The Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2

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.

Enjoyed your review and relating it to others it seems the real issue is that good or bad, better or worse whatever the personal perception is its still just not sufficiently different or interesting in its own right to feel worthwhile. I still think they should have bit the bullet and simply made a good Spidey 4 with a new cast and crew (maybe pull the swerve and let MJ and Stacey swap roles as per comicbook mythology.

It got an early start in 13 Asian markets and pulled in US$50m over the weekend...beating Avengers in some areas.

I would describe myself as highly disappointed. Thumbs down.

The cast here is so much better than the Raimi movies. And on a technical and aesthetic basis, this is a much better film. Webb>Raimi.
But the story? Ugh. I was bored to tears during most of this, and offended by how stupid it was the rest of the time.
The action scenes were better done, but the plotting and scripting was a mess.

Unnecessary and dull is how I would describe this on the whole.
Most of the changes made feel arbitrary, done solely for the sake of diferentiating from the '02 version.
I've been ragging on those Raimi movies for a long time for their deviations from the story and themes of the comics, but they were much, much, closer than this. Raimi actually respected those characters and stories, even if he didn't fully understand them enough to dramatise them effectively.

Things happen in this movie seemingly just because the plot needs them to. The characters are all over the map.

And they STILL do the bit where "average New Yorkers come together to help and save Spidey" that Raimi did in every previous movie, despite it being completely against the basic premise of the character!

The music was good, and I did like that the overall theme of the entire movie is "with great power comes great responsibility" but they didn't feel the need to repeat the line.
That being said, while Garfield was a great Spider-Man, he was a terrible Peter Parker, part of which is due to the fact that he's written with a poor understanding of the character and an obvious eye to making him "cool and edgy", making him into the "bad boy" for Gwen somehow.

Lizard is a lame villain, and once again its a movie that decides to purposely tell an incomplete story in favour of a sequel.
And I don't mean "it sets things up for a sequel", which I actually don't mind, I mean it purposely leaves holes in its own story, the story this movie is telling, to tell them in a sequel.

Despite Spidey finally having a sense of humour himself, this movie also feels far, far, far too serious for its own good. Its also far too obsessed with "realism", which means it wastes tons of time justifying elements of Spider-man that the whole audience walked into the theatre already being on board with -- after all, they bought a ticket for a SPIDER-MAN MOVIE, didn't they?

I was bored to tears.

--MARVEL MOVIE RANKING--
1. THE AVENGERS
2. IRON MAN
3. CAPTAIN AMERICA
4. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS
5. IRON MAN 2
6. THE PUNISHER
7. X2
8. X-MEN
9. HULK
10. THOR
11. SPIDER-MAN 2
12. SPIDER-MAN
13. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND
14. DAREDEVIL
15. THE INCREDIBLE HULK
16. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
17. BLADE
18. FANTASTIC FOUR
19. BLADE II
20. SPIDER-MAN 3
21. BLADE: TRINITY
22. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER
23. GHOST RIDER
24. PUNISHER: WAR ZONE
25. GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE
24. ELEKTRA
26. X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE

Shit. I may just skip it then.

Although I do have a free movie ticket that hasn't expired... Hmm.

I agree more or less with what Sykes said and he described it far better than I did. The whole affair, despite it's positives, was just bland and uneventful. It's an incomplete, mediocre movie.

The direction, the acting, the effects, the music, are all pretty good. Where this movie clearly got the short end was in development and pre-production -- did anyone put any effort into this script, because it feels like something a couple of guys got paid to bang out over a couple of weekends.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The direction, the acting, the effects, the music, are all pretty good. Where this movie clearly got the short end was in development and pre-production -- did anyone put any effort into this script, because it feels like something a couple of guys got paid to bang out over a couple of weekends.

I think everything got the short end of the stick, save the casting. The whole movie looked like Sony realized it needed a Spider-Man film and more or less threw some things together and released it.

I think the action sequences were on a whole more creative with the use of Spidey's powers than the previous films and the practical effects looked good.

Although the moment where Connors proves he's not so bad by helping Peter up when he's hanging over the side of the building was RETARDED. I actually, out loud in the theatre, said "his superpower is that he sticks to things!"

Another thing I disliked was the artificial construction of the hackneyed Romeo and Juliet angle to Pete and Gwen's relationship, which was never in the comics. There, Capt. Stacy liked Peter and approved of Spider-Man, and his good detective skills led him to discover the two were the same, but he kept Pete's secret. When Capt. Stacy died in the comics, his death was blamed on Spider-man (he died during a battle between Spidey and Doc Ock, there) and Gwen bought into that, hating Spider-Man. For this reason Peter felt he could never tell Gwen he was Spider-Man, and this ultimately led to the end of their relationship far more than her deah did.

In the new movie, we instead get a father who hates Pete and Spidey, a Peter who tells Gwen immediately, turning him into a bad boy for no reason. In the original comics, Capt. Stacy's dying wish was that Peter PROTECT Gwen, not stay away from her. Instead we get a movie that ends with Peter breaking a promise to a dying man in order to get laid and ends with him smirking about it.

I just watched the new Spiderman in IMAX 3D, I thought it was very good
My understanding about the reason for the reboot is that it's Marvel taking back control
When Marvel heros first came to the screen Hollywood paid and then called the shots
Now Marvel have made enough money to call the shots themselves, that's how I read it anyway
The previous Spiderman was very good for two movies, probably the best Superhero movies up to that time
The third one was rubbish
Marvel been able to set the bar higher since then, with Ironman etc
This new Spiderman continues that trend


however camparing movies and their source material is almost always a frustrating and disappointing experience
best to try and judge each on it's merits
you' may at least be able to keep your peace of mind that way

Actually MARVEL STUDIOS has no control over the new Spider-Man movie, it's still Sony calling the shots and the reboot was for no substantial reason.

I just got back from seeing it. Yeah, I can understand Sykes underwhelmed about this. I always assumed they were going to stick closer to the comics storywise concerning how it all plays out with Stacey, but it deviates as much as the Raimi films and now that dynamic can't work for the next film because she knows who he is. I was especially hoping that the reason for Uncle Ben's death would be played out differently. In the comics he lets the burglar go out of apathy, but once again just like in the Raimi film it's purely out of spite against someone who wouldn't give him his chocolate milk. I gotta say though, I loved how his revealing to Stacey played out, even though it F***S up the entire potential of sticking closer to the comics.

I can't say I was bored of the flick, but it didn't blow my socks off either. It's a mixed bag. On one hand it's well executed but on the other there's this big "so what?" going on purely because most of the story is rather generic. In the end, they should have just done a soft reboot. Cover the origin story in the opening credits then kick off from there. But boy, it DOES take too long for him to finally sport the costume. I kept thinking they should have just titled it PETER PARKER: INSECURE DORK.

Anyway, if the box office is anything to go by we'll be getting a second Garfield/Spider-Man soon. Gotta say, I'm sort of indifferent on how that turns out and I liked Garfield a lot. If they want to keep things interesting they should make it more gutsy next time. I dunno.

Makeshift Python wrote:

In the end, they should have just done a soft reboot. Cover the origin story in the opening credits then kick off from there.

This is actually done rather well with live action into comic-book panels at the start of Spiderman 2 and with judicious substitution of Garfield and Stone would probably have easily bridged the two series...then I'd have liked to see him up against Scorpion who seems to offer a nice mix of the best elements of the Goblin and Octopus battles while retaining a one on one focus and bringing JJJ more into the mix (giving more time for the excellent (J K Simmons)

Makeshift Python wrote:

Actually MARVEL STUDIOS has no control over the new Spider-Man movie, it's still Sony calling the shots and the reboot was for no substantial reason.

It was because of the DISNEY/MARVEL buyout. Disney got the film rights to all the Marvel characters not already owned by anyone else. Paramount maintained distribution rights. This is why, for example, the second Hulk was still done with Universal. Anyways, under the terms of the deal, any Marvel character not in active development for a feature by a certain time after the buyout would revert to Marvel/Disney. So Sony had to get a new Spider-Man up and running if they wanted to keep the franchise.

Well although Spidey can claim the #1 spot at the box-office this weekend with 65m.....that's still less than 1/3 of The Avenger's opening weekend. A bit of a shame since this is Marvel's flagship character and company mascot. It should still show some endurance and with a bit of luck, get somewhere close to $300m domestic. Still an underperformer when compared to the Tobey flicks.

Then again, if you look at the top 300 comic book sales for the month, Spidey is rarely in the Top 10 anymore...

Saw this yesterday. Colour me disappointed, as well. I agree with the general sentiments expressed here - good cast, well-made, good action. But the actual narrative was all over the place. (Get ready, this post is going to be similar.) Things were set up & never paid off and, every scene, character motives changed & relationships made unjustified leaps. I'm not even sure it's a better *film* than Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2.

I don't think "what happened to my parents?!" should ever be an issue in Spider-Man's world. Yes, the loss of his parents affects him - he forever feels out of place in his Aunt & Uncle's home, and in the rest of his life. He's an essential loner, like James Bond. But that's it. For no real reason, the film dreams up some daddy baggage. The film changes stuff just for the sake of it... Then in other places, it doesn't change enough (the opening titles and web-slinging ending were straight Raimi lifts).

I like Stan Lee's non-reaction to Marc Webb's interest in Peter's parents here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwXY2HdYlCE&feature=plcp&t=5m36s

The film introduces into Peter's life and then removes 3 different father figures. What for? Okay, the absence of Richard and Ben Parker is a given. But why kill Captain Stacy? Did Leary agree to only one film? The film should have ended with Stacy accepting Spider-Man after figuring out he's Peter, not with Stacy dying.

I suppose that Gwen losing her dad and Peter losing Ben will bring the two lovebirds together. Too bad that's how Peter and Mary Jane get together, by bonding over their mutual loss of Gwen.

And why the deuce was Spider-Man's identity known to practically the whole cast? Connors, Gwen, and Captain Stacy all knew. Letting everyone know his identity spoils so many fun dynamics. MJ knew Peter's identity in Spider-Man 2, and that resulted in her constantly nagging him about his commitment to her. Did anyone find that enjoyable? Now Gwen knows he's Spider-Man, too. So will anything be different? Probably not. And the bad guy talking with Connors post-credits - who I'm assuming is Norman Osborn - presumably knows Spider-Man's identity, too.

Blah blah blah I could go on. But at this point, I'll spare you.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Although the moment where Connors proves he's not so bad by helping Peter up when he's hanging over the side of the building was RETARDED. I actually, out loud in the theatre, said "his superpower is that he sticks to things!"

Yup. And I was actually expecting Connors to fall instead and Peter not to save him, because his webshooters had been crushed. Trying to give Connors a moment of redemption was ridiculous after he killed George Stacy. Let the bastard die and die in sin.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And they STILL do the bit where "average New Yorkers come together to help and save Spidey" that Raimi did in every previous movie, despite it being completely against the basic premise of the character!

Noticed that as well. Apparently the construction worker who convinced his friends to help Spider-Man was the same guy whose son Spider-Man saved earlier in the film. Still, that doesn't explain why all the crane operators were cool with helping Spider-Man. Maybe Spider-Man should have saved a construction worker from falling earlier in the film, and the construction guys would be grateful for that.

Even then, no New Yorkers should have been on Spidey's side in the first place. That was perhaps understandable post-911, but at this point it became obvious that Webb & the screenwriters were cribbing directly from Raimi.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Instead we get a movie that ends with Peter breaking a promise to a dying man in order to get laid and ends with him smirking about it.

Pretty much. It was a regression in Peter's characterization. I suppose his inability to stay away from Gwen will be what gets her killed in the sequel. So much for live and learn, eh?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Lizard is a lame villain, and once again its a movie that decides to purposely tell an incomplete story in favour of a sequel.

IMO, there really isn't a more upsetting trend in blockbusters than their tendency to tell an incomplete story. I paid to see a Spider-Man story, and that includes its ending. All that bullshit about his parents? We get no answers. "The untold story?" It remains untold. These films need to stand on their own, or else they become just a franchise product.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, because it was fun to watch and well produced. It looked great in 2d as well. I refuse to pay for 3d unless the theatre forces me. It took a hell of a long time to get going though, as we slogged through the origins saga all over again.

As FB pointed out....please enough with the origins. Even the casual comic-book fan, and that's me, has a good idea, how Spidey originated. We get it. He got bit by a radioactive spider. His Uncle got blown away and he lives with his Aunt May. The story isn't so interesting, it needs two different movies in the space of 10 years, to tell it.

Anyway I like Garfield, except that he can be real annoying as Peter Parker, but maybe he's past that, now that the origins is done. He does have Spidey smart-ass potential. We got a good taste in this debut.

This movie though, would have been so much better if it just barged right in with a brand new Spiderman adventure.

And having perused the little comic-strip posted by FB above, yes the original comic story is far more interesting than the way the story was rejigged for the film.

Anway I do like Garfield. He's a serious actor. So if Gwen is destined to die in the next film, that's too bad I guess, but that might mean we get a real hot looking Mary Jane Watson as the new gal pal. I bought a lot of Spiderman comcis as a kid, and I really liked Mary Jane. I have the proposal issue from 1986 or1987 in a special collectible cover.

I'll give it , why not. It looked great on the big screen. I'm happy! Moneys-worth got. The Spiderman in-action scenes were extremely well done, but please leave the damn mask on. These actors and their face time. I want to see the Amazing Spiderman in action, doing his thing on the big screen. That's why I fork out the big 2d bucks.

Sharp eyes will notice that one Timothy Dalton got a production-assistant credit. I'm not kidding. It's right there in the final credits scrawl. btw there is no bonus end-scene at the end of the credits. Guess that's an Avengers thing.



Question: What's with the Rear Window posters in Parker's room? Does that connect with the comics?

Question 2: What do Spidey purists prefer? That he make his own web shooters? If so, where does he get the web material? Or are the organic web-shooters that we saw in the Raimi films preferred?

The mechanical shooters are the original and traditional version, but I always found the organic ones from the movies to be a very logical change for an adaptation to make.

I think the Rear Window connection is supposed to be Peter Parker's photography hobby.

from my childhood I recall the Spideman's original mechanical webbing was made of... asbestos
:shock:

Villain - your pathetic webbing can't stop me Spiderman!
Spiderman - Yeah? well, just wait a few years, till the cancer sets in...

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The mechanical shooters are the original and traditional version, but I always found the organic ones from the movies to be a very logical change for an adaptation to make.

I think the Rear Window connection is supposed to be Peter Parker's photography hobby.

I did kind of like the organic shooters, as they can be legitimately linked to his spider characteristics/powers. They are also more convenient as he doesn't have to keep producing web material from asbestos or whatever he makes it from.

Although in the new movie, there was effort to explain how he constructed and stockpiled his web ammo. I didn't quite catch it though.

Thanks, yes, the Rear Window love does fit with his photo hobby.

Brace yourselves: Jamie Foxx is Electro.

http://latino-review.com/2012/11/02/the-amazing-spider-man-2-marc-webb-addresses-jamie-foxx-casting-rumors/

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59424

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118061562

Foxx tweeted on October 31st that he had dressed up as Electro. At the time everyone thought he meant he'd done it for Halloween, but now the news of Foxx being talks with Sony to play Electro change everything.

And this is a big deal because...?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Brace yourselves: Jamie Foxx is Electro.

http://latino-review.com/2012/11/02/the-amazing-spider-man-2-marc-webb-addresses-jamie-foxx-casting-rumors/

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59424

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118061562

Foxx tweeted on October 31st that he had dressed up as Electro. At the time everyone thought he meant he'd done it for Halloween, but now the news of Foxx being talks with Sony to play Electro change everything.

Harmsway wrote:

And this is a big deal because...?

Gravity's Silhouette hates black people.

Fine by me, don't care for him much but when he's good he's good.

I tried to watch this new version and I had to turn it off after 30 min.

Talk about Gawd Awful compared to Raimi's version.

Now there is more Awfulness on the way:

:x

j7wild wrote:

I tried to watch this new version and I had to turn it off after 30 min.

Talk about Gawd Awful compared to Raimi's version.

Now there is more Awfulness on the way:

:x

Is that RHINO??????

Hot damn, I must get some more copies of issue #41 and #43 from around late 1966, only have 1 of each but that first appearance is investment material.