Conundrum
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I know, right? I'm already getting tired of this. Since Sony did this movie so they wouldn't lose the rights back to Marvel, Bob has been on a personal crusade on this thing since its pre-production, and probably would still be even if this thing was the Holy Grail of superhero movies.TsunamiWombat said:
EDIT: And yeah, I watched it. It was fun. I actually thought it was better than the Sam Raimi ones. Andrew Garfield had way more personality than Tobey Maguire. With the exception of the "dumbest thing in a Spiderman movie ever" that Bob quoted in his review, the movie was all I wanted from a Spiderman movie. And I'm thinking that the reason because Bob keeps saying this has nothing to do with the comic book version is just because he blatantly refuses to compare it with the version of the Ultimate universe. I mean, he keeps telling about how he has a crapload of "Amazing Spiderman" comics and therefore he knows what he's talking about.
The thing is, several intelligent people whose opinions I value very highly absolutely LOVED the movie (and i'm going to go see it on their recommendation). The big difference between them and Bob?Diegolomac said:
They were women.
The Amazing Spiderman reboot wasn't really directly aimed at Spiderman fanboys like the Raimi movies were, and I think it's a shame Bob is too busy T'bagging on the movie to take note that it's doing well with women and has a very intelligent and powerful female lead in the story.
To me, the Amazing Spiderman was like the movie Romeo X Juliet: Horrible, but inexplicably become awesome in the last act.
Oh yeah, that too. Gwen Stacy is independent, smart, can defend herself, and actually is on top of things through most of the movie. She seems to have more control of the situation than Peter has sometimes. So, where the hell does Bob see Twilight in this? In Twilight, the woman was an insecure, dependent, complaining prick that kept clinging to her love interest because she was too incompetent to do anything.TsunamiWombat said:
The hair.Diegolomac said:
Admittedly, I hated the movie at first too, because of the hair. It just looked like so much churned out twilight cash in pretty teen garbage from a distance,.
I think those characters got dropped because they had nothing left to do, seriously why would Mr. Ratha meet with Conners after he's fired? Does he just so happen to like spelunking in the sewers? Bob there is enough in this movie to dislike without having to make stuff up.
Bob your hatred of this movie is making you sound as bad as a Star Wars fan talking about Episode One.
Bob your hatred of this movie is making you sound as bad as a Star Wars fan talking about Episode One.
Please stop talking about "The Amazing Spider-man" (great film, so it last night). And even if you don't like it, you cannot seriously put it in the same category as "Green Lantern" with a straight face.
Also could someone enlighten me, what was the "dumbest Spider-Man moment" refering to? If it is was I think it is then I will have to disagree.
Also could someone enlighten me, what was the "dumbest Spider-Man moment" refering to? If it is was I think it is then I will have to disagree.
Just because of this intermission and Moviebobs obsession with the film, I will buy The Amazing Spiderman on DVD.
Great article, even though we're tired of reading about Spider-man now. But the point stands, wether it's true for ASM or not (haven't seen it, don't plan to) you shouldn't get away with lazy screenwriting and calling it "world-building" or some bullshit like that.
Though I AM getting curious. How can so many people LOVE this new Spider-Man, and my two favorite critics dislike itso much (You and HULK)? I'm gonna need to check this out when I can rent it
Though I AM getting curious. How can so many people LOVE this new Spider-Man, and my two favorite critics dislike itso much (You and HULK)? I'm gonna need to check this out when I can rent it
@Rosco64
Probably the scene where all the crane-workers in NY can somehow deduce that they need to use their cranes to make a path for Spider-Man so that he can save the day (even though he could have just used the buildings like he always does) and somehow they manage to mobilize and pull that stunt off in record-time.
Either that or the fact that Peter left a "Belongs to Peter Parker"-sign on his camera (because THAT is the smart thing to do for someone with a secret identity.
All in all though, I really don't think this film is half as bad as Bob makes it out to be. Andrew Garfield is likable as Peter Parker and has more personality, Gwen Stacy is VASTLY superior to MJ as the female lead and the action and web-slinging scenes are better than in the original trilogy. I'm also ecstatic that Spider-Man actually cracks jokes like he is supposed to in this version. That is basically the reason why I ever started liking the character in the first place and it was just nothing of it in the Raimi films.
Probably the scene where all the crane-workers in NY can somehow deduce that they need to use their cranes to make a path for Spider-Man so that he can save the day (even though he could have just used the buildings like he always does) and somehow they manage to mobilize and pull that stunt off in record-time.
Either that or the fact that Peter left a "Belongs to Peter Parker"-sign on his camera (because THAT is the smart thing to do for someone with a secret identity.
All in all though, I really don't think this film is half as bad as Bob makes it out to be. Andrew Garfield is likable as Peter Parker and has more personality, Gwen Stacy is VASTLY superior to MJ as the female lead and the action and web-slinging scenes are better than in the original trilogy. I'm also ecstatic that Spider-Man actually cracks jokes like he is supposed to in this version. That is basically the reason why I ever started liking the character in the first place and it was just nothing of it in the Raimi films.
True, but the only thing that can match the Twi-love is the Twi-hate. ASM seems to be loved by mainstream and geek alike, or if not liked, met with disinterest. Where is thegeek-rage? Good or bad aside, it's clear that the Spider-Man of the movie is not the one from the comics, that alone should bring a storm of hate from whiny fans, jut I just don't see it. I wanna make clear I don't neccesarily want an outrage at this movie, I'm just surprised there isn't one. Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong places.Shjade said:
Here is how they should have had the story (speaking in the tiny capacity I have as an internet nobody):
The lizard doctor is working on the new medicine for a shady company. He's a well meaning, but short tempered guy. When he discovers that the shady company have been testing deadly, unfinished serums on random tramps/veterans, he gets mad and tries to leave. The company doesn't like this and try to have him "removed". In a scuffle between him and some goons, he accidentally slashes himself with a semi-successful serum, which makes him turn into a super strong, super angry lizard. Instead of the bullshit "turn the world into lizards" plot that comes out of nowhere, have an angle about how the lizard is tracking down and killing all the big wigs in the company, V for Vendetta style.
Where spiderman comes in is that he tries to stop the lizard and his attempts to murder people. Parker eventually learns the doctor's motive, and realises the similarity between the lizard's goals and his own desire to get back at his uncle's killer. Seeing the lizardman, he realises in the end that you can't just solve your problems with anger and vengeance. Justice is stoic and impartial.
Well look at that! A fucking story-arc, using the shit that was already established and not built on by this terrible movie. Hell, its the exact same plot to Batman Begins, but they were already ripping The Dark Knight off anyway. Give me $200 million dollars.
The lizard doctor is working on the new medicine for a shady company. He's a well meaning, but short tempered guy. When he discovers that the shady company have been testing deadly, unfinished serums on random tramps/veterans, he gets mad and tries to leave. The company doesn't like this and try to have him "removed". In a scuffle between him and some goons, he accidentally slashes himself with a semi-successful serum, which makes him turn into a super strong, super angry lizard. Instead of the bullshit "turn the world into lizards" plot that comes out of nowhere, have an angle about how the lizard is tracking down and killing all the big wigs in the company, V for Vendetta style.
Where spiderman comes in is that he tries to stop the lizard and his attempts to murder people. Parker eventually learns the doctor's motive, and realises the similarity between the lizard's goals and his own desire to get back at his uncle's killer. Seeing the lizardman, he realises in the end that you can't just solve your problems with anger and vengeance. Justice is stoic and impartial.
Well look at that! A fucking story-arc, using the shit that was already established and not built on by this terrible movie. Hell, its the exact same plot to Batman Begins, but they were already ripping The Dark Knight off anyway. Give me $200 million dollars.
Oh for fucks sake, people. We're not even fifteen comments in and already a bunch of you are jumping down Bob's throat because he dares to talk about the only movie currently worth talking about. Yes, I disagree with him too (In some cases quite heavily), I quite liked Amazing Spider-Man. So what? Is his opinion ruining your enjoyment? Is it going to change your life if he keeps voicing his displeasure until a more interesting subject comes around? If you don't want to hear about it, then don't read it. It's that simple.