The Amazing Spider-Man |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThisWreckage said:
I didn't have a problem with his acting. I didn't say anything about his acting. I had an issue as his portrayal as Peter Parker. But there were issues with the script as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. My main problem with Peter in this movie is that his characterization is all over the place. Peter Parker is supposed to be awkward, dorky, uncomfortable in his own skin 99.9% of the time until he puts on that suit and is free behind the mask of Spider-Man. That's when the witty, sarcastic, confident Peter comes out.

In this movie, he mostly flits between being witty, smooth with Gwen, and snarky and confident. There is no "real" Peter Parker in this film. He doesn't feel like the Peter I grew up with.

With that said, I really liked the movie, once it got past the annoying origin part. I didn't think it matched the comic books in terms of tone, but I did feel the animation team absolutely nailed the look and feel of Spider-Man and his moveset. I loved it, and it was right out of the comics. It didn't even particularly feel like the Ultimate Spider-Man comics either to me.

Overall, I'd give the movie a B-, if I had to grade it, and I still think Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies captured the world and feel of Peter and Spider-Man better than Webb has in this outting. I'm still looking forward to ASM2, as I'm a huge Spider-Man fan, so more Spidey on the big screen is welcome.

I actually thought the cast in this movie was great (just because I didn't think Garfield acted like Peter, doesn't mean I think that he's a terrible actor). Garfield is a talented actor, and his post-spider bite Peter is a lot more in line with the comics than his pre-spider bite Peter. Emma, Martin, Sally, and all the rest did a fantastic job as well. I think the cheesy, camp factor that should be in all Spider-Man stories was there, but I felt the teen angst was a bit much.

I did enjoy the movie, but not as much as SM1 and 2 (I'm one of the few that actually enjoyed SM3 for how ridiculous it is, but I'd put ASM behind SM1 and 2, and before 3). Something about SM1, and the way Raimi organically introduced the elements of Spider-Man lore into the film felt more natural. ASM felt forced, especially the first 30+ minutes.

I'll definitely be picking this up on Blu Ray at some point in the near future. Maybe next week, or something, I don't know. I'd like to watch it again.
 
Apparently there is news on the suit being changed up. Bigger eye pieces and more traditional looking overall. Hope they don't go too drastic with making it more like the classic suit. Bigger eyes though? YES.
 
Sentry said:
Apparently there is news on the suit being changed up. Bigger eye pieces and more traditional looking overall. Hope they don't go too drastic with making it more like the classic suit. Bigger eyes though? YES.
Click to expand...

Bigger eyes sounds cool. I liked the eyes on the current suit but bigger will give it even more of an insect-like look.
 
I'm all for making the suit look more like comic Spidey suit. I like the color saturation of the suit in this movie, I just didn't like the look overall. Bigger, MacFarlane-esque eyes would be great, though!
 
I actually thought this movie was terribly boring. Just didn't do it for me. I'd even put it way lower than Spiderman 3.....at least that was entertaining.
 
brandonh83 said:
Okay, cool, I can respect that.



Having trouble right here though.
Click to expand...

I can understand his viewpoint.

Spider-Man 3 is like watching a train speeding at 100mph, then you see the bridge up ahead explode - leaving access to the small town below (famous for their gasoline barrel production lines). The conductor tries to stop the train, but pulls the lever the wrong way and makes the train go faster. Then the lever snaps off.

Watching ASM is like watching a kids choo-choo train sway back and fourth on a rickety track at 5mph. The conductor yawns, falls asleep on the controls - so tired is he of going through the motions of his job, the train waddles off the tracks, he wakes up, stop the train. Ride over.
 
Scullibundo said:
Because he doesn't learn a damn thing about responsibility. His hero's journey is incomplete. And because the end of the film involves him making a promise to a dying man that he won't risk his daughter's safety by being with her (ie: being responsible) before immediately making light of how awesome breaking those kinds of promises are at the end of the movie. I've said it before and I'll say it again: ASM's Peter Parker is a cunt.
Click to expand...

Amen. No amount of "it'll be corrected in a sequel where Gwen dies" will rectify the fact that his character arc is unfinished and unsatisfying in accepting him as a "heroic" figure. There are other ways to show he is still immature or has a ways to go without him being a total dick at the end. It just leaves a bitter aftertaste, where we should be happy this guy is the protagonist, not disappointed he remains so.
 
Scullibundo said:
Spider-Man 3 is like watching a train speeding at 100mph, then you see the bridge up ahead explode - leaving access to the small town below (famous for their gasoline barrel production lines). The conductor tries to stop the train, but pulls the lever the wrong way and makes the train go faster. Then the lever snaps off.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Scullibundo said:
Watching ASM is like watching a kids choo-choo train sway back and fourth on a rickety track at 5mph. The conductor yawns, falls asleep on the controls - so tired is he of going through the motions of his job, the train waddles off the tracks, he wakes up, stop the train. Ride over.
Click to expand...

Having trouble right here though.
 
Scullibundo said:
Watching ASM is like watching a kids choo-choo train sway back and fourth on a rickety track at 5mph. The conductor falls asleep, the train waddles off the tracks, he wakes up, stop the train. Ride over.
Click to expand...

Or one of those trains in the mall that kids seem to enjoy until they experience the thrilling highs of complete boredom and forever lowered expectations.

I was drunk when watching and still couldn't enjoy it because of all the extreme gaps in story telling and leaps of narrative logic. Fortunately, because I was drunk, I don't remember what they were.

Things I can say that are good about it: Garfield's body language in the suit was pretty good. The suit itself had an interesting texture that I would like to see used more in cape flicks.
 
Scullibundo said:
I can understand his viewpoint.

Spider-Man 3 is like watching a train speeding at 100mph, then you see the bridge up ahead explode - leaving access to the small town below (famous for their gasoline barrel production lines). The conductor tries to stop the train, but pulls the lever the wrong way and makes the train go faster. Then the lever snaps off.

Watching ASM is like watching a kids choo-choo train sway back and fourth on a rickety track at 5mph. The conductor yawns, falls asleep on the controls - so tired is he of going through the motions of his job, the train waddles off the tracks, he wakes up, stop the train. Ride over.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Right on.
 
Tookay said:
Amen. No amount of "it'll be corrected in a sequel where Gwen dies" will rectify the fact that his character arc is unfinished and unsatisfying in accepting him as a "heroic" figure. There are other ways to show he is still immature or has a ways to go without him being a total dick at the end. It just leaves a bitter aftertaste, where we should be happy this guy is the protagonist, not disappointed he remains so.
Click to expand...
Most normal people can watch this movie and see Peter Parker/Spider-Man as heroic figure. I don't see how him trying to make Gwen happy and not have her hate him, makes him unheroic. Apple's and oranges.
 
Sentry said:
Most normal people can watch this movie and see Peter Parker/Spider-Man as heroic figure. I don't see how him trying to make Gwen happy and not have her hate him, makes him unheroic. Apple's and oranges.
Click to expand...

Because Peter Parker is the one superhero that is defined by what it means to be responsible. Giving her (and let's face it, himself) happiness so she won't be sad over their breakup is inconsequential to the danger that he is now well aware of that he is exposing her too. Again, he just promised her goddamn father WHILE HE WAS DYING from just such an incident, that he wouldn't expose Gwen to that danger. And it's bad enough that he broke her father's dying wish and is being totally cavalier about what he's doing, he makes a fucking witty remark about how awesome breaking those FATHER DYING WISH promises are. Seriously, FUCK Webb's Parker.

So again, he didn't learn a damn thing about responsibility. It isn't an apple and oranges thing at all. It probably isn't constructive to say 'most normal people' either.
 
Peter pulls a dick move. There's no arguing that. Breaking the promise to a dying man and being immature and irresponsible. It's good because it's going to end very badly when Gwen dies. So, obviously, there's a long-term plan behind it. It's bad in a self contained movie because it's such an obvious dick move, and it leaves you a little disappointed in him. I will say though, considering it's going to be a trilogy, allowing Peter to mature throughout it and become the hero we expect at the end would be better than for him to transform into a completely responsible hero in one movie. It will allow a more personal arc throughout the movies. In that respect, I was fine when I saw that scene since I know it's there to set up the future. It'll also leave other internal conflicts to be used in the SP4 - 6 then.

SP1-3 can be about one big arc of Peter Parker becoming a responsible and mature hero. Then 4-6 can deal with other aspects that will inevitably pop up. A longer arc for growth is welcome though as it'd get tiring if they exhaust everything within the first few movies since 4 - 6 will have nothing left then. You can't just have villains as that's not satisfying enough. Need some personal conflict and character growth there too. If this trilogy goes well, 4-6 would be the perfect time to have Venom finally make an appearance.
 
Verendus said:
I will say though, considering it's going to be a trilogy, allowing Peter to mature throughout it and become the hero we expect at the end would be better than for him to transform into a completely responsible hero in one movie. It will allow a more personal arc throughout the movies. In that respect, I was fine when I saw that scene since I know it's there to set up the future.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Raimi's first two films should be proof enough that you can have a personal arc for the character even after he's learned how to be responsible.

I can't believe I even have to argue against Webb's braindead idea of completing his defining arc over multiple films. Spider-Man trilogy where he doesn't actually become Spider-Man or likeable till the end of the trilogy!

Next up: Godfather Remake where the movie ends once Michael enters the restaurant!
 
Verendus said:
Peter pulls a dick move. There's no arguing that. Breaking the promise to a dying man and being immature and irresponsible. It's good because it's going to end very badly when Gwen dies. So, obviously, there's a long-term plan behind it. It's bad in a self contained movie because it's such an obvious dick move, and it leaves you a little disappointed in him. I will say though, considering it's going to be a trilogy, allowing Peter to mature throughout it and become the hero we expect at the end would be better than for him to transform into a completely responsible hero in one movie. It will allow a more personal arc throughout the movies. In that respect, I was fine when I saw that scene since I know it's there to set up the future. It'll also leave other internal conflicts to be used in the SP4 - 6 then.

SP1-3 can be about one big arc of Peter Parker becoming a responsible and mature hero. Then 4-6 can deal with other aspects that will inevitably pop up. A longer arc for growth is welcome though as it'd get tiring if they exhaust everything within the first few movies since 4 - 6 will have nothing left then. You can't just have villains as that's not satisfying enough. Need some personal conflict and character growth there too. If this trilogy goes well, 4-6 would be the perfect time to have Venom finally make an appearance.
Click to expand...

Right, I agree with what Sculli is saying, I felt that way too, but I don't see it as a BAD thing. It'll come back to bite his stupid spider-ass.
 
Scullibundo said:
Disagree. Raimi's first two films should be proof enough that you can have a personal arc for the character even after he's learned how to be responsible.

I can't believe I even have to argue against Webb's braindead idea of completing his defining arc over multiple films. Spider-Man trilogy where he doesn't actually become Spider-Man or likeable till the end of the trilogy!
Click to expand...
Raimi's movies had nowhere to go after 3 because he used the two main internal conflicts. If this series goes beyond 3 movies, it's good that they're doing it the way they are. It gives more time for growth. And I don't expect a 17 year old Spider-Man to become responsible so quick. I like that it'll take time.

P.S. Raimi's Spider-Man movies were shite. Not that this is exactly good either. But still.
 
Verendus said:
Raimi's movies had nowhere to go after 3 because he used the two main internal conflicts. If this series goes beyond 3 movies, it's good that they're doing it the way they are. It gives more time for growth. And I don't expect a 17 year old Spider-Man to become responsible so quick. I like that it'll take time.

P.S. Raimi's Spider-Man movies were shite. Not that this is exactly good either. But still.
Click to expand...

Notice I didn't mention Spider-Man 3.

And so your logic is that they're saving the story so they still have stuff to do for Spider-Man 4, 5 and 6? Maybe if they didn't introduce Uncle Ben until the second movie, we could milk the story out to twelve movies?

Stop making up awful excuses for terrible writing. You don't write a film with the intention of finishing the narrative arc that defines your character in another film, just like you don't ship a puzzle to people that is missing 2/3rds of the pieces.

Raimi's first two films shit all over this cynical money grab. The only great thing about this film was Emma Stone.
 
My ranking of the Spidey films are:

01) Spider-Man
02) The Amazing Spider-Man
03) Spider-Man 2
04) Spider-Man 3

Raimi's first were marvelous and really felt like Spider-Man. Spidey 2 were honestly boring and hard for me to get through.

While ASM is very enjoyable, so much that I already have an itch to see it again, just days after I saw it last time. It's a movie I can see again and again.
 
The contrasting opinions still amazes me, haha.

Anyone who thinks this was worse than SM3, though, probably hasn't watched both back to back. You can hate the movie, but to say it's a worse film than SM3 is a stretch imo.

After rewatching this, I would say SM2 > SM1 = ASM >>> SM3. SM1 is better than ASM in many ways, but ASM also does things that make it a superior Spidey movie than SM1 fell flat on. It's tough to say which is superior, could swing either way for me tbh. SM1 is still a great classic regardless.
 
Sculli, do you also consider drama/horror movies that make you laugh despite not meaning to, good movies? If you found SM3 entertaining it was probably for all the wrong reasons. :p

Just not a good film.
 
Scullibundo said:
Because Peter Parker is the one superhero that is defined by what it means to be responsible. Giving her (and let's face it, himself) happiness so she won't be sad over their breakup is inconsequential to the danger that he is now well aware of that he is exposing her too. Again, he just promised her goddamn father WHILE HE WAS DYING from just such an incident, that he wouldn't expose Gwen to that danger. And it's bad enough that he broke her father's dying wish and is being totally cavalier about what he's doing, he makes a fucking witty remark about how awesome breaking those FATHER DYING WISH promises are. Seriously, FUCK Webb's Parker.

So again, he didn't learn a damn thing about responsibility. It isn't an apple and oranges thing at all. It probably isn't constructive to say 'most normal people' either.
Click to expand...

That last line was so SO bad. How it should have ended summed it up pretty nicely.
 
Figboy79 said:
I agree with you. My main problem with Peter in this movie is that his characterization is all over the place. Peter Parker is supposed to be awkward, dorky, uncomfortable in his own skin 99.9% of the time until he puts on that suit and is free behind the mask of Spider-Man. That's when the witty, sarcastic, confident Peter comes out.
Click to expand...

I agree that Pete's characterization is sloppy in TASM, but you're wrong about what Peter Parker should be like. Comic book Pete was never awkward or terribly dorky. He was actually quick-witted and sarcastic even out of his costume. He was academically inclined out of necessity, not because he was a massive nerd - the fact that he was broke meant that he had to study extra hard to get a scholarship for university. And because his responsibilities, starting with having to take care of his aunt, and then evolving to him having to fight crime, were as time consuming as they were, meant that he was a social hermit despite wanting to be more social.

Peter Parker is not a shy nerd. And although Maguire's Parker was an awkward bumbling mess, the Peter Parker in Raimi's films was also very consistent and written well enough for me to enjoy Maguire's portrayal.
 
Sentry said:
The contrasting opinions still amazes me, haha.

Anyone who thinks this was worse than SM3, though, probably hasn't watched both back to back. You can hate the movie, but to say it's a worse film than SM3 is a stretch imo.

After rewatching this, I would say SM2 > SM1 = ASM >>> SM3. SM1 is better than ASM in many ways, but ASM also does things that make it a superior Spidey movie than SM1 fell flat on. It's tough to say which is superior, could swing either way for me tbh. SM1 is still a great classic regardless.
Click to expand...

I find TASM infinitely superior to SM1, it just does so many things better than the first movie. I'd even put TASM over SM2 which is one my favorite superhero flicks.

Garfield, Stone, superior visuals, better action to me, much more accurate portrayal of Spidey, cracking jokes, witty, the score by Horner is IMO extremely underrated, I just find it so beautiful and compelling, the relationship btw Pete and Gwen is so 500 Days Of Summer like (a movie that I love dearly), Webb to me brings a lot to the table, if you're familiar with 500 Days of course.
 
By the way, Webb says that after Spidey saves the kid on the bridge, he learns about responsability for the first time and how he can use his powers for good. I mean, it's obvious, dont see the problem with his characterization, he is a bit of a dick too in the comics on many occasions, although my favorite run for me is Ultimate Spider-Man.

The line at the end for me is great, he just loves Gwen too much to stick by his promise and fuck man, we all make promises that we dont keep.
 
Sentry said:
Sculli, do you also consider drama/horror movies that make you laugh despite not meaning to, good movies? If you found SM3 entertaining it was probably for all the wrong reasons. :p

Just not a good film.
Click to expand...

Everything in SM3 BEFORE Peter Parker randomly acts out of character and kisses Gwen at that stupid parade is better than ASM. Then the lone Bruce Campbell scene - which you are meant to laugh at, is similarly, better than anything in ASM.


ThePinkDagger said:
By the way, Webb says that after Spidey saves the kid on the bridge, he learns about responsability for the first time and how he can use his powers for good. I mean, it's obvious, dont see the problem with his characterization, he is a bit of a dick too in the comics on many occasions, although my favorite run for me is Ultimate Spider-Man.
Click to expand...

Well that's nice for Webb that he thinks that. If I could get every audience member to think what I thought my movies were, despite how the movie itself plays, I would be the next Stanley Kubrick.
 
I honestly have no problem with Parker not keeping his promise at the end either.

I'm gonna watch this movie again today, it's just a very enjoyable and easy movie to watch. It is everything Spider-Man should be.
 
peterparkerraindropstdymw.gif
 
Just saw ASM today. and thought it was a lot better than people have been giving it credit for. I can see why it gets a lot of flak though, it's fairly low key in comparison and closer to a traditional action movie compared to the Raimi movies, and that kind of approach isn't what people look for in Superhero movies not called Batman.

I like Garfield's Peter Parker as well. He does whatever he thinks is a good idea at the time even if it causes problems, and the ending is part of that.
 
Did they do more edits to the movie before putting it on Blu-Ray? I saw it twice in theaters and I distinctly remember there being a scene where Gwen invites Peter over for dinner, but on the Blu-Ray that scene is... missing? I even asked the girl I was watching it with, "Wait, did I fall asleep and miss the part where he's invited over?" because he just shows up at her house, and then there's the joke about the fish, but there was no set up. She said she didn't recall a scene where he's invited either. What the hell?

Is my Blu-Ray... missing a scene? Is such a thing even possible?

I also don't remember Peter calling himself Spider-Man after rescuing the kid on the bridge either, as he does on the Blu-Ray, (I thought he said something like "I'm just a guy trying to do the right thing" or something) but that's trivial compared to the entire set up for dinner at Gwen's being MIA.
 
WordAssassin said:
Did they do more edits to the movie before putting it on Blu-Ray? I saw it twice in theaters and I distinctly remember there being a scene where Gwen invites Peter over for dinner, but on the Blu-Ray that scene is... missing? I even asked the girl I was watching it with, "Wait, did I fall asleep and miss the part where he's invited over?" because he just shows up at her house, and then there's the joke about the fish, but there was no set up. She said she didn't recall a scene where he's invited either. What the hell?

Is my Blu-Ray... missing a scene? Is such a thing even possible?

I also don't remember Peter calling himself Spider-Man after rescuing the kid on the bridge either, as he does on the Blu-Ray, (I thought he said something like "I'm just a guy trying to do the right thing" or something) but that's trivial compared to the entire set up for dinner at Gwen's being MIA.
Click to expand...

Could be, editing for this movie is all over the place. The theatrerelease was missing key elements, it's only logical the home-release continues down this road.
 
She did invite him at school, even almost forgot to mention appt 2016.i think he did call himself spiderman on the bridge in the theatre release.
 
WordAssassin said:
Did they do more edits to the movie before putting it on Blu-Ray? I saw it twice in theaters and I distinctly remember there being a scene where Gwen invites Peter over for dinner, but on the Blu-Ray that scene is... missing? I even asked the girl I was watching it with, "Wait, did I fall asleep and miss the part where he's invited over?" because he just shows up at her house, and then there's the joke about the fish, but there was no set up. She said she didn't recall a scene where he's invited either. What the hell?

Is my Blu-Ray... missing a scene? Is such a thing even possible?

I also don't remember Peter calling himself Spider-Man after rescuing the kid on the bridge either, as he does on the Blu-Ray, (I thought he said something like "I'm just a guy trying to do the right thing" or something) but that's trivial compared to the entire set up for dinner at Gwen's being MIA.
Click to expand...

I watched it on bluray last night and there is definitely a short exchange where he's invited to dinner at some point before he shows up at her window. Never saw it in theatres so I don't know if they changed it or shortened it up.
 
ASM wasn't a bad movie but to me it seemed very boring. i dont find the actors very likable and the lizard was a boring villain. in my view Maguire was a near perfect Peter Parker. it might be because they started again from the beginning. i hope, and i think it will be the case, that ASM2 will be more interesting.

i would rate them like this:
SM and SM2
SM3
ASM
 
WordAssassin said:
I also don't remember Peter calling himself Spider-Man after rescuing the kid on the bridge either, as he does on the Blu-Ray, (I thought he said something like "I'm just a guy trying to do the right thing" or something) but that's trivial compared to the entire set up for dinner at Gwen's being MIA.
Click to expand...

No, that was definitely in theaters, because I remember really disliking Garfield's line reading there. :lol
 
Man this movie was a rush job, needed a lot of polish. The first half wasn't very cohesive, it was if they had a checklist and just made a scene for every bullet point. Peter Parker did not at like Peter and acted like some spaced out brah. The romance just accelerated out of nowhere and they ruined a lot of story potential with the Stacy's. And it looks like the whole trilogy is leading up to the Osborns and Green Goblin. Out all the spidery stories they have to go back there.




Do Kraven please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tom Holland’s ‘Spider-Man 4’ Gets Official Title, ‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day,’ Ahead of Summer Filming
42
1K
Fbh replied
Sony’s Spider-Man universe is dead
31
2K
Doom85 replied
Marvel Animation’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man | Official Trailer | Disney+
28
2K
Soapbox Killer replied
First photos of Nicholas Cage on the set of Spider-Man Noir
News 
36
4K
clarky replied
Isn't it amazing everything is still a WWW.
29
1K
Drew1440 replied
Top Bottom