Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

draythefingerless

New member
Jul 10, 2010
539
0
0
shadowmagus said:
draythefingerless said:
Seems to me all the complaints have been based on your conceptions of classical spider man. i did not see any complaints on the movie as a movie itself apart from CGI and the lizard character. you go thru saying peter parker is emo, skater, slacker. you would have prefered a single stereotyped character? it seems to me he is more of a normal person, more grounded on reality. a real person =/= stereotype.
I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
This movie is going to make Sony sooo much money :) MiB 3 has made $600 million already and i'll bet this makes evem more.

Why Movie Bob is WRONG AGAIN he liked Scott Pilgrim which to say aweful is not enough and Sucker Punch ergh. Bob has little taste.
What's the point of putting numbers? Just to piss people off, particularly Moviebob? Just because movies make crap loads of money doesn't mean they're good i.e Transformers, Twilight oh and MiB3 which was a shit movie compared to the first two.

And nobody forced you to watch Scott Pilgrim and Sucker Punch.
 

shadowmagus

New member
Feb 2, 2011
435
0
0
draythefingerless said:
shadowmagus said:
draythefingerless said:
Seems to me all the complaints have been based on your conceptions of classical spider man. i did not see any complaints on the movie as a movie itself apart from CGI and the lizard character. you go thru saying peter parker is emo, skater, slacker. you would have prefered a single stereotyped character? it seems to me he is more of a normal person, more grounded on reality. a real person =/= stereotype.
I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.
Now I know your flame-baiting because that's exactly what Peter Parker is. A nerd. He was not cool, he had massive self-esteem issues. He is the perennial geek, which is why he was so appealing to the comic book reading audience. Troubled is fine, but changing the premise of what made the character to sell it to the audience is bad form. Read the comics and get back to me, otherwise we're done here.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,782
570
118
Krion_Vark said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.
I feel like hes going after it more as an unecessary reboot here because the way he described The Lizard man wanting to conquer the world reminded me of the 90s Spiderman Movie more than anything.
To be fair: the villain was probably the weakest part of the movie. The Lizard was too much like Doctor Octopus from Spderman 2. But i didnÄt mind all that much because Amazing Spiderman tried to be mainly about Spiderman himself and not as much about the villain.
 

rayen020

New member
May 20, 2009
1,138
0
0
Kungfu_Teddybear said:
I heard a few reviewers has been saying that it's bad, but there has been people saying it's good. I'm still going to see it because I like to form my own opinions and never take anything a reviewer says to heart.
can you at least wait till after opening weekend? because that's the only time that matters and however good this and raimi's was i'd really like to see sony lose it and marvel give it a shot.
 

Harbinger_

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,050
0
0
Was I the only one waiting for you to say Just kidding all the way through that?
Also ignore the people that say you're talking too fast. I heard and understood everything you said.
 

Ranorak

Tamer of the Coffee mug!
Feb 17, 2010
1,946
0
41
Diegolomac said:
Ranorak said:
This is bizzaro world.

No, I don't mean that the release of a rushed, cheap spider-man licence renewal movies would be a miss, I mean, the video game is actually pretty fun.

We have a movie that has a ...not-terrible video game, but this time the movie sucks.
It's like X-Men Origins Wolverine all over again.
I keep hearing that, but never actually played the game.

You recommend it?
 

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
shadowmagus said:
draythefingerless said:
shadowmagus said:
draythefingerless said:
Seems to me all the complaints have been based on your conceptions of classical spider man. i did not see any complaints on the movie as a movie itself apart from CGI and the lizard character. you go thru saying peter parker is emo, skater, slacker. you would have prefered a single stereotyped character? it seems to me he is more of a normal person, more grounded on reality. a real person =/= stereotype.
I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.
Now I know your flame-baiting because that's exactly what Peter Parker is. A nerd. He was not cool, he had massive self-esteem issues. He is the perennial geek, which is why he was so appealing to the comic book reading audience. Troubled is fine, but changing the premise of what made the character to sell it to the audience is bad form. Read the comics and get back to me, otherwise we're done here.
Actually, if you look at the movie you'd notice that Peter wasn't cool. Skateboard + Hoodie doesn't = cool. In the comics, Peter used to ride a bike every now and again. All they did was replace that with a skateboard. And if you think about the look he had from when he came out, yes that is what nerd and geeks were wearing at the time... a good 40+ years ago. Clothing has changed as well as the times and he's just dressed like an average kid. Which is how he is now in the comic, and when he was still alive in the Ultimate Comics line.

I've been reading the Amazing Spider-Man for 20 years and it's just a matter of times changing, so he changes with them. Example:


This is an example of how he dressed. His clothing changed with the times. Be it his age, or what was socially normal at the time IRL.
 

loudestmute

New member
Oct 21, 2008
229
0
0
Let's see...Would I rather pay for whatever generic rom-com is in theaters and then jump seats to ASM to cover my tracks? Or take advantage of the fact that the Avengers is probably playing at the local discount theater? Decisions, decisions.

Oh, and for those of you who felt the need to post a statement along the lines of "Bob's opinion is wrong!", some advice: You know what the difference is between a movie critic and a movie fan? It's not about whether you've seen enough movies to identify good/bad bits, it's how well you can articulate your feelings.
 

Soak

New member
Sep 21, 2010
139
0
0
I think it's interresting.
When you reviewed Scre-four-m, it was basicaly just ranting, kind of funny, but basically just unprofessional ranting.
Now, as you mention yourself at the end, you seem to be REALY annoyed by this movie, your review isn't funny, but at least you use arguments why the movie is bad.
I never had any expectations about this movie and will very likely not see it in theater, so i can't say if i share what you say about it, not yet, but i think the review itself is rather good, better than your Scre-four-m review in my opinion.
 

BaseKing95

New member
Mar 6, 2012
13
0
0
Anyone else notice the split between the comments here and the facebook ones on the video?
Any way I'll probably end up seeing this movie as a last resort when I got nothing else going on.
 

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
Well, I don't think I've ever seen Bob this angry...

That being said, Rotten Tomatoes [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_amazing_spider_man/] places Amazing Spiderman at 74% reviewer/84% audience, so Bob's probably just pissed that they messed up the Spiderman lore and has unconsciously nitpicked his way into hating the rest of it.
 

dementis

New member
Aug 28, 2009
357
0
0
I can't help but feel that Bob didn't enjoy this film, there's something about this review but I can't quite put my finger on it.
 

ritchards

Non-gamer in a gaming world
Nov 20, 2009
641
0
0
Sadly, I'll still probably be one of the 'help the movie studio make profit' crowd.
 

Fusioncode9

New member
Sep 23, 2010
663
0
0
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.

Nooners said:
I figured this would would suck, sadly. Thanks for the advance warning, Bob. Should've listened to you when you said not to see Green Lantern.
TorchofThanatos said:
okay then, thats another movie I wont go see
I wonder if the Avengers is still playing... hmmmmmm...
rayen020 said:
never planned to see it and now i'll make sure not to.

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

FastLogan2400 said:
Ouch. I was really hoping this movie wasn't going to suck as hard as everyone thought it was going to, but now I'm definitely not seeing it after hearing this.
C'mon guys, form you own opinions!
 

Krion_Vark

New member
Mar 25, 2010
1,700
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Krion_Vark said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.
I feel like hes going after it more as an unecessary reboot here because the way he described The Lizard man wanting to conquer the world reminded me of the 90s Spiderman Movie more than anything.
To be fair: the villain was probably the weakest part of the movie. The Lizard was too much like Doctor Octopus from Spderman 2. But i didnÄt mind all that much because Amazing Spiderman tried to be mainly about Spiderman himself and not as much about the villain.
What I meant is that in the 90s cartoon is that The Lizardman after becoming the Lizard man loses his mind and tries to conquer the world. But then later gets his mind back and returns to being Doc Connors for a while but goes back and forth between the two.
 

LHZA

New member
Sep 22, 2010
198
0
0
Didn't think it was so bad. Not as good as Spiderman 1 and 2 but I actually liked it better than number 3. Oh well, to each his own, now back to trying and make that gay oreo a reality.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
Jesus...I thought he was being sarcastic at first, but it kept going.

I saw the midnight release of it, and despite how tired I was I really enjoyed it. To be so vehemently against it when it does so many things better than the original Tobey McGuire film reeks of ludicrous fanboy "The story wasn't what I expected from the comics!" expectations. Peter Parker wasn't as blatantly earnest and cliche nerd stereotype, there was more depth to him in this. He felt so much more like a real kid with believable angst who was just bullied because people are dicks, and it's just absurd to dismiss him as an emo hipster like Bob does. Ben felt much more like a real father, and Gwen Stacy was less ethereal and unreachable than Mary Jane. Yeah, the villain wasn't all that great but even if his motivations are somewhat weak, he's better as the Lizardman than the Green Goblin throwing lame puns and a plastic clunky costume.

The best thing about this though is that the fight choreography is smarter. Spiderman isn't just punching and kicking everything in this, he's using a lot more webslinging, and using balance, acrobatics, and physics to his advantage to overcome his enemies.

Bottom Line: Take this review with a grain of salt, and if you were initially curious about the film, go see it. Are you going to go with one raging, spitting critic, or the aggregate of Top critics who gave this a 74%?