Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

[brunothepig]

So this thread has been fun. Do people not understand reviews? Guys, a review is, by necessity, an opinion. The amount of people saying Bob is "wrong", or that Ebert gave it 3.5/4 or that it has 74% on Rotten Tomatoes are kind of missing the point. That's irrelevant. I wasn't going to bother quoting anyone, since half the posts have the same problem, but this sums it up pretty well.

I haven't seen the movie, I was going from Bob's opinion, which is turning out to be false. it seems that everybody else who saw the movie says that it's good, while everyone who says it's bad hasn't actually seen it (including myself)

WHAT!? Now, disagreeing is fine. I watch Bob's reviews because I find him entertaining and, more importantly, I find I and him share sensibilities. If he enjoyed a movie, I likely will too. I don't ignore the other information out there, I might check Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB, but generally speaking if Bob says it's good I'll probably go see it and have fun as well. If you disagree with him, go right ahead and mention that. But stop attacking the guy. A couple of things.

Stop pointing at Rotten Tomatoes as a reason Bob's review is wrong. As I said above, that's irrelevant, it doesn't make Bob any less right or wrong, it just means he's in the minority with his opinion. Also, 71% isn't very good. Most review scales tend to slide forwards, gamers should certainly be familiar with that old chestnut, making 70% an average at best score. Certainly not a movie I'd go see in the cinema if I was deciding based on that. Hell, if you want to go by Rotten Tomatoes the first two Raimi films are demonstrably better, getting an 89% and a 93% (with Spiderman 3 getting 63% if you're curious). By all means point out that the movie isn't being universally panned, but stop using it as "evidence" that Bob's review doesn't count.

Please stop with the "you were bias" argument, I've never understood it. The obvious point is that, of course he was biased, that's what a review is. However, there's also this idea that expecting a movie to be bad means your review is worthless. Bob was very excited for Avengers. I think we can all agree he went in expecting, or at least hoping for, it to be good. When it was, and his review said as much, did anyone say his review doesn't count because he had a preconceived opinion? I mean, a few people probably did, but I'm sure it was far less prevalent. The point of advertising is to get an audience to form an opinion. The hoped for outcome is the viewer is interested, but there will of course be others where the opposite is true. Expecting a movie to be bad from the outset, and then the movie turning out to indeed be bad, does not mean your opinion is invalid.

On a related note, a few people are saying Bob hates it because he wants Spiderman back in the hands of Marvel. Bob pointed out in the review itself that X-Men were in much the same boat, and he called First Class one of the greatest superhero films of all time. If memory serves he said it was as good as Dark Knight. Sure First Class might have had better advertising behind it, at least in the view of Bob, but apart from that it was in the same situation as Amazing Spiderman.

So, I think that covers most of the arguments that had me face-palming. As for my personal opinion. Not a movie I plan on seeing at the cinema, certainly. As I said above, if Bob didn't enjoy it I likely won't either (although I suspect I won't hate it quite as much), and besides, it's getting decidedly average reception, and I only go to the cinema for a movie I'm damned sure I'll enjoy. So, I don't really have an opinion, beyond that I thought it would be bad from the start, and I've heard nothing to make me think otherwise. Maybe some day I'll watch it with some friends and we'll have a good laugh.

EDIT: So wow, that turned out much longer than I thought... And I'm adding a bit more, but it's ok, I'm just quoting this dude.

Yes, for all I know I might enjoy Spiderman. I could hate it too. That is why I trust critics who's opinions and body of work I am familiar with, instead of a percentage of faceless reviewers I know nothing about. I pick familiar reviewers because I can then contrast them with my own opinions. I don't usually agree with Bob's opinions, but I know where to place them. That is more than can be said for a vague concensus of strangers I can't trust. Jim, please help me out here. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E]

I agree with this entirely, except that, as mentioned above, I find I usually agree with Bob. Thankyou for that maninahat. Especially the Jimquisition video, I haven't got around to watching Jim's videos from the pre-Escapist days yet, but occasionally I see one linked that I just love. Like the one he made about devs saying "you're playing the game wrong" and such. But I'm going off topic now.

 

[Guffe]

First time I think I've heard you this mad/angry Bob
Look out you'll get a hearthattack...
Still going to see it, I've had different feelings than Bob before but did I understand correctly on this one point that Lizzard is "concious" when in Lizzard form? Because that will piss me off, Lizzard is supposed to happen randomly and turn him into a raging teen-godzilla!

 

[zombie711]

I didn't hate it as much as you did. Still, you had good points.

However, I'd argue that the only big coincidence is that Gwen works for Connors.

All the other stuff fits well together; Peter's parents were involved with the research, that leads to Peter getting his powers, the same stuff leads to Connors becoming the Lizard. And Osborn is behind it all. It would be a far bigger coincidence if that all happened independently.

I agree with how they handled Connors/Lizard, he is my favourite Spidey-villain, and the movie did seem to hint he'd be more like himself in the (possible) sequels...

BTW, I think this movie was heavily influenced by the Ultimate Spider-Man comics...

And I couldn't tell if the CGI on Lizard was bad or not, because the 3D makes everything look fake. I hate 3D.

I missed the credits scene, but at the end, he seemed to be remoseful for his actions. In the sequel, I'd love to see him show up, boost himself with a "Refined" formula (hopefully one that gives him a better form, preferably with a more lizard-like face) and help out Spidey. " I did some horrible things. It's time I started to repent!" *inject, then charge forward Hulk in Avengers style, punching villain/OP mook in the face*

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

It was also suppose to have Ann Hatheway as Black Cat who she was going to play in spider-man 2 but it was cut from the script (which is why the videogame has black cat because they were given an earlier version of the script to work with). Black Cat was suppose to try to get Peter to give up his life as Peter Parker and just be Spider-man all the time.

 

[anthony87]

The nerve of some people, eh? Following the advice of a professional critic, ITS MADNESS I TELL YE! MAAAAADNESS! MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

Point taken. But there's a difference between "Huh, this reviewer/critic said such and such about this film. I'll be sure to take those points into consideration while I form my own opinion about the movie" and "THIS PERSON SAID IT SUCKS SO IT SUCKS! That's all I need to know, why bother watching it myself if someone else doesn't like it?"

 

[Carpenter]

Kind of agree that this was just a rant, not a review.
The guy defending it did an actual review, that's sad. Earlier when somebody pointed out that he didn't talk about why he hated it, somebody went and made a list of things they didn't like and that Bob just glossed over, and that short rant was better at describing this move than this entire video.

I also disagree with the notion that the movie is completely worthless shit, but that's just me. As much as I disliked Green Lantern, I think he had the same thing going on there. He made a list of "plot holes" that were not even plot holes.

Bob has a way of being more opinion than information. Sometimes it's entertaining, this time it's just the equivalent of listening to some random guy rage about a movie. As many have already pointed out, the "coincidences" are not that big and ridiculous compared to the ones that flooded all three Sam Rami adaptions.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

 

[Dastardly]

While I agree with some of this, I do have one thing to point out. It's very understandable that a reboot needs to speak to a new (and usually younger and potentially larger) fanbase; the problem I have is...

Why can't a production team just take their screenplay and make it a new IP? Why take the "new direction" and attach it to a previously played out setting and characters?

Why not? Surely you have to understand why someone might be tempted to tie their ideas (and financial security) to a name and label that has been around for half a century?

This is a case of not wanting to let Spider-Man die. And without some kind of reboot, make no mistake, it will die. As continuity stretches on into the realm of the completely insane (see: soap operas), the buy-in for even the most basic level of fandom gets too high to draw new people. A reboot clears a lot of that out and allows a new generation to enjoy the character.

What I'm getting at here is that it's actually more than just a financial decision. Many people love the character more than the continuity, and they don't want to keep the latter at the expense of the former.

Yes there's more risk in a new IP, but I think entertainment is closing in on an "event horizon" with all the reboots, sequels, prequels, remakes, adaptations, and just flat-out ripoffs that are being cranked out. I believe that very soon a breakout new IP is going to SHATTER everything in it's path in Hollywood, as the audience flocks to something new, fresh, and more interesting than the same played-out stories over and over.

And then of course, they will green light a sequel (curse you vicious cycle...)

Agreed, totally. This has more to do with the current budget model of movies/games than anything.

Instead, do like I did. Whine and complain about how you may have liked it if it were a new IP. This (mostly) same story on a new hero? I may have enjoyed it. Instead, like Bob, all I see is where this movie attempted to (and rightly so) distance itself from its predecessor. And saw that at no time did it not make itself worse by doing what it had to do. In 0 instances did they ever do something that Raimi did right... better. It was always worse. In the rare cases where Raimi did something wrong (mostly from 3) well... do you want a medal for picking the low hanging fruit?

I'm a Sam Raimi fan. The guy does good work. That said, I enjoyed this movie more than the Raimi movies. Seriously, there's some rose-tinting going on here.

1. Complaints about the portrayal of the Lizard -- mostly how he looked, and how "science made him evil." These exact same complaints are true of the villains from the first two Raimi movies (that is, the "good ones").

2. Kirsten Dunst is just plain awful as MJ. She is hired for one facial expression -- the smug smirk. She brought no heart to the role, and had no excuse.

3. James Franco was no better. Maybe he was upset over not getting the title role, but his performance was mostly phoned-in... and his character arc was incredibly weak, to boot (not his fault).

4. In all three movies, the "big showdown" amounts to the exact same hostage situation. Spidey isn't trying to save the city; he's trying to save MJ. And the villains are basically just trying to "get Spider-Man," rather than trying to accomplish anything. (The exception is Doc Ock, but his project was hidden in an old secret building far from the eyes of the public.)

This movie finally introduced some Spider-Man-worthy peril, and it was the city that was in danger. Sure, Gwen was in danger, too, but she wasn't a hostage. No one was. The villain had a clear goal, and that's what he was after. His quarrel with Spider-Man was only that Spidey was interfering. And what's more? The city saw all of it. Citizens were fleeing, terrified. There was real danger, not just Spidey in a hostage crisis.

 

[Carpenter]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Most of the "Romantic plot" in the spider man stuff I've been exposed to/read/watched, has been later life stuff, or Peter not having the balls to do anything about it, then abruptly having to save people, I don't remember it ever being really important outside of longing, and then a strange comic arc where he and MJ were married... Might just be my memory fading.

 

[gambler778]

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Bob. I thought the movie was great and did a good job updating Spider-Man to feel much more modern and less cheesy than the Raimi movies.

 

[V TheSystem V]

Not really surprised that Bob thought this was awful. The trailers weren't looking TOO bad towards release, but it wasn't enough to get me to see it. Hopefully the lukewarm reviews will prompt Sony to give up the rights to this (unlikely, but I can dream!)

Watched the Sam Raimi Spider-Man last night, realised how good it was. The end sequence with Spidey going through New York is breath-taking, even 10 years on. No way was this new Spidey gonna live up to that.

 

[rayen020]

Looking through these comments is just pathetic. Most people here are deciding not to see the movie because of Bob's pointless fanboy rage. Mos reviews call it a solid film, even Roger Ebert enjoyed it. I've seen the movie and it is NO-WHERE near as bad as Bob is saying. It's no The Dark Knight but it's a overall a solid film.

never planned to see it and now i'll make sure not to.

Also why do all your tuesday reviews have movies that suck?

C'mon guys, form you own opinions!

So me having already decided not to see this movie beforehand, and this review not changing that opinion means i'm not thinking for myself?

 

[SilverUchiha]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

This was my question as well. He is an iconic part of the Spider man mythos.

Because JK Simmons IS JJJ. There is no one they could've found to play him that wouldn't have pissed people off, so they just made the Daily Bugle into CNN and called it a win for Sony for out thinking the drones called Spider-Man fans.
That said, FUCK Sony.

Is that really the reason? Christ, now I just hate this movie a little more.

OT: That said, I don't necessarily "hate" this movie or think its as bad as Bob says it is. Yes, it's a bland and uninteresting little jaunt that doesn't explore anything new, but it doesn't fuck up too much stuff. Is it better than the originals, god no, and I think that's its most crippling issue. Lizard doesn't command the screen like a villain should (ala Osborn or Doc Ock). The hero does,indeed, have an issue with not settling in on a particular personality. And I think that they just don't give Emma Stone enough to do, despite her doing a good job regardless. A lot of what Bob criticizes is, indeed, true, but for me, it just makes the film average. The only thing worth getting angry about is that it already has a sequel in the works and that we're expected to accept this bland-sameyness in place of the original two and their bastard third-installment. Sony failed here, yes, but if you really have nothing better to do with your time, it's not the worst way to spend an afternoon. Alternatively, Avengers is still in some theaters... also Brave was good. Yeah. Better options there entirely.

 

[Gigano]

Well, if plenty of people will indeed go see it, as they have so many similar movies before, then perhaps it doesn't suck as much as Comic book/movie buffs think it does?

There's art and there's entertainment. Good art is thought-provoking, inspiring, innovative, and emotional. Good entertainment have you laughing with your mates.

This thing might fail as art, and even as a coherent narrative: But if millions upon millions will be content with it, then I'm going to go with their opinion, rather than someone mired in Spiderman lore, anti-commercialism, and analytical cinematography implore me to think of it.

 

[Carpenter]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Most of the "Romantic plot" in the spider man stuff I've been exposed to/read/watched, has been later life stuff, or Peter not having the balls to do anything about it, then abruptly having to save people, I don't remember it ever being really important outside of longing, and then a strange comic arc where he and MJ were married... Might just be my memory fading.

The show and the first movie (and all of them that follow) deal with the teen romance stuff.

You guys seem to be remembering a different Peter Parker, or you are jumping on the "I was a fan all along" thing, which seems to be a trend now that "nerd culture" is considered cool.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

The amount of people who blindly accepts MovieBob´s opinion as fact truly astonishes me ("Bob didnt like it. I wont see it"). I ´m also amazed to read stuff like "I´m glad this movie will fail", even without watching the film. The review seems fueled by fanrage and i can tell that Bob went into the theatre without an open mind. Since the reviews are all over the place, i´ll give it a shot and find out for myself if it´s good or not.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Most of the "Romantic plot" in the spider man stuff I've been exposed to/read/watched, has been later life stuff, or Peter not having the balls to do anything about it, then abruptly having to save people, I don't remember it ever being really important outside of longing, and then a strange comic arc where he and MJ were married... Might just be my memory fading.

The show and the first movie (and all of them that follow) deal with the teen romance stuff.

You guys seem to be remembering a different Peter Parker, or you are jumping on the "I was a fan all along" thing, which seems to be a trend now that "nerd culture" is considered cool.

Not so much the second as the first I think, I never claimed to be a super fan of spiderman, just that I've come into contact with it, and please stop refering to me as you guys, I know I seem to have multiple personalities but I am in fact one person.

When I said "Might just be my memory fading" I meant it, most of my experience with spiderman is from the old cartoon, and that's a while back yo.

 

[Carpenter]

...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Most of the "Romantic plot" in the spider man stuff I've been exposed to/read/watched, has been later life stuff, or Peter not having the balls to do anything about it, then abruptly having to save people, I don't remember it ever being really important outside of longing, and then a strange comic arc where he and MJ were married... Might just be my memory fading.

The show and the first movie (and all of them that follow) deal with the teen romance stuff.

You guys seem to be remembering a different Peter Parker, or you are jumping on the "I was a fan all along" thing, which seems to be a trend now that "nerd culture" is considered cool.

Not so much the second as the first I think, I never claimed to be a super fan of spiderman, just that I've come into contact with it, and please stop refering to me as you guys, I know I seem to have multiple personalities but I am in fact one person.

When I said "Might just be my memory fading" I meant it, most of my experience with spiderman is from the old cartoon, and that's a while back yo.

What I was trying to say is that if a teenager getting involved romantically with another teenager is something that makes you immediately hate or avoid a movie, spiderman is something to avoid altogether.

 

[Timnoldzim]

Oh, wow, somebody call the wahmbulance, guys, Bob's angry!

I mean, if you don't like a movie then you don't like a movie, but I don't think that's really his feelings on this. He seems to be mostly upset about the circumstances behind the film's creation (which really doesn't mean jack shit, no matter what he says) and it's deviations from the source material (JJJ isn't in it? Ohhhh, nooooo, movie ruined!), rather than the film itself. And he's had it in for this thing since the beginning; he's always wanted it to bomb because how dare they fire Sam Raimi!

I have never heard Bob be this legitimately angry before, and considering how he's previously talked about gender, racial, and sexual politics, that REALLY makes me sad. I know he's "proud to be a geek" and all that, but it's just a movie, and one that he's clearly more angry about being different than he is about being bad.

Bob, please leave Fanboy Mode and try and enter your Legitimate Film Critic Mode.