Carnage etc all of which could hit the ground running yet they go back and tell us something we really already know backward. The audience needs to be trusted (or even forced) to accept a new actor in a role or the occasional discontinuity in a series, or the consequence to all franchises and sequels is pretty worrying.

Absolutely, I mean Bond has survived fifty years on that principle after all.

If I had a chance to do Spider-Man, it'd probably be four films, none of which would be the "origin story" in the sense of fully covering it. Maybe do it as a flashback or montage in the first film, but frankly Spidey is a character whose origin is as well covered as Superman's and Batman's -- even a non comic book fan knows it, and while the Raimi movies fucked a lot of things up, they did the whole Uncle Ben thing all right.

I wonder when they'll try out the black Spiderman.

Saw this today. Wasn't particularly blown away by it but it certainly wasn't bad.

It's an origin story, sure, but the setup takes too long, especially when we got the whole setup in a somewhat similar fashion 10 years ago. It has its hearty moments, too, but they're so scattershot that they never really coalesce into anything meaningful. It also doesn't really have any flair to it, which was a letdown because I hoped Marc Webb would be able to bring some kind of identity to this that Sam Raimi never did.

I like Andrew Garfield a lot more than Tobey Maguire, though. Martin Sheen, the score and the CG for Lizard were nice, too.

On the whole, it's a bit of campy-at-times fun but probably nothing that will wow anyone who's skeptical of superhero movies or the idea that a reboot of the franchise was necessary in the first place. I'd give it a B-. Clicky for my full review.

Jack Wade wrote:

Saw this today. Wasn't particularly blown away by it but it certainly wasn't bad.

It's an origin story, sure, but the setup takes too long, especially when we got the whole setup in a somewhat similar fashion 10 years ago. It has its hearty moments, too, but they're so scattershot that they never really coalesce into anything meaningful. It also doesn't really have any flair to it, which was a letdown because I hoped Marc Webb would be able to bring some kind of identity to this that Sam Raimi never did.

I like Andrew Garfield a lot more than Tobey Maguire, though. Martin Sheen, the score and the CG for Lizard were nice, too.

On the whole, it's a bit of campy-at-times fun but probably nothing that will wow anyone who's skeptical of superhero movies or the idea that a reboot of the franchise was necessary in the first place. I'd give it a B-. Clicky for my full review.

Pretty much what I expected it to be. Hiring Marc Webb was a head-scratcher from the very beginning, and the trailers/clips made it look like a videogame. I'll probably wait for the DVD.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Pretty much what I expected it to be. Hiring Marc Webb was a head-scratcher from the very beginning, and the trailers/clips made it look like a videogame. I'll probably wait for the DVD.

Yeah. There were a few points where it felt exactly like a video game.