It would have worked had Raimi done it w/Bruce Campbell.
The Amazing Spider-Man |OT|
- Thread starter noah111
- Start date
- Status
It would have worked had Raimi done it w/Bruce Campbell.
Winnie the Pimp
Member
ok so for once my cinema here IS showing this movie in 3D and 2D as well!
Now i usually go for the 2D versions but can deal with the 3D if i HAVE to, my friend however HATES 3D and will only go for 2D ones...
In this specific case, would we miss much if went to see it in 2D since i heard the 3D is actually pretty good? has anyone seen the 2D version?
Now i usually go for the 2D versions but can deal with the 3D if i HAVE to, my friend however HATES 3D and will only go for 2D ones...
In this specific case, would we miss much if went to see it in 2D since i heard the 3D is actually pretty good? has anyone seen the 2D version?
rollingstart
Banned
Don't. It hurts.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Kraven would be good and as I just said I think Morbius would be a great villain. I would like to see Punisher introduced, but it would be a difficult.
Watched spider-man 3 last night and the movie is not THAT bad until about when Harry remembers his past and starts messing with Peter. Their fight at the mansion was just ... OMG... How did that happen? And then Peter at the jazz club ... OMG ... And then how rushed the scene is when Venom and Sandman finally meet and conspire against Spidey ... Why did Sandman want to kill spider-man anyway? Because he kicked his ass ? After they meet the movie cut to MJ kidnapped and it's the most rushed shit ive ever seen.. And that awful news anchor and the terrible British reporter giving the play by play ... I kind of liked that Harry and Peter teamed up but it was so stupid that Harry died. I thought Raimi's theme of forgiveness could have worked well had Sandman been the only villain, but holy shit the last two acts of this movie are an abomination.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
No it wouldn't have. Raimi couldn't handle Sandman and Venom which are pretty easy to characterise.
Please don't use Spidey 3 as a basis for anything. He could have knocked Mysterio out of the park if given the creative freedom he had on 1 and 2.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yeah, I think Sony knew they had a total bomb on their hands so they rushed through the final acts to just end it as soon as possible. Too many Raimi-isms and Tobey-Man was rubbish all movie and not even James Franco could salvage the terrible writing.
Makes a lot of sense. There really isn't enough story to fill the running time of the film, and it does feel like something's missing. Probably the reason the pacing feels so off. Even watching it I was surprised at how many dangling subplots and characters just disappear, never to be seen again. The very first trailer for the film seemed to indicate the story was going to be heavily focused on Peter's parents and what happened, right down to the emphasis on secrets.
Really hope we find out the story behind what happened. I think it did nothing but hurt the film.
Just saw it. LOVED it.
Andrew Garfield took about 10 seconds to win me over as Peter--absolutely awesome in the role.
The movie takes a long time till Spider-Man first shows up, but everything was so enjoyable I didn't mind a bit--in fact, I think maybe I even enjoyed it a bit more. The actors are great, the chemistry between everyone is great, and everything that looked plain bad in the released snippets works in the context of the whole. Even the Air Bud soundtrack and the discordant chords when Gwen is hiding from the Lizard.
Was the plot a little contrived? Yes, but it's a superhero movie, and not high art, so I don't really think it deserves to come under harsh criticism for it. I laughed my ass off, was charmed by the actors, felt a sense of thrill and danger in COUNTLESS action scenes, and there is just so much pandering to fans in terms of what Spider-Man actually does in this thing. It's crazy.
I loved it. It has its flaws and maybe sometimes it's a little apparent it's trying to do the exact opposite that was done in the first movie (subsequent movies will surely also struggle with this)... but for two hours I felt like a kid again. This is what I like to feel like when I watch these movies. I just found it so much more enjoyable than all the Marvel-produced snorefests.
I went to the first morning showing in a theater here in Argentina, and sadly I was the only one there.
Maybe all the kids were watching the dubbed version instead of the subtitled. Whatever the case, I hope the movie does well financially. I think it deserves it.
Andrew Garfield took about 10 seconds to win me over as Peter--absolutely awesome in the role.
The movie takes a long time till Spider-Man first shows up, but everything was so enjoyable I didn't mind a bit--in fact, I think maybe I even enjoyed it a bit more. The actors are great, the chemistry between everyone is great, and everything that looked plain bad in the released snippets works in the context of the whole. Even the Air Bud soundtrack and the discordant chords when Gwen is hiding from the Lizard.
Was the plot a little contrived? Yes, but it's a superhero movie, and not high art, so I don't really think it deserves to come under harsh criticism for it. I laughed my ass off, was charmed by the actors, felt a sense of thrill and danger in COUNTLESS action scenes, and there is just so much pandering to fans in terms of what Spider-Man actually does in this thing. It's crazy.
I loved it. It has its flaws and maybe sometimes it's a little apparent it's trying to do the exact opposite that was done in the first movie (subsequent movies will surely also struggle with this)... but for two hours I felt like a kid again. This is what I like to feel like when I watch these movies. I just found it so much more enjoyable than all the Marvel-produced snorefests.
I went to the first morning showing in a theater here in Argentina, and sadly I was the only one there.
Maybe all the kids were watching the dubbed version instead of the subtitled. Whatever the case, I hope the movie does well financially. I think it deserves it.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Saw it opening night and just wanted to add I loved it.
Spiderman 1 was a surprisingly competent and fun film for me when it came out. Lots of flaws, Toby was a mis-cast, MJ annoyed me, but the film still had heart.
Spidy 2 was an even bigger suprise when it turned out to seriously 1 up the first film and keep a good pace and fun atmosphere while taking everything up a few notches. I dont think any of us expected Spidy 2 to be much better then the first and when it was, it was amazing. I dont think it holds up very well anymore but that may be because of:
Spidy 3 - one of the biggest film abominations of all time in my opinion. I'm shocked this film didn't single handlely sink the comic book craze.
I had no hope for this new one, thought it was too soon, thought it would be terrible. Boy was I wrong, I love it. I think it has more heart than all the first 3. The action was better, but the plot and pacing need some serious work. Overall though I'm going to seeing it again and buy it on Bluray when it comes out
no better praise i can give a film.
Spiderman 1 was a surprisingly competent and fun film for me when it came out. Lots of flaws, Toby was a mis-cast, MJ annoyed me, but the film still had heart.
Spidy 2 was an even bigger suprise when it turned out to seriously 1 up the first film and keep a good pace and fun atmosphere while taking everything up a few notches. I dont think any of us expected Spidy 2 to be much better then the first and when it was, it was amazing. I dont think it holds up very well anymore but that may be because of:
Spidy 3 - one of the biggest film abominations of all time in my opinion. I'm shocked this film didn't single handlely sink the comic book craze.
I had no hope for this new one, thought it was too soon, thought it would be terrible. Boy was I wrong, I love it. I think it has more heart than all the first 3. The action was better, but the plot and pacing need some serious work. Overall though I'm going to seeing it again and buy it on Bluray when it comes out
no better praise i can give a film.
Scarecrow
Member
It depends on what kind of projectors your theater uses. My theater uses Sony 4K digital projectors. For our 3D projectors, we use 4k wattage bulbs (the 2D ones use 3k wattage ones). Our theater tries to squeeze as much life out of the bulbs as we can (they run at about $1000 each), so instead of say, 500 hours, we run the 4k bulbs for 6-650. The longer a bulb is used, the more likely the glass will get smokey, creating a darker picture. However, that usually only happens with our 3k bulbs which get used twice as long and the 4ks.
For my money, I've noticed the darker picture is because of the 3D glasses. You can make a picture as bright as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still pretty much wearing sunglasses in a dark room. To me, it makes all these movies feel as if they were filmed on an overcast day. If there were a way to create a 3D picture similar to how the 3DS does, I'd have no problem with 3D movies.
Do theaters advertise what kind of projected they're using ? I have a bunch of AMCs here and I also have. Marquee cinema. The Marquee is a Cinedigm theater apparently. AMC probably uses Sony projectors right ??
Whats wierd is if all this got cut out and the film was recut...its still clocked at 136 minutes. I wonder how long the original cut must have been.
Out of all the stuff that was seemingly cut, the only thing that I think is really missed is that Lizard/Ratha/Spidey scene in the sewers
Out of all the stuff that was seemingly cut, the only thing that I think is really missed is that Lizard/Ratha/Spidey scene in the sewers
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I heard that it was ~ 150 minutes before they cut it. I hope they release a Director's cut or put the missing footage into the sequel somehow as flashbacks or somesuch.
Was the untold story cut from the amazing spider-man? http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/
well that was interesting
Scarecrow
Member
I think most theaters today have or are switching to digital projectors. The best way to find out is to call your local theater and ask what kind of projectors they use.
the anime man
Banned
Saw it twice and I just wanted to say that I LOVED the movie! For me, it's way better than the Raimi films (and I love the first two movies). Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were so good in this.
Going to see it again a second time while my wife is photographing a wedding Saturday. I loved it so much the first time. I'm more excited to see it a second time because I know how good it is.
For me it's leaps and bounds beyond the original 3. Garfield was born to play Peter Parker like RDJ was born to play Tony Stark.
For me it's leaps and bounds beyond the original 3. Garfield was born to play Peter Parker like RDJ was born to play Tony Stark.
Getting ready to buy my tickets for the 7:30pm IMAX showing on Sat.
TBH, I'm not that excited for a reboot, but (I guess) excited enough to see this movie in the theaters. And while I enjoyed the old trilogy (yes, even SM3), I'm not sure I'll dig SM's origin story this go around.
TBH, I'm not that excited for a reboot, but (I guess) excited enough to see this movie in the theaters. And while I enjoyed the old trilogy (yes, even SM3), I'm not sure I'll dig SM's origin story this go around.
ThingontheFloor
Member
I thought the reboot portion of the movie (probably the first 1/3) was the worst part of it. I had so much deja vu during it that I was convinced that I was going to hate the rest of it. But once the action picks up and the relationship between Peter and Gwen grows, it becomes a different movie than the trilogy, for the better.
SilentProtagonist
Member
This would be accurate if Amazing Spider-Man was doing better than most the Raimi movies critically or financially. This... is not the case.
Also, I thought the teaser at the end was terrible. Isn't the point of those things typically to either give a tease for the sequel, or clarify a plot point that wasn't finished in the movie, or have a funny gag.
Iron Man: Teases Nick Fury and the fact that Marvel is going to make an Avengers movie.
The Incredible Hulk: Introduces the first hero crossover by showing Tony Stark (this one is actually pretty lame)
Iron Man 2: Teases Thor! Oh shit!
Thor: Teases Loki coming to Earth and getting the Tesseract! Oh shit!
Green Lantern: Horrible movie, and a nonsensical tease, but sets up the villain for the sequel I pray will never happen.
Captain America: Shows how Captain America ended up in modern times (also has an Avengers trailer)
Avengers: Teases the next villain. Oh shhhhit!
Amazing Spider-Man: Who is that? So we're going to learn more about Peter's parents? .... I should hope so I guess, because that plot obviously went nowhere in this movie.
I must say your defenses of your untenable positions are so cute. I mean, this post essentially amounts to an internet "nu-uh", since you literally did nothing to contradicted any of the points being raised. If you fail to participate in a discussion, you opt to automatically concede - you don't get another option.
That said, between you and cakefoo, I'd say I got more than my money's worth from the exceedingly mediocre Amazing Spider-Man. So I have to thank you for that. It's why I love GAF posters willing to defend anything (even if their 'defenses' often amount to little more than flailing, empty-minded screeds, devoid of content. That just makes it MORE funny though), because even if the movie fails, I still get my money's return from the discussion.
SilentProtagonist
Member
It showed the pink space pedophile putting on the yellow ring and becoming... you know yellow evil. This is after the power of the Green ring you know.. saved the day and showed that they didn't have to rely on the Yellow ones.
BertramCooper
Banned
I bet I could count on my hands the number of people who actually stuck around for the Greg Lantern post-credits scene.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Greg Lantern of Mars
As much as I loved ASM, I really want to see what Marvel would do with Spidey in their movie universe. Not seeing Sam Jackson post credits depressing
Cool. Like I said, I enjoyed the old trilogy. So I'm pretty sure I'll at least enjoy ASM, if not love the movie. My bro took his son/my nephew to see it and they both enjoyed it. My bro said it was good (not better than The Avengers), and my nephew was just happy for another Spiderman movie (his fave superhero).
My only reservation with ASM is something more personal, however. Maybe it's just me getting older, but I've had a real tough time lately enjoying any media (movies, especially) where a teenager is one of the baddest, toughest, smartest motherfuckers on the planet. So that's why I'm not sure how much, or if, I'll enjoy another SM reboot. I enjoyed watching Tobey becoming an adult, living on his own, learning how to juggle being a grown man (with real responsibilities), a BF, and superhero.
All that uncut footage just underlines how much of a mess ASM's plot was. It commits a ton of basic writing errors just introducing plot points like that and then leaving them dangling. Peter's arc itself is very strange and has almost no discernible turning points (heck, it even has a reversion of sorts in the last scene).
Agreed. Always was a fan of that idea.
Agreed. Always was a fan of that idea.
faceless007
Member
From that article:
Anyone got a link to that video? Did they really release 25 minutes of the film in promo materials?
darkpaladinmfc
Member
What was the original origin story?
They really did.
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/the-amazing-spider-man/ultimate-super-preview
That Peter's DNA was manipulated by his parents and that the spider bite just unlocked the power that was already there.
There's more on it in the badassdigest article that was just posted.
I agree with the point about plot points and it probably means that there were many last minute changes to a great deal of the movie.
Peter's still a kid and it seems appropriate that he's not making completely mature decisions like a seasoned hero.
If our choices are between characters who continually completely forget the lessons of the previous movie and characters that don't quite learn the lesson of the current movie, I'd probably go with the latter because it makes the lesson "learning" seem less fake; it's almost inevitable that these lessons will have to be learned again in the next movie.
rollingstart
Banned
Sorry I don't have a link, but it's not entirely true. I checked it out yesterday and it uses behind the scenes footage (unofficial, from public shootings), scenes that were cut, and occasionally reuses scenes to work in other places. When people say 25 minutes, it's the length of the video some fan created, titles and all; not the amount of promotional footage released.
That said, Sony released a crazy amount of promo material. Didn't seem like they had a lot of faith in it.
I've seen some people make that claim before; that his decision at the end was justifiable because he was young and learning.
However, the film doesn't present Peter's decision to break his promise as a bad one.
The movie ends on a somewhat triumphant "fuck yeah he's a hero" tone - complete with him swinging through the city - that it's incongruous with the disrespectful thing he just did 30 seconds earlier.
It's shitty "having your cake and eating it" writing.
I see some people saying this, and I don't get it at all. The teaser is PERFECT for the purpose it's trying to accomplish, which is getting you to talk about wtf might happen in the sequel.
It's perfectly done, as it doesn't clearly indicate any specific antagonist at all. The echoing voice of Conners' answer makes me think figment of his imagination, the long hair/coat/old voice makes me think Vulture, the vanishing act makes me think Mysterio, everything else makes you speculate Osborn. It's mysterious and does its job. Plus, it lets you know there's more to Peter's father than we've been let on.
Except it leaves everybody totally confused what's going on.
It just reiterates things we already knew: OSCORP IS BAD AND MYSTERIOUS.
It's so open-ended that it's clearly just an ass-pull to get people talking. They have no idea where they're going with the sequel yet.
EDIT: Although I'm not a fan of the end credits teasers, a couple of the Marvel films have had much more informative teasers than what ASM whipped up.
We know for a fact that certain elements were changed, if not simply for the fact that in countless interviews both Webb as well as Garfield talked about Peter and how there was a sense of abandonment from his parents, and how no one has any idea what happened to them. Yet in the movie, they apparently died in a plane crash?
We find that out when Gwen dies.
I wasnt crazy about it. I thought the film itself did a good enough job at telling us just enough about Richard Parker but left it open enough for speculation. I didnt need some old mystery guy reiterating that point.
That it's justified that way doesn't mean it's justifiable any more than having a reason makes something reasonable.
I don't know if it was necessary to create a great deal of foreshadowing in this particular case because while we were shown that Gwen's involvement saves the city, she was also lucky she wasn't hurt. None of this changes the fact that she's a willing conspirator (since she is able to deduce that her father made Peter make such a promise) and that the latest transgression was probably not much worse than his others as far as her father was concerned.
SilentProtagonist
Member
I disagree. All it does is confuse people not get them hyped. If we already knew that a sequel was on the way, what does this teaser tell us about it? That there may (or may not be) a man who is after Peter...
Great. Couldn't have guessed that.
- Status