Movie Defense Force: The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Better Than Broody Gritty Wah Wah

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
JimB said:
That you would dismiss his uncle, the only father figure he has any clear memories of, as "one guy;" that you would diminish the personal loss and the visible pain his mother-figure endures because of his own selfishness, as being irrelevant toward teaching a lesson about responsibility, makes me think you and I may be too far apart to have any common ground here. The thought of someone being devoted to an ideological position without giving weight to immediate and personal expressions of it, like a feminist not caring about a woman she knows getting sexually harassed, is just bizarre to me.
Of course Uncle Ben is just "one guy", that's exactly what he is. Uncle Ben is just another one of the countless people who have died from an unfortunate murder. Part of being responsible is being able to recognize when what you are doing is too insignificant compared to what else you could be doing and doing that instead, regardless of the personal investment involved in whatever it was you were doing before. I've said it before and I'll say it again, THE ENTIRE PLOT of the movie is Peter slowly coming to realize that using his powers for petty vengeance isn't what he should be doing with them and to forgo that to use those powers for the benefit of many. It's a "protagonist's journey to hero" story, not a "some guy gets killed and the protagonist is suddenly the perfect hero" story like you seem to expect.

Are...are you arguing that watching your father-substitute die in the street because of your actions and learning a lesson from that is being responsible "right out of the box?" Is that what you're saying?
That's what YOU are saying. What you are asking for is Uncle Ben dies by an action that's only barely related to anything Peter did and for Peter to suddenly decide to use his powers intelligently and responsibly right off the bat, despite that he has little to no reason to do so at that point. That's not how any good character development or plot works, or how people in reality work.

I said, "Responsibility is owning the consequences of your actions." You said, "Peter refuses to own the consequences of his action." I provide you with a definition of the word, and you tell me how Peter does not fit that definition.
I did not tell you how Peter didn't fit that definition you gave, I told you how he did. You provide me with the definition of the word, and I tell you how Peter grows to become just that. I said that, whatever Peter did and whatever consequences he has to deal with, it is irresponsible of him to continue chasing Uncle Ben's killer when he could be doing so much more and he realizes this, the Lizard's appearance being the main catalyst that got it into his head. Also, responsibility is about more than simply "owning the consequences of your actions," it's also to ensure your future actions are positive or at least neutral results to the best of your abilities, which is what Peter is doing by the end of the movie.

Besides, tell me how Peter could honestly "own the consequences" of the crime of simply not wanting to get involved to catch that guy? Bring his uncle back to life? Tell everybody that he could have stopped the random crook before the fact who by unbelievable coincidence ended up killing his uncle? Go to the cops and tell them he was the vigilante swinging around catching blond crooks and end up in jail as a result? Peter doesn't HAVE any reasonable way to "owning the consequences of his actions", and if he did it would only result in hurting everyone around him further, make him suffer unnecessarily, and further impede his ability to use his powers for good, so doing so would be no less if not more irresponsible. Catching his uncle's killer is in fact the closest Peter can reasonably come to "owning the consequences" of refusing to catch the guy before, making sure he doesn't hurt anyone else. However, by the last third or so of the movie Peter has more important things to worry about.

God damn it, stop that. I have already once explicitly invited you to tell me where I am mistaken if you think I am, so please don't just give me some glib crap about me having watched another movie and then tell me, "No, you're wrong because it happened." Tell me when and where it happened; tell me what scenes I either didn't see or have forgotten.
What do you want me to do, describe the entire plot of the Amazing Spider-Man verbatim? I say this because everything you've been saying about it is so drastically divorced from EVERYTHING that happened in the movie I'd end up having to do just that. The only reasonable conclusion that can be made is either you didn't watch the movie and are whining about it anyway or barely paid any attention when you did. How else can you get things so blatantly obviously wrong?

Watch the movie and pay actual attention this time, that's the only advice I'm going to give you. There is no point in me sitting here telling you every scene in the movie and how every one shows how you are mistaken, especially since you probably wouldn't get it anyway even if I wanted to bother to do that.
Leaving aside that you have not illustrated or demonstrated how anyone has "stamped all over the character," you are factually incorrect here. The people who own the character have an absolute and unassailable right to do with their fictional character whatever they want, and the writers of the comics have as much of that rights as the owners grant them. Anything that is published is published with the owners' permission; therefore, the writers had the right to write what was published.
Wrong. A writer's duty is provide stories the readers enjoy, and if they can't then the comics will not be purchased. A big part of that is being faithful and consistent with the characters involved and sensible and just as consistent with the plotlines. Ironically we've been talking about responsibility this entire time, and it is the writer's responsibility or rather the lack of it that's the issue here.

The entire Clone Saga, Civil War, One More Day, Brand New Day, killing Peter off and replacing him with his greatest antagonist... I could go on for weeks. If you don't already know why they've "stamped all over the character" I'm not going to bother to describe the plots of dozens and dozens of comics, read them yourself. If you've done that and can't can't see how this "stamped all over the character" despite how readily apparent that is, then I can't help you see it no matter what I do.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
JimB said:
That you would dismiss his uncle, the only father figure he has any clear memories of, as "one guy;" that you would diminish the personal loss and the visible pain his mother-figure endures because of his own selfishness, as being irrelevant toward teaching a lesson about responsibility, makes me think you and I may be too far apart to have any common ground here.
Of course Uncle Ben is just "one guy;" that's exactly what he is.
Right. No common ground, then.

immortalfrieza said:
JimB said:
Are...are you arguing that watching your father-substitute die in the street because of your actions and learning a lesson from that is being responsible "right out of the box?" Is that what you're saying?
That's what you are saying.
I genuinely don't know what to say to this, or to think about it. That you can pooh-pooh watching the caregiver with whom you have lived for eighty percent of your life on this Earth die because of what you failed to do despite having ample opportunity and ability to have done as an unreasonable excuse for a person to learn a lesson about responsibility...I don't know how to process that, and in my confusion I honestly want to dismiss you as being deliberately dishonest for the sake of winning an internet argument. This problem is compounded by your arguing for the sanctity of the comics' representation of the character, which I guess doesn't extend to the very first story ever told about him.

immortalfrieza said:
I did not tell you how Peter didn't fit that definition you gave, I told you how he did. You provide me with the definition of the word, and I tell you how Peter grows to become just that.
By using language that directly contradicts it. Yeah, no.

immortalfrieza said:
Beside, tell me how Peter could honestly "own the consequences" of the crime of simply not wanting to get involved to catch that guy?
He can recognize that people die from his failures, and that survivors will spend a lifetime suffering the loss of those deaths, and work to protect people rather than indulge in petty, childish revenge fantasies of bullying criminals.

immortalfrieza said:
What do you want me to do, describe the entire plot of the Amazing Spider-Man verbatim?
I would be entirely satisfied with you citing scenes and describing how the actions and dialogue in those scenes support your belief instead of just telling me that I have to choose between believing the memories of details I personally possess or the details you refuse to describe or allude to in any way and then acting pissed off when I don't believe the lack of evidence you offer. If you're not willing to do even that little, then please let me know now so I can stop treating this conversation as one that's happening in good faith.

immortalfrieza said:
Watch the movie and pay actual attention this time, that's the only advice I'm going to give you. There is no point in me sitting here telling you every scene in the movie and how every one shows how you are mistaken, especially since you probably wouldn't get it anyway even if I wanted to bother to do that.
Heh. I do love how you have set up a scenario in which you refuse to explain to me how I am wrong, and that I am not convinced by your lack of arguments is a sign of my intellectual failings.

immortalfrieza said:
Wrong. A writer's duty is provide stories the readers enjoy, and if they can't then the comics will not be purchased.
Nothing about anything you said on this topic is relevant. It has no bearing on anyone's rights. At best, it is an allusion to your own right not to buy content you dislike. That's it. It doesn't change or even relate to the rights and owner has to do what he will with his property.

immortalfrieza said:
If you've done that and can't can't see how this "stamped all over the character" despite how readily apparent that is, then I can't help you see it no matter what I do.
You keep saying things like this. If you want to declare yourself the winner of this televised fight and stop responding, I wish you would do so directly and quit insulting my intelligence. I am asking you to define terms; to tell me what "stamping on the character" even fucking means, since as far as I can tell, it means, "writing something that immortalfrieze dislikes, which dislike is being used as an excuse to declare himself ultimate authority on what constitutes Spider-Man." It would then be helpful if you'd explain how the events you referenced do so, because while I can guess at your reasons, I cannot know them unless you fucking tell me.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
JimB said:
I've told you all that's needed to be said, repeatedly in fact. Any halfway reasonable human being would have conceded that I was correct long time ago. However, you are not reasonable, you are just a hater complaining about something you've never seen before and a superhero you never would have liked to begin with, just like everybody else that's complaining about these movies.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
I've told you all that's needed to be said, repeatedly in fact.
No, you haven't. All you have said is, "I'm right, and the proof that I'm right is you don't know I'm right."

Also? You do not get to decide for me what needs to be said. You can decide for yourself how much you're willing to say, but you have no right nor authority to declare you own completely unsubstantiated opinions as meeting some arbitrary and undefined standard of proof. Given your multiple refusals to cite any examples that back up your position, I am forced to conclude that you simply don't have any such examples. I'm sure you will write that off with some scoffing dismissal, but please do not think I have forgotten that I've asked you in three different posts for exactly what it would take to convince me that you're right, and you have each time refused to provide it in favor of insulting me. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you just plain have no evidence and are trying to change the subject by calling me crazy.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
JimB said:
No, you haven't. All you have said is, "I'm right, and the proof that I'm right is you don't know I'm right."

Also? You do not get to decide for me what needs to be said. You can decide for yourself how much you're willing to say, but you have no right nor authority to declare you own completely unsubstantiated opinions as meeting some arbitrary and undefined standard of proof. Given your multiple refusals to cite any examples that back up your position, I am forced to conclude that you simply don't have any such examples. I'm sure you will write that off with some scoffing dismissal, but please do not think I have forgotten that I've asked you in three different posts for exactly what it would take to convince me that you're right, and you have each time refused to provide it in favor of insulting me. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you just plain have no evidence and are trying to change the subject by calling me crazy.
No, what I've said is the entire damned movie is the evidence. Just because you aren't willing to admit that it's valid evidence or even that the evidence is there doesn't mean that it isn't. I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you've never watched the movie and are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
I only watched the first ASM and liked way more than Raimis movies. Andrew G. is the best spiderman actor so far. His Peter Parker is great and reminds of good sm comic stories.

Missed this one in the movies but it will be watched.
 

Iceklimber

New member
Feb 5, 2013
52
0
0
Minor Spoilers

It was an OK movie but many of the slapstick seems to be intended for a *very* young target audience.

My biggest complaint is the trailer though because it showcased some tiny scenes in a way that raises expectations about the movie having more of these scenes in them. For Example you see the hat dude going past The Vulture and Doctor Octopus tentacles which would imply that they are in the movie, although the movie only shows this exact scene and nothing more. The Rhino scene especially looks like a tease telling "Wanna see what's next? go watch the full movie".
However, this End Trailer scene of Spidey and Rhino *almost* start to fight as Spidey is hurling a gully cover is 1:1 the movie ending so phuck you, movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlM2CWNTQ84
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
No, what I've said is the entire damned movie is the evidence.
And in absence of specific examples, that means nothing. It's like when you give a book report to class and the teacher asks which part you like best; saying "All of it!" just comes off as lazy at best, or deliberately deceptive at worst. But whatever. I've already asked you three times for evidence, and I'm not dumb enough to think asking a fourth time will provoke any other response. If you are actually interested in trying to have a conversation in good faith, then I will await you providing any specific citation to back up your arguments; if you're not willing to do that, then have fun telling me I owe it to you to change my standards such that whatever you say is right because.

immortalfrieza said:
I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you've never watched the movie and are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
Sure you don't.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
JimB said:
And in absence of specific examples, that means nothing.
So I give you the evidence, all 136 minutes of it, and you dismiss it as meaning nothing. YOU don't want to put in the effort to actually watch the movie and thus get that evidence that's your problem not mine.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
So I give you the evidence, all 136 minutes of it, and you dismiss it as meaning nothing.
No, you don't. I've seen the movie and given you my opinion of it. Nothing you have said tries to cast any part of it in a different light; you just insist that if I watch it a second time, then I'll totally change my mind because...magic, I guess?

immortalfrieza said:
You don't want to put in the effort to actually watch the movie and thus get that evidence that's your problem not mine.
That's right, I don't. I live out in the woods. The nearest rental shop is forty minutes away on the highway; I do not want to go out and buy it, even assuming Walmart (the only local store with movies) has a copy; and I cannot watch it online because I have to use an ISP that only allows me 350 megs of download per day. I am damn well not going to spend my money to go out and make your argument for you just because you want to defend a principle that people who disagree with you have a greater burden to provide evidence in support of your arguments than you do.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
The Sam Raimi Spider-Man films were aiming for a 60s style of comic movie, with a goofy, silly little man as the protagonist, a constantly screaming girlfriend/love interest, and villains that rob banks by filling up bags with dollar signs on them. It nailed that tone phenomenally and understood narrative pacing to a tee.

The Amazing Spider-Man films are aiming for... something. Like, I guess they want to be movies. Like, in general? Like sometimes they're comedies and sometimes they're droll and dark and sometimes they're creature features and sometimes they're just like romantic dramas? And like the scripts were assembled by maniacs who don't understand what a story is or how to tell it? Then it was tacked together by the actors and director who just kind of do their affable best to cover up the seams so of course they decide to ham it up.

If you qualify a good movie as "sets goals and accomplishes them," the Sam Raimi films are undeniably better films. I can't say for sure what the schizophrenic ASM films are aiming for, but I'm willing to say it didn't succeed either way. If people can dig a film despite disagreeing with its tone and direction, I think that's a sign of a film that has adequately voiced its intention. ASM doesn't.