I'm not seeing the film. I don't want to support what seems to be an EA-scale soul-less cash grab. But then, I don't particularly like spidey in general, so there's not much reason for me to want to watch it anyway.
Thank you for posting this. People making such a big deal out of Peter Parker's appearance in this just did not make any sense to me. Toby Maguire was more "EMO" than anything Andrew Garfield did, and I have friends who are massive nerds who are into programming and skateboarding. I go to an IT college, there are plenty of people there who fit Andrew Garfield's portrayal. Whatever kind of nerd people wanted him to be is just a decades old stereotype that we've seen time and time again.Ramzal said:Yeah, I'm not getting HOW the crane scene was bad. It showed Karma. He could have went after the Lizard the first time he saw him, but he went to save the kid. Because he did that, the construction worker felt it was his duty to repay someone who saved the life of his son. How is that stupid? That's how life works. You do something out of the kindness of your heart without looking for reward and it comes back to you two fold--even at times you don't notice it.
It was showing that actions matter. Just like what happened with his uncle. He failed to act and his uncle died. This time he acted, saved someone and was aided. Past that, the crane scene show him actually beginning to understand -how- to web sling. If you remember the majority of the movie, he was sloppy at it, using a lot of webs just to get a short distance, and making a lot of close calls. It showed improvement in his own skills as well.
It happens in the comic time to time. Usually when he is shot, (Depending where, and this is a rare occurrence) he can't wall climb very well, or swing far and he ends up struggling unless he is -really- focused and pissed. Then again, this is him as a teenager when he first started, he's not used to things like being shot.
Also. Something that needs to be addressed. The complaints of how Peter was dressed or even his hair style in the movies. I hate to break it to you, but:
Peter in a T shirt over a long shirt. Skater-boy clothing fashion.
Even his clone wears hoodies. Notice the hair again one Peter?
His clothing style matches up again with what was shown in The Amazing Spider-man movie. And hair -again-.
And look at that. He enjoys rollerblading, despite being a giant geek. (Actually, most skaters and rollerbladers are geeks)
This is Peter Parker as an -adult- mind you. His style of clothing and hair is extremely on the mark. It seems like people who do not like this and are saying that "This doesn't make sense/fit in Spider-man" actually don't know the least -bit- about Spider-man.
And for those who keep saying how "EMO" Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker was and that it didn't fit. I give you this:
He takes every death and loss of a person -very- seriously and hard. Mary Janes explanation of him is spot on. This was also shown in the movie, but without someone -explaining- it but rather Peter going through it. (Again HAIR)
Less and less like Andrew got it wrong and more and more like people simply don't like Spider-Man outside of the fact that he's a dude who swing around the city.
sideshow said:I'm pretty sure he's hammering the point that this shouldn't be a movie. meaning this only exists so Sony can continue to have the rights asap.Jetsetneo said:Long Story Short: Movie Bob is overreacting, like hes does.
No, Green Lantern on crack is worth watching. A movie that completely rewrites vital Spider-Man cannon, not so much. But hey, its only an opinion.Jetsetneo said:Seriously fellow escapists, this comment may be buried 10 pages in, but I hope someone hears this: This is worth watching.
I did hear that if they did go with Spider-Man 4, the new villain would be Mystirio played by Bruce Campbell and all his cameo scenes in previous ones were all the same character. So all those in favour of Spider-Man 4 over this?[/quote
While I don't doubt this movie is a movie for the sake of keeping rights (especially since Avengers has gone bananas and we'll probably get another Superhero movie explosion similar to what happened after Spidey 1). It DOESN'T mean this movie has no merit. Just because some corporate suit demanded one doesn't mean someone on a lower level but heart into it, because clearly some did. It has something. Yeah the Lizard comes up short, a lot, but thats the only true flaw that I saw.
As for re-writing, this movie is probably more canon than the last, and since we're talking Comics, that means a lot to comic geeks who will undoubtedly bring more word of mouth advertising because of it. Not that a Spider-man movie needs it, but it helps.
Just to clarify, key points this movie has that the last 3 did wrong or missed:
-Uncle Ben never explicitly states the "Great power..." line, ever. Hardly a rewrite. Yeah they switched up the key zeitgiest more or less, but if it were a scene for scene copy with different actors I'd be a lot more upset that I paid money for what I already have in my DVD collection.
-Gwen Stacy from the start. MJ comes wayyyy later.
-That Gwen thing? Is going to matter a lot more in AS-M 2, if the ending of this one didn't hammer that home.
-Web shooters/ showcasing Peter's intellect. The other movies did this, but really only in spider-man 2, and peter always used it in reaction, not pro action (building his web shooters)
Frankly after the shark jumping that was Spider-man 3 I much rather have had this.
Who said they spend a majority of the time with teen romance?DoomyMcDoom said:and like 90% of every other movie ever, thing is it's not so much that teen romance itself is bad, it's just when the focus is more on teen romance than other meaningful hero development, or development of the relationship between the hero and villian, because as far as I'm concerned if I'm watching a movie based on a comic book hero I'd far rather see awesome villian/hero interaction than a hero turning emo over a girl, especially since when it comes to comic book heroes and lasting relationships, the girl will predictably become his foil later(being kidnapped, demanding his attention when it should be on a worse danger to more people, or revealing his identity accidentally or something), it's cut and paste and cut and paste again, only time this isn't the case is when she's got powers or abilities too.Carpenter said: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.DoomyMcDoom said: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.Carpenter said:The show and the first movie (and all of them that follow) deal with the teen romance stuff.DoomyMcDoom said: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.Carpenter said:Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.DoomyMcDoom said: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.DRTJR said:...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?
Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.
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.
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.
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.
I will put spiderman 2 into a showcase of a good balance here, since we're talking spiderman. Sure he had his relationship qualms, but the movie also had a good deal of focus on developing a relationship of sorts between peter and doc oc. and although peter did get emotional, he was always like that, it's just part of his coming of age/hero identity crisis journey, he doesn't flip flop and change how he is, as peter parker he's your standard wussy gangly late teen given powers, and shown that he has to man the fuck up and make a stand against all the bastards out there intent on killing stealing and destroying what isn't there. This idealism was passed on to him by his uncle and shortly pounded home through his death, and this shows In how he reacts and relates to everyone, and he stays true to it, all the way through.
In other words it's all about balance, and from what I can tell from what Bob and a few of my friends have been saying, this spiderman movie is mainly just a peter parker teen romance movie, with action and a baddie crowbarred in, and the character family origin stuff is different now. Doesn't really interest me, if someone brings it over on DVD or something at some point I'll watch it, or like when it hits netflix, but theaters are expensive, and I'd rather not spend money on something I don't think I'll like all that much.
CriticKitten said:This pretty much says everything I'm thinking.Lvl 64 Klutz said:Whether MovieBob is right about this movie being terrible or not doesn't really matter to me, I'm still avoiding it like the plague.
While Bob does seem to be a bit too prepared to hate the movie, he does have a right to hate everything it STANDS FOR. With all the marketing surrounding this movie (A lot more so than other summer blockbusters, don't try to deny it), it is blatantly clear that Sony was going for massive opening numbers before any reviews came up.
When Bob says this is a movie made by accountants, he's not that far off. If the movie was great, that's good for THIS movie. But, if Sony's marketing strategy works, and I'm sure it will, that opens the floodgates for all around lazy filmmaking. What this movie stands for is the next step to completely manufactured movies. And I'm not okay supporting that.
Could it be good? Maybe. Better than the previous trilogy? God I hope so. But can it be better than the possibility of a Spiderman appearance in The Avengers 2, potentially directed by Whedon again? HELL NO.
This film exists purely because Sony doesn't want to give back the rights on Spiderman. It's the same reason that the X-Men keep making movies (and also why, barring the surprising quality of First Class, they keep getting worse). This really is a movie made by accountants. And it may well be good, but it's still by far inferior to what another director could have done with it as part of an effort to help tie Spiderman into the Avengers. This is something EA does on a regular basis, it runs a major franchise into the ground (Spiderman 3) and then, rather than cough up the rights to someone who might do the series better justice, instead opts to desperately and frantically pounds its fists on the remains, hoping to squeeze out just a little more cash. And Sony deserves to be called out for this. It's a bad policy of film making.
So, yeah sure, maybe it's an okay film. But if so, it's mostly by accident, rather than on purpose. This was an attempt to squeeze out more cash and to keep the rights to Spiderman, and nothing more. And I can't support the film on that basis.
CriticKitten said:This pretty much says everything I'm thinking.Lvl 64 Klutz said:Whether MovieBob is right about this movie being terrible or not doesn't really matter to me, I'm still avoiding it like the plague.
While Bob does seem to be a bit too prepared to hate the movie, he does have a right to hate everything it STANDS FOR. With all the marketing surrounding this movie (A lot more so than other summer blockbusters, don't try to deny it), it is blatantly clear that Sony was going for massive opening numbers before any reviews came up.
When Bob says this is a movie made by accountants, he's not that far off. If the movie was great, that's good for THIS movie. But, if Sony's marketing strategy works, and I'm sure it will, that opens the floodgates for all around lazy filmmaking. What this movie stands for is the next step to completely manufactured movies. And I'm not okay supporting that.
Could it be good? Maybe. Better than the previous trilogy? God I hope so. But can it be better than the possibility of a Spiderman appearance in The Avengers 2, potentially directed by Whedon again? HELL NO.
This film exists purely because Sony doesn't want to give back the rights on Spiderman. It's the same reason that the X-Men keep making movies (and also why, barring the surprising quality of First Class, they keep getting worse). This really is a movie made by accountants. And it may well be good, but it's still by far inferior to what another director could have done with it as part of an effort to help tie Spiderman into the Avengers. This is something EA does on a regular basis, it runs a major franchise into the ground (Spiderman 3) and then, rather than cough up the rights to someone who might do the series better justice, instead opts to desperately and frantically pounds its fists on the remains, hoping to squeeze out just a little more cash. And Sony deserves to be called out for this. It's a bad policy of film making.
So, yeah sure, maybe it's an okay film. But if so, it's mostly by accident, rather than on purpose. This was an attempt to squeeze out more cash and to keep the rights to Spiderman, and nothing more. And I can't support the film on that basis.
I can't tell you...to avoid spoilers...Antonio Torrente said:Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.MrBrightside919 said:The scene with the cranes...Antonio Torrente said:Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.MrBrightside919 said:Lol, Clash of the Titans is a whole different can of worms...I think that was so forgettable because it was so generic...Antonio Torrente said:You're right. I'm pretty sure two years from now no one is gonna remember something special with this movie other than The unnecessary Spiderman reboot.MrBrightside919 said:Forgettable is a word i'd use to describe it...Antonio Torrente said:I didn't like the movie but I didn't hate it either, it's just that they changed his whole origin story and remove the core of the Spiderman mythos.MrBrightside919 said:Forgettable is a word i'd use to describe it...Antonio Torrente said:Even to the point of crossing your fingers until your break them, it won't happen why?MrBrightside919 said:Guess i'm not crossing them hard enough...Antonio Torrente said:Sorry to dash your dreams( and mine) this movie is no. 1 right now in other countries including here in the Philippines.MrBrightside919 said:To say I saw that coming a mile away would be an understatement...
After Spiderman 3, I don't have much faith in future Spidey movies...unless Marvel gets the rights back, which will never happen unfortunately...
*Crosses fingers for this movie to bomb hard*
because people are sucker for Spiderman.
And this news [http://movies.yahoo.com/news/spidey-relaunches-tuesday-record-35m-153508646.html] doesn't help either if we want the Spiderman movie rights be return to Disney/Marvel.
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
*vomits*
I'm with Bob with this that the Marvel movies must be made by Marvel Studios because they are the only few who somehow understand the right direction on how their properties should be put on film.
When you think about it, isn't that the fate Clash of the Titans(2010) suffered if you go back and asked the people who watched it after a year?
I certainly couldn't tell you anything that happened in that movie other than there being a Kraken at some point...
Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?
...because it was so stupid
Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?
You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.
Because you're not doing it in a rational sense. You've made a decision off of two things. The first being the fact that they are putting out another Spider-man movie for money. Okay, they remade -every- marvel movie that has ever had any kind of movie or show to begin with for that purpose. Captain America had a show/movie, Spider-man had one, Hulk. These movies already had projects beforehand that didn't catch too much wind, but was attempted again because the current generation is all about these kind of movies involving superpowered heroes.CriticKitten said:What are you even talking about?Ramzal said:Something that has been bugging me with both games and movies lately. Why is it that the average smoe feels the need to "Fight the man!" and getting involved on a corporate level?
If a business commits a bad practice, there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't want to support this". Sony created this movie for the purposes of maintaining distributive rights to Spiderman, just as they have been doing with the X-Men. It's not inaccurate to point this out, it's written into the contract they signed when they obtained the rights. EVERYONE knows this. And there's nothing wrong with people saying "I refuse to go to this movie because I recognize that it's an attempt to milk a franchise to death rather than let someone with more creativity take over the rights to the project".
Similar issues exist with regards to copyright laws surrounding intellectual properties (especially with video games), as old IPs are bought by companies and then never used, but kept out of reach of creative minds that could do something with that IP....simply to keep them off the market. There's no good reason for it, it's a bad business practice, and it SHOULD be called out. Saying that it's bad business doesn't make you a "stick it to the man" anti-corporate person. It just makes you intelligent enough to recognize when a company is wasting something that could produce a great product.
So please do tell: why does every person who says "I don't like that this company did X" have to boil down to an anti-corporate nutjob who wants to "stick it to the man"? Why can't they just be a reasonable individual who recognizes bad business practice and doesn't want to support those practices? What bothers me far more than people who are trying to "stick it to the man" are people (like yourself) who seemingly decide that anyone who says "I won't support this business" is actually saying "I refuse to support any business, capitalism is evil, long live Lenin".