Conundrum

[Mr. Omega]

While it may seem to a lot of people here to be "too soon" after the whole thing with Spider-man, there are still plenty of good points brought up. The concept of continuity is new and filled with potential for abuse. Just because the Avengers got it right doesn't mean everyone else is going to. And this isn't just an issue with movies. It's not quite as bad as said in the article yet, but it's not that much of a slippery slope argument.

Plus, it's not like Ice Age 4 is prime material for writing a column about.

But of course, everyone's just going to roll their eyes and go "oh look, he's talking abuot spider-man again."

 

[gorfias]

Bob, I actually forgot about the Indian guy. Thanks. I didn't feel that harmed by it, but you are right. A ball was dropped.

I think you do have to compare this movie to Spidey 1. The Lizard, as utilized here, was a much more compelling villain than Green Goblin. Someone else wrote it best: GG was practically a Power Rangers villain. And villains are important.

Spoiler

I thought Lizard wouldn't work well. He does as the action scenes he is in are either under claustrophobic situations, closed, indoors and spidey cannot get away OR, there is a mcguffin. Spidey is after something and has to get to it, but he'll have to go through Lizard first. The character just really works in this movie.

 

[Fusioncode9]

Is this dude ever going to shut up about this movie? It's the ME3 ending all over again, he won't stop whining until everyone believes him. Even though he's just being a biased fanboy, and everyone with at least two brain cells has called him out on it.

 

[Karma168]

Using Spiderman was a mistake but it makes sense as an example of his point as it was the last film he saw that was a continuity starter. Using the thing you did most recently as an example of a point is something we all do so I'm willing to cut him some slack.

Not a lot though, any more spiderman for at least a month and I'll join in telling him to drop it

 

[BrotherRool]

You still aren't acknowledging that I and most of the rest of the world really enjoyed this film. It's getting good reviews everywhere and the very worst I've heard from anyone whose not was 'it's okay'

For some reason, in this one case, your views are really out of step with almost everybody. It's metacriticing a solid 66, ahead of 3 quite easily, on TV Tropes the reviews are Great, good, great, good, great, great, great, mediocre

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/reviews.php?target_group=Film&target_title=TheAmazingSpider-Man#7614

So we're looking at eltiests, tropers, whatever all giving this film good reviews, even the sporty people on my Facebook have been recommending this. There were plot issues and gaping plot holes, but considering it achieved the goal of entertaining basically everyone but you, this probably isn't the correct film to be analysing the flaws of, because they clearly didn't matter

 

[Silverspetz]

@Gatx

Well, putting aside the fact that humor is the most subjective thing on the planet (I thought the jokes were pretty damn funny), it is also a HUGE part of Spider-Man's character. Cracking jokes during battle is what he DOES. It is as iconic as the suit or the web-shooters. He does it partly to boost his own confidence and partly to pressure the villains into messing up by mocking them and making them mad.

It is also important to me because it is what made me identify with the character and like him more than the other superheroes. Bob claims this movie wants Spider-Man to be Batman, but honestly I think the Raimi-films are more guilty of that crime by stripping Spidey of his humor and just making him a straight-up crime-stopper who ONLY shows up, beats the bad guy and leaves them tied up for the police to find before anyone can see him.

 

[immortalfrieza]

@Gatx

Well, putting aside the fact that humor is the most subjective thing on the planet (I thought the jokes were pretty damn funny), it is also a HUGE part of Spider-Man's character. Cracking jokes during battle is what he DOES. It is as iconic as the suit or the web-shooters. He does it partly to boost his own confidence and partly to pressure the villains into messing up by mocking them and making them mad.

It is also important to me because it is what made me identify with the character and like him more than the other superheroes. Bob claims this movie wants Spider-Man to be Batman, but honestly I think the Raimi-films are more guilty of that crime by stripping Spidey of his humor and just making him a straight-up crime-stopper who ONLY shows up, beats the bad guy and leaves them tied up for the police to find before anyone can see him.

This is pretty much what I was going to tell Gatx. Bravo Silverspetz!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even if you're only going by the Amazing Spider-Man comics and don't mix the Ultimate SM in there, in which case it's even more so, the Amazing Spider-Man movie does a better job of being faithful to the comics than ANY Spider-Man movie or other Spidey media ever has. It gets the characters right, it gets the tone right, it gets pretty much everything right. The only thing it's missing is good old J.J., but that probably won't be missing long. Is it the best Superhero movie ever? No, but it's up there.

 

[Danzavare]

Dammit Bob. I wanted your opinion to be generic and in line with rotten tomatoes and the general consensus. I also cannot stand that you spent 2 articles and a video making well thought out criticisms of a problematic movie that would get the pass-over from people who aren't as emotionally invested in Spiderman as you are. If I wanted in-depth criticism on a movie based on a comic/game icon that does not feel the need to artificially meld into the 'popular/acceptable' opinion I would go to a niche website about this kind of culture and...oh wait, this is the Escapist and you're a movie critic. I'd have to be some kind of masochist or extremely dull to keep coming back here if I didn't like what you do every week, particularly if I was afraid of controversial opinions.

Unnecessarily long sarcasm aside, does anyone know if Bob has a podcast, blogs or anything else where he spends more time discussing this film~? I'd very much like to read/hear it.

(It may just be me, but I'm sure he has a lot more to say and I'm interested enough to want to know.)

 

[Ramzal]

Conundrum

Just because your film is first in a series doesn't mean you can get away with leaving out important details.

Read Full Article

 

[Inkidu]

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.

Yeah, but that's bass ackwards to the very fundamental personality of Dr. Connors/Lizard. There's a fine line between a hero and a villain, and Connors' was that he wanted to regrow his arm so badly, to symbolically rebuild himself that he was willing to try it when things get desperate. Your way turns him from Greek hero with his tragic but sympathizing/empathizing flaw into unfortunate victim of circumstance.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

Great, and where's the Curt Connors in this? If you're going to make up a random villain with none of his personality traits why even make it the Lizard? Ignoring the fact the 'turn the world into lizards' plot is a)common in the comics (literally his first appearance if I remember right)and b) in keeping with Connors 'helping to advance the world and humanity' plot.

While I accept the disapearance of Rathan was a dropped ball it's not inconceivable the Lizard killed him off camera (I pretty much just assumed he did that while Spidey was saving the kid given he was CLEARLY following him) so... not seeing all these flaws Bob keeps complaining about. The plot really isn't that much of a mess than a standard issue of Spiderman.

 

[maninahat]

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.

Great, and where's the Curt Connors in this? If you're going to make up a random villain with none of his personality traits why even make it the Lizard? Ignoring the fact the 'turn the world into lizards' plot is a)common in the comics (literally his first appearance if I remember right)and b) in keeping with Connors 'helping to advance the world and humanity' plot.

Curt who? Oh, was he the lizard? I've already forgotten since watching the movie.

I don't know much about the comics, but from what I understand, none of the movies have been especially close to the comics anyway. I'm pretty sure Peter Parker wasn't a skateboarding, Calvin Klein model in the comics, so perhaps the movie was going its own way. It did it wrong.

As for Connors, was the whole "turn everyone into lizards" thing a major part of his comic book character? If that is the case, this movie really failed to establish he was that sort of person. In the movie, he comes across as a nice guy who wants to grow his arm back and help people. Then all of a sudden, he decides that turning everyone into freakish lizards is a great way to help people. This is despite the movie depicting him as being clearly upset at the idea of becoming a lizard, him being vociferously opposed to testing the medicine on veterans, and him using his lizard powers to stop an evil businessman abusing the medicine. His desire for reptilian world domination is a total reversal of what was already established by the film, and it seems to come out of nowhere.

At least in the (first two) Raimi movies, the villains and their objectives are clear as day. Everything they do is established by what they were like before they got their powers: Osborne as an unscrupulous, angry scientist who wants to get back at the people who bankrupted him. His powers drive him violently insane, and he uses them to murder his ex-coworkers. Octavius is a well meaning, happy scientist who ends up with nothing left but his experiment. His arms take control of his mind, and encourage him to pursue the deadly research.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Curt who? Oh, was he the lizard? I've already forgotten since watching the movie.

I don't know much about the comics, but from what I understand, none of the movies have been especially close to the comics anyway. I'm pretty sure Peter Parker wasn't a skateboarding, Calvin Klein model in the comics, so perhaps the movie was going its own way. It did it wrong.

As for Connors, was the whole "turn everyone into lizards" thing a major part of his comic book character? If that is the case, this movie really failed to establish he was that sort of person. In the movie, he comes across as a nice guy who wants to grow his arm back and help people. Then all of a sudden, he decides that turning everyone into freakish lizards is a great way to help people. This is despite the movie depicting him as being clearly upset at the idea of becoming a lizard, him being vociferously opposed to testing the medicine on veterans, and him using his lizard powers to stop an evil businessman abusing the medicine. His desire for reptilian world domination is a total reversal of what was already established by the film, and it seems to come out of nowhere.

At least in the (first two) Raimi movies, the villains and their objectives are clear as day. Everything they do is established by what they were like before they got their powers: Osborne as an unscrupulous, angry scientist who wants to get back at the people who bankrupted him. His powers drive him violently insane, and he uses them to murder his ex-coworkers. Octavius is a well meaning, happy scientist who ends up with nothing left but his experiment. His arms take control of his mind, and encourage him to pursue the deadly research.

It's less an aspect of Connors' personality and more one of the Lizard; it's these details that Bob should really have been noticing and saying "Huh, well, I guess it's more accurate than they did with Doc Ock" given it's a similar deal, whereas Ock gets 'controlled by his tentacles' (doesn't happen in the comics, don't seem to get as many complaints about that as we get for Peter suddenly having a fashion sense) Connors falls prey to the reptilian side of his thinking. When he turns into the Lizard his BRAIN changes so while he's still the same person(-ish, it's complicated, comics are weird, etc) his virtues and values change, while he's human the idea of being a Lizard hybrid is terrifying once he's transformed it's suddenly awesome. In fact, one of the last things he does as a rational human before the formula starts messing up his brain is to try and stop the injections which, after he's transformed, stops becoming a major deal for him. They don't make a massive deal of it in the movie but that might be one of the true to the comic details they should've expanded on, but CONNORS doesn't want to make the world the Lizards, the Lizard does and he's usually got at least some grip on Connors brain

Gonna try and avoid angling in on the Peter Parker with the Skateboard thing, because he's clearly the first geek who ever tried to be cool, but he still has the same personality. What they got right and Raimi got wrong was the smartass response to everything with a quip and antagonise your bullies which was pretty much Parker's hallmark from about issue 60 onwards. My personal issue with Tobey Maguire making Spiderman look like he's around 28 in high school aside, Garfield gets across a different chunk of the Peter Parker character, the side which in the comics bought a motorcycle and went to parties. Which not everyone likes, and that's cool, but the character's still Peter Parker.

I'm not saying the movies devoid of flaws, the bit with the cranes and the fact Flash had a really understated character arc for example (would've appreciated more of Eugene showing he's got the same things going as Parker does, they hinted a lot but said nothing) as well as the mysterious vanishing Mr Rathan but some of the criticism feels unfair to me.

 

[JohnDoey]

Bob you have an opinion on ASM we get it you don't like it chill the hell out, I personally loved the movie but I don't keep writing articles on my enjoyment of it.