The Amazing Spider-Man |OT|
- Thread starter noah111
- Start date
- Status
brandonh83
Banned
I agree, you should be raising them on stupid eye candy instead of character development and storytelling!
edit: then again, they are kids. They'd probably like Avengers more.
Haven't seen ASM yet but somehow I doubt its even remotely as entertaining as Avengers.
brandonh83
Banned
Good characters and arcs entertain me more than lifeless action that I don't care about.
But like I said, his kids are bound to enjoy that more than this.
Nonsense. Sony would have just have waited as long as they (contractually) could have and then rebooted it again anyway. Why would they just hand the rights to their most valuable screen franchise to a direct competitor?
What do you think Disney would have done with it? Just introduced the character somewhere (Avengers sequel?) and then started producing their own Spider-Man films. Probably within the same time scale Sony would have rebooted Spider-man.
Disney are getting ready to make yet another Hulk movie thought to be ready for release in 2014. That would make it the THIRD attempt at starting a Hulk franchise.
They are all as shameless as each other.
Except it isn't nonsense, and Sony can't afford to sink money into a franchise that "tanks" (which is the hypothetical were discussing). How would Spider-Man still be their most valuable franchise had the new film bombed? They wouldn't have made another one, and chances are they would have let the rights expire (again, had the film actually legitimately BOMBED).
As for what Disney would've done, you're probably right..but I'm not discussing the creative integrity of the films (I actually really enjoyed the new film)... I'm speaking solely in terms of business.
I know! I'm taking them. I just couldn't get excited for it for some reason and summer has been extremely busy to boot.
Now it's down to one theater here so I promised I would take them before it disappears while on the way to discount.
lol, this movie is hardly a model example of quality character development and storytelling. Unless I'm missing some brilliant nuance of Connors'
lizard supermen are our superiors
AHA-Lambda
Member
I enjoyed it personally 
better than 3 definitely, on par with 1 and 2 is still the best imo.
Andrew Garfield done a great job in this and I did feel he was a better fit than Tobey Maguire; at the same time however the movie doesn't do as good a job establishing Peter as a character, he's just a guy, not even the geeky outcast he is typically portrayed as.
Did not appreciate the amount of constant teasing there was for other movies. They kept hyping up this big reveal about Peter's parents that never came and I felt a little annoyed at the end credit scene too. You could have at least shown
. BTW it may have been my bad memory or something but did Peter even
. And
Last nitpick, the lizard looked really shockingly bad =/
Flawed but fun movie, didn't have high expectations to be fair. Although, I did groan when my theatre clapped at the end. It was not that good -_-
EDIT: oh yeah btw, the crane scene? yeah it was bad, but come on the bridge scene from the first movie was WAAAYYYYY worse!
better than 3 definitely, on par with 1 and 2 is still the best imo.Andrew Garfield done a great job in this and I did feel he was a better fit than Tobey Maguire; at the same time however the movie doesn't do as good a job establishing Peter as a character, he's just a guy, not even the geeky outcast he is typically portrayed as.
Did not appreciate the amount of constant teasing there was for other movies. They kept hyping up this big reveal about Peter's parents that never came and I felt a little annoyed at the end credit scene too. You could have at least shown
Norman Osborn!
catch Uncle Ben's killer? How can you just drop THAT plot point!?
was I the only one that found Peter essentially breaking Captain Stacy's promise really damn disingenuous?
Flawed but fun movie, didn't have high expectations to be fair. Although, I did groan when my theatre clapped at the end. It was not that good -_-
EDIT: oh yeah btw, the crane scene? yeah it was bad, but come on the bridge scene from the first movie was WAAAYYYYY worse!
brandonh83
Banned
We'll just agree to disagree. This won't go anywhere.
It's not like I even disliked the movie, you're making me hate it!
I thought the bridge scene fit the tone of the first movie better.
brandonh83
Banned
I've actually warmed up a lot to Avengers, but I wouldn't call it anything more than 2 hours of mindless action. You say the Lizard story was dumb, but at least it had a lot more to it than that. Avengers did a good job with its character interaction, but I don't like any of the characters nearly as much as Peter Parker. I like some emotion and character development to go along with my spectacle. Spider-man gave me that, Avengers didn't but obviously YMMV.
All in all? It's an amazing year for superhero movies.
TacticalFox88
Banned
That's mainly because everyone in the Avengers ALREADY had their character development...in their own movies.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
They were both corny as fuck. But dudes on a bridge throwing shit at Green Goblin is kind of believable. A team of construction workers setting up a network of cranes to assist Spider-Man on the exact path that he was webslinging to head to Oscorp - not so much.
I think this has slowed me down from wanting to see it. I haven't seen Captain America and although I liked Iron Man 1 & Thor (I detested the Hulk movie), still the individual characters simply weren't interesting enough for me to be interested in them together. It kills me that my least favorite movie of the group has arguably the most interesting character.
I did not see this movie being as big as it's become & I'm still in the low expectations mode despite it's box office proving me wrong many times over. That plus my friends saying it is great means I'm sure once I see it I'll wonder why it took so long.
Again the key point here is why would they let theatrical rights to such a valuable IP do to a DIRECT competitor for nothing? That is just a plain awful, awful business move right there.
And frankly if Sony were to make a film that tanks what could do differently except for introduce the character in an Avengers movie and even that wouldn't be so some 'magic cure all' situation.
If anything the idea of Sony continually rebooting Spider-Man could damage the brand and cause Disney to spring into action and perhaps offer Sony a big money offer to retain the rights. But for such a thing to happen the Spider-man would have to really be doing badly.
That really sucks. I mean, who knows how that would have actually played with the audience if the origin was really different, but it still makes me curious. They scrapped it for a reason, i'm sure.
Is the "some day, you'll understand" bit from his father even in there? Here's what I think the 'alternate' story would have been.
Richard Parker works for Oscorp and is on the brink of something huge, similarly to the Ult. SM line, that could cure a wide array of diseases, etc. However, it could also be used for purposes other than curing, but enhancing (fountain of youth type shit). Oscorp tries to take it from Richard (similarly to what happened with Conners in ASM) and to use it for their own good. Osborn specifically wants to get his hands on it. With great power comes great responsibility, so Richard doesn't want to risk putting something like this in the hands of a corporation let alone Osborn. Him and his wife start getting threatened, and Richard decides his life is in jeopardy and needs to hide the the 'formula' or whatever in a safe place. He places it in his son, somehow, so that no matter what happens it'll be in a safe (unexpected) place for future retrieval. The Parker's try to leave/escape and are subsequently killed by Osborn (this wouldn't have been in ASM obviously). When Peter gets bit, it reacts with the 'formula' or genetic code within him and activates it in some way, on Peter himself, giving him powers. Still accidental and random, but not a mystery why an oscorp spider bite would give Peter powers and no one else (inbred/hidden/supposedly dormant genetic code).
I kind of wish they would have went that route, but i'm guessing it was too much of a risky deviation and Marvel didn't like it. I wonder if we'll ever see that version in deleted scenes or something..
It's interesting looking back at SM1 and ASM, and comparing each to the 616 and Ult. comics. Especially origins-wise. Each takes a bit from both, but it's cool to see what they each pick-and-choose.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The idea that Sony would let the rights "lapse" is idiotic. Yes there are certain contractual obligations that Sony need to fulfil to keep the rights but none are too onerous.
Anyway, it looks like this is going to be a pretty big hit so any discussion of Sony selling the rights back to Marvel is well wide of expectations. The film unit at my bank have raised their WW gross target to $1.1bn (from $950m) given decent early reviews and strong RoW performance. There is one constant in superhero movies, Spider-Man is huge in Asia.
I don't think there was more to Lizard's story than Loki's; if anything, I'd say there was less. Avengers may have been a typical "take over the world" plot, but at least there was some fucked up psychology behind Loki's motivations for it (though I admit that's probably better attributed to Thor than The Avengers). Whereas Connors went from
"I want to heal myself" to "everyone should become lizards because humans are weak and shit"
I'm not saying TASM was void of any emotion or character, but a lot of it didn't feel earned; the story felt more like a checklist of plot points than a natural arc. Like I said in my review, Garfield, Stone, and Sheen were all fantastic, the script just felt very undercooked and really undermined what could have been some otherwise heavy scenes.
edit - in spite of all this, I actually did like the movie, just thought it fell flat in a lot of areas and was disappointed that it wasn't as good as it could have/should have been.
I loved this movie. Great casting, great blend of humor, awkwardness, drama, and action.
I personally think this movie was leagues better than The Avengers (yawn). The Avengers was just action...nothing more. I actually found it to be one of the less remarkable superhero movies I've ever seen, and that's disappointing considering how much I like Whedon's other works.
The only scene, as mentioned above, that I thought was terrible in TASM was the crane scene. Cheesy, and totally unecessary.
I personally think this movie was leagues better than The Avengers (yawn). The Avengers was just action...nothing more. I actually found it to be one of the less remarkable superhero movies I've ever seen, and that's disappointing considering how much I like Whedon's other works.
The only scene, as mentioned above, that I thought was terrible in TASM was the crane scene. Cheesy, and totally unecessary.
Criminal Upper
Banned
Fantastic fucking film. Enjoyed it far more than Avengers, (even though Avengers is also great) but I also thought it was far funnier too. Loved Garfield, love Stone, love Sally Field and Martin Sheen. Stomps all over Raimi's trilogy with the grace of Spider-Man himself.
The main reason for this, is I actually cared about Peter this time around, and actually liked his love interest. Emma Stone wearing knee-high socks is the most distracting thing ever. Not to mention she's sweet and funny, and not at all like Dunce's annoying, self-absorbed Mary Jane.
The main reason for this, is I actually cared about Peter this time around, and actually liked his love interest. Emma Stone wearing knee-high socks is the most distracting thing ever. Not to mention she's sweet and funny, and not at all like Dunce's annoying, self-absorbed Mary Jane.
I thought it was a great film, better than the original. Most of the people I saw it with though thought it was just OK. The Spiderman stunts though are pretty cool and weren't all just CGI, they actually had a proper stunt team. I also love Emma Stone
You mind explaining who they are?
Nonsense. Sony would have just have waited as long as they (contractually) could have and then rebooted it again anyway. Why would they just hand the rights to their most valuable screen franchise to a direct competitor?
What do you think Disney would have done with it? Just introduced the character somewhere (Avengers sequel?) and then started producing their own Spider-Man films. Probably within the same time scale Sony would have rebooted Spider-man.
Disney are getting ready to make yet another Hulk movie thought to be ready for release in 2014. That would make it the THIRD attempt at starting a Hulk franchise.
They are all as shameless as each other.
They're the screenwriting geniuses behind Transformers 1 + 2.
Definitely. Loved the entire cast.
And you know what? I really love the fact that Peter acted more human in this, and he gave the audience what they wanted.
We wanted him to beat up the bully. Check. We wanted the girl to know he was Spider-Man. Check. We wanted him to break his promise to never see her again. Check. Those touches give the audience what they want, and make Peter seem more human in the end.
edit: guess I should spoiler.
Probably because theyI enjoyed it personally
Andrew Garfield done a great job in this and I did feel he was a better fit than Tobey Maguire; at the same time however the movie doesn't do as good a job establishing Peter as a character, he's just a guy, not even the geeky outcast he is typically portrayed as.
Did not appreciate the amount of constant teasing there was for other movies. They kept hyping up this big reveal about Peter's parents that never came and I felt a little annoyed at the end credit scene too. You could have at least shown. BTW it may have been my bad memory or something but did Peter evenNorman Osborn!. Andcatch Uncle Ben's killer? How can you just drop THAT plot point!?Last nitpick, the lizard looked really shockingly bad =/was I the only one that found Peter essentially breaking Captain Stacy's promise really damn disingenuous?
Flawed but fun movie, didn't have high expectations to be fair. Although, I did groan when my theatre clapped at the end. It was not that good -_-
EDIT: oh yeah btw, the crane scene? yeah it was bad, but come on the bridge scene from the first movie was WAAAYYYYY worse!
don't have an actual actor to play Norman Osborn yet
Thanks for the explanation and oh boy, I didn't like Transformers one bit.
By the way, I were surprised that one can actually see the 3D movie in 2D, my girlfriend watched most of the film without the glasses on. But she missed out on the particles flying around in the air and the fantastic Spider-Man swinging sequences in 3D, that was stunning.
Having just come back from watching it, I thought it was a decent film but nothing stood out as being particularly great. None of the dialogue particularly engaged me and the story was terribly predictable but, as I say, it was a decent enough ride.
Martin Sheen and Emma Stone's boots stood out for me.
Martin Sheen and Emma Stone's boots stood out for me.
ToyMachine228
Member
Taking my 13-year old little sister to see this in an hour or so. Not a huge Spider-Man fan, but I'm hoping it's entertaining enough.
I really don't know what to say to that. Based off the opening in Asia and a single day's worth of box office data from North America (on a Tuesday no less) and they've raised the expectation level to a point that would make ASM the 6th or 7th highest grossing film in cinema history?
These guys are either geniuses working at a level I cannot comprehend or they are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the modern banking/investment system.
Time will show us which it is.
SLEEPS7ALK3R
Banned
Was I the only who thought that the creation of the suit segment felt really rushed? The "Mirror's Edge" scene was also wasted, although I see how setting it up in its entirety could have been a challenge.
SSGMUN10000
Connoisseur Of Tedium
Im starting to sense that people who watched Spidey 3 were left with a sour taste in their mouth. I still think the the OG 1 and 2 were above this. Fortunately I never saw 3.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Analytics firms use complex software which form predictions based on a host of historical data and consumer behaviour indexes. I imagine if the opening day numbers are significantly higher than expected, the software adjusts its predictions accordingly.
This is nothing new if you know the source material. That's not to justify it, but in the comics he's really a good guy and helps SM out, but when he transforms in the Lizard, those reptilian instincts take over that desire to help people and he turns into a guy who wants to rule over all reptilians and change humans into his image.. Isn't it obvious enough in the movie that he's not his regular Conners self?
You seem to make it out that his brain is the same Conners simply physically transformed, but that isn't the case.
I know one thing - that was the last time I go see a 3D movie at the theater I went too. I understand that 3D glasses dim the screen but this movie was so fucking dark it looked terrible. It was probably the theater because the screen was dark as shit even during the 2D previews. I thought about complaining but figures it probably would do any good. It was like they were running the bulb at the lowest possible setting
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
They should have done it like Spectacular. No talking when he's the Lizard, and it's permanent unless they inject him with the antidote. Then it'd make more sense that he's a bad guy and "full Lizard." But the fact that he could talk in this movie and form logical sentences really made it hard to sympathize with Connors as a character at all (as in, it retroactively destroyed any goodwill he had.)
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It's higher than expected opening figures that did it, they expected $25m for Tuesday (including midnights) and $35m is significantly higher, the A- score is also much better than expected as well which they say will push good word of mouth. I think the breakdown is $325m US and $775m RoW, but I can't be certain.
They tend to be right more often than wrong, but even then it's arguable and I think $1.1bn is a very bullish target.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I found myself having to explain that to a few friends I saw it with. I thought it was pretty clear that the dude was going crazy after he first 'treated' himself, but that was lost on a few people. Some posts I've read on the internet tells me people thought he just loved being the lizard so much that he wanted to spread it around.
They even make it obvious that it's not Conners being himself. In the sewers where he
is hearing voices in his head and talking to himself
I know all that, my point was that it wasn't written well. Also, "this is how it happened in the comics" is not a valid excuse; it may be ripped from the source material, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
They also did this for Dr. Octopus in SM2, man of science being taken over by malevolent thoughts coming from the back of his mind, etc.
Exactly why I said "that's not to justify it"...
Yep, that was it exactly. He wanted to blow up the world.
Ok so he wanted to help humanity - JUST LIKE CONNORS - and then lost his mind to tentacles and was intent on pursing his dream even though it was incredibly unstable and would have blown up the city. Wow this is so different!
Seems like it depends on the theater/IMAX or not. Just watched a video review and one of the hosts were saying how the swinging was breathtaking in 3D, and another host said the 3D was 'meh'.
Turned out one saw it in IMAX and the other in RealD or whatever. I'm worried it's going to suck in 3D in most theaters.
I have no idea why you guys are being so staunch, as if there is no possible scenario that would cause Sony to call it quits with their take on the IP. If the franchise stopped being successful, Sony wouldn't keep making them. They wouldn't purposefully dig themselves into a hole hoping that Disney would offer some huge monetary offer for the rights to "save the brand". How can anyone honestly consider that a more likely possibility than Sony simply putting a halt on their Spidey-film production had this new film lost them 100 million+ ?
The more likely scenario might've been some sort of co-operative contract (like Universal and Hulk). Had that failed, I couldn't see Sony in their current financial predicament taking another huge financial risk on a Spider-Man movie in this climate. I'll repeat: Spider-Man would not be Sony's most valuable IP had the new film tanked. That's a contradiction.
But of course, the film hasn't bombed..nor was there ever any indication it was going too.
Just got back from watching the movie. Enjoyed it, but I'll wait until tomorrow for full impressions.
Mid-credits
What's next? Ultimate Green Goblin? Ultimate Venom? Both fit into what was established in Amazing.
Mid-credits
Was the movie teasing the mysterious guy or the fact that Peter's father had more secrets?
What's next? Ultimate Green Goblin? Ultimate Venom? Both fit into what was established in Amazing.
- Status