The Amazing Spider-Man.

[BlackInk]

Saw it today, and it's not bad at all. Better, more fresh and more enjoyable characters than the last movies in my opinion. Not crazy about the lizard though, looks weird and talks weird. But other than that it was fine.

[Kotowboy]

My favourite film critic Mark Kermode said it's " Better than Sam Raimi's Spiderman 1 and definitely better than 3 obviously but not as good as 2 "

[Zantera]

Just came home from seeing it, thought it was awesome. Definitely my favorite Spider-Man movie so far, it had a few minor issues, but nothing that bothered me as much as the issues in the Raimi-movies.
Really looking forward to a sequel.

Regarding the ending; I believe that was Norman Osborn right? But it doesn't seem to make much sense, Electro would be more right (because of the thunder) and while we didn't get to see or hear what happened with Norman, we could assume that he was given the serum, but what effect did it have on him?
I would really want a new villain for the sequel, doing Green Goblin again would feel kinda lame. He's a great villain and all, and it would fit with having Gwen Stacy, but there are so many Spidey-villains, and to use Green Goblin again? As I've said earlier, I would love Electro as the main villain, draining Times Square of electricity and using his powers to terrorize.

[Ħ]

I saw it last night. It was an entertaining movie, but the original was far better. Peter Parker, you have to understand, is a typical "loser". He's not a fit guy, he's not a rebel, he's not emo, he doesn't skateboard, and he doesn't talk to people with one earphone in his ear like an asshole. I give this movie props for having awesome action sequences (aside from the awkward ill-placed score), but characterization was weak.

This movie was supposed to be more faithful to the comics but it really wasn't. Peter's parents were spies for the US government that were killed by the Red Skull (they have nothing to do with Connors or Oscorp). Gwen never knows Spidey's identity, which is part of the tragedy in the comics, because he's just about to tell her, when...you know. So yeah, they took a lot of liberties in this movie which took away from the tragedy of Peter's life that pervades the comics.

[Zantera]

The characterization in this movie was MILES better than in the Raimi-movies. It's not even fair to compare. What about the fact that Peter Parker was actually intelligent in this movie? He didn't get to show any of it in the original three movies, but here that side really got to shine. And Garfield was much better than Tobey was.

But another thought regarding the end, while people are discussing Norman Osborn, I think both Electro and Mysterio would be much more interesting.

[Ħ]

I disagree with every sentence in your post.

[Progmetty]

^ Same here.

[Ħ]

...my post or his?

[Progmetty]

Your post.

[Zantera]

 - What was the point of all those lizards crawling around everywhere? I have never seen on out of the dozens of times I have been to the city. Were they lab rats that converted just like the doctor did?

I think this was a reference to the Animated Series from 94. As Connors says during the movie, the reptiles are "kings" and in the animated series, the lizards were drawn to the Lizard because they "felt" him, he was their leader/king or whatever. Eventually his experimentation leads to some of them becoming similar creatures like himself, but that wasn't explored here.
As I see it, it was just a hint that the lizards were able to "sense" him, and that they were drawn to him because he was a superior lizard.

Also, it's fun to see some people loving the Raimi movies. I mean they totally slaughtered the characters, had tons of miscasts (everyone except Jameson and Harry really) and with loads of cheese sprinkled on top. Lets not forget the insanely over-the-top scenes like Spider-Man falling 100 stories down, bashing his head, spine and ribs on the way, and then just swinging away without problems. That was nice and refreshing here, when Spider-Man got shot it actually had an effect on him. The Raimi movies aren't all bad though, I'd say the soundtrack was stronger, but not much else.

[Ħ]

Tobey McGuire is perfect. He is Peter Parker.

[Progmetty]

Tobey McGuire is perfect. He is Peter Parker.

Very much this. And if there's a better Peter Parker it certainly isn't Twilight guy from the new movie.
Spiderman, without movies or the animated shows, has always been cheesy, in a good light fun way that I enjoyed.
I really can't think of any miscasts about the Raimi movies, well Kristen Dunst looks like an abdominal infection but that's a matter of taste.

[Ħ]

Dunst isn't super hot as she is supposed to be, and she isn't the life of the party. If there is a miscast in the original, it's her. Perhaps not a miscast but a poor characterization. But the romance aspect in the first one was pretty clever, with her falling for both Peter and Spiderman seperately. Not to mention the hallmark upside down kiss.

[Zantera]

Tobey is a good actor but was totally miscast as Peter Parker. The Peter Parker/Spider-Man of the comics is witty, intelligent, funny but also a bit clumsy, attributes that Tobey doesn't display at all. It's not that I dislike Tobey in the first three movies, but being a huge Spider-Man fan (and having read the comics for 10 years at least) it's just very easy to see that the character in Raimi's movies wasn't very true to the original.
Maguire's Spider-Man was just more sort of whiny, silly and had this "holier than thou"-shit going on. Raimi tweeked so many things in his movies to make it fit more in a movie-setting, that it completely lost it's original feeling.

[Ħ]

Oh. Well I've read the Spidey comics for 11 years at least. So I guess my opinion is more qualified than yours.

[Zantera]

I doubt you have if you think Tobey Maguire nailed it. I'm not saying that liking him is wrong or anything, but his portrayal isn't the Peter Parker from the comics. It might not be his fault, it's possible that Raimi wanted it to be different.

[Progmetty]

Ħ there's no valid or invalid qualifications man , it's different opinions.
Honestly Zantera I understand and respect some fans excitement about the reboot but I thought Raimi had one more great spidey movie in him and deserved a chance to show us what he can do to conclude his franchise.
And I strongly dislike the new actor, violently.

[Ħ]

The Spidey in the comics is different from Tobey, yes. He's more witty. But comic Spidey is practically the opposite of Garfield. He's not a punk kid at all. He's not an asshat. He's a tragic character, and you don't get that sense at all from the new movie.

[Progmetty]

Oh just now I realized Garfield is the name of the new actor, up until now I thought you were referencing Garfield the cat as a symbol of goofiness hehe

[Zantera]

To be honest I'm not sure if Raimi would have been able to make a Spider-Man 4 after the trainwreck that was Spider-Man 3. I will forever hate Raimi for ruining Venom, one of Spider-Man's biggest enemies. Yeah, I know the studio did everything they could to force Venom into the movie, but still, it was Raimi who made the movie. He could have made it differently, but no no.

I think the new reboot has huge potential. The origins-movie is always tough to nail, and lots of time goes into introducing characters, and in sequels we get faster to the good stuff.

As for how Garfield portrayed Peter, I thought it was quite good actually. The skating-part and listening to music and so on, I felt like those two traits were more so that more people could relate to him. He was made more "normal" in that sense. Still an outcast, but doing ordinary stuff. Peter in the comics is more of a "so intelligent that it makes him an outcast" but I think it would be hard for people to relate to a character that's all about the intelligence.

Also, I think Andrew Garfield did a great job. I liked him in The Social Network, and he did good here.
Still, I loved it that Peter in this movie got to show his intelligence more. Building the web-shooters and doing equations and so on. Tobey never showed that intelligence in the earlier movies. It was hinted that he was smart (like receiving an award in the first, or talking with Octavius in S2) but all in all I really missed the more scientific stuff in those movies. Spider-Man is one of the most intelligent people in the Marvel-universe, and I felt like that side got to shine more here.

[Ħ]

As for how Garfield portrayed Peter, I thought it was quite good actually. The skating-part and listening to music and so on, I felt like those two traits were more so that more people could relate to him. He was made more "normal" in that sense. Still an outcast, but doing ordinary stuff. Peter in the comics is more of a "so intelligent that it makes him an outcast" but I think it would be hard for people to relate to a character that's all about the intelligence.

You're basically saying that Parker's character as a loser (not just an outcast) was compromised because the director wanted people to relate to him better.

The science-y stuff was cool and is a point for this movie over Raimi's, but not enough to compensate.

I do have to agree with you, though, that Spiderman 3 was a disaster. I can't remember exactly, but I think there was a total of four villians that were thrown in together - Goblin, Venom, Sandman, and someone else, I think. It was just too much. They should have focused on Venom more, and Spidey's battle against himself. That would have made for a much better movie.

[Zantera]

To be fair, Peter is not really the easiest character to relate to. Apart from him being bullied (and people feeling for him because of that), I don't think that many people would relate to a brilliant kid who is way too smart for his own good. I think Raimi altered the character to make him more likeable, and it was the case in this movie as well, though perhaps not as much.

Regarding SM3 it had 3 "villains", those you mentioned. It's just such a mess though. Sandman was pretty decent though, in the previous movies I felt like the enemies didn't live up to how they were in the comics. Take Norman Osborn for example. Defoe portrayed him as almost being schizo, but the real Norman was never good to begin with. He was always evil, and becoming the Green Goblin only made it worse, in the original Spider-Man he is portrayed like having two personas where the evil one is slowly taking over. As for Doctor Octopus, in the comics he was also quite sinister, with the whole "go as far as possible for science", but in the movie it was more "the robot arms taking control, turning a good guy into a crazy dude". I don't know, their motives weren't explained that well, and I think the reasons for them going mad (and the characterization) could have been better.
But Raimi loving Sandman and hating Venom was really obvious in the third.

[Adami]

Just saw it, loved it.


Also, Toby was more faithful to the original Spidey of the 60's while Andrew is more faithful to the Spidey of the 2000's.


I personally loved Andrew. I actually cared about his character, I never gave a crap about Toby McGuire, he was like a caricature of who they wanted him to be.

[Ħ]

Also, Toby was more faithful to the original Spidey of the 60's while Andrew is more faithful to the Spidey of the 2000's.

I'll take your word for it and say that both Zantera and I were right.

[Adami]

Also, Toby was more faithful to the original Spidey of the 60's while Andrew is more faithful to the Spidey of the 2000's.

I'll take your word for it and say that both Zantera and I were right.

Indeed you both were. Toby was more Stan Lee's "Hello true believers, I'm your friendly neighborhood Spiderman and I'm here to keep your kids off of drugs!". While Andrew was the guy I'm currently reading in The Dark Reign (by the way, The Civil War is probably the greatest comic story arc ever).

[Ħ]

I read CW once, but I didn't know any superheros other than Spidey at the time. It's on my checklist. I actually would like to see a movie adaptation of CW. It's not feasible but I wonder if it's possible.

[Adami]

I read CW once, but I didn't know any superheros other than Spidey at the time. It's on my checklist. I actually would like to see a movie adaptation of CW. It's not feasible but I wonder if it's possible.

It's too huge. It's a freakin gigantic story. There's like 5-10 huge comics just for the civil war, then there's like 20 other comics that deal with different perspectives which are all necessary. I doubt I've even read them all.


Wait, you didn't recognize Iron Man or Captain America or Reed Richards?

[Ħ]

I knew their names but nothing more than that. Some of the characters had cameos in Spiderman (he had a big rivalry with Torch early on) but other than that I had no other comic book resource to draw from.

[Adami]

I knew their names but nothing more than that. Some of the characters had cameos in Spiderman (he had a big rivalry with Torch early on) but other than that I had no other comic book resource to draw from.

Poor poor child.


But yes, Andrew's spidey was the perfect one to join the current Marvel Universe. DAMN YOU SONY!

[Ħ]

I thought it was a little off how Spidey was able to go toe-to-toe with the Lizard. Maybe the Lizard was stronger, but Spidey could still knock him down. In the comics, Spidey couldn't even phase him.

[Adami]

I thought it was a little off how Spidey was able to go toe-to-toe with the Lizard. Maybe the Lizard was stronger, but Spidey could still knock him down. In the comics, Spidey couldn't even phase him.

Different comics bro, different comics. Also purity for the sake of purity has no redeeming value. They took what worked and changed what they thought would make it better. A movie where Spidey just gets beaten up and loses would suck.

Also they couldn't have his parents die by the Red Skull because Sony can't mention The Red Skull, so they had to alter that a little bit. And you're right though that him telling Gwen who he is was a bad idea, they should have kept that as it was.




I do have one concern for sequels though. Assuming he shows up, who's playing JJJ? JK Simmons is the only guy I can imagine doing it anymore.

[Ħ]

What's the deal with Sony? Why couldn't they do a team up? (I really am out of the loop, that's why I'm asking.)

[Zook]

Why can't Sony and Marvel just work together? That way everyone is a winner.

[Adami]

What's the deal with Sony? Why couldn't they do a team up? (I really am out of the loop, that's why I'm asking.)

They could if they wanted to I guess. But Sony owns Spiderman (in this sense) and Marvel owns the Avengers. They'd have to make some kind of deal as to who gets what amount of money and such, and it looks like both companies are too stupid to do that. Seriously though, the Tony Stark/Peter Parker story line in the Civil War was incredible and even though they can't do the Civil War, they can bring that relationship up in a more fitting way to their stories.

[zepp-head]

It's unlikely but don't count it out just yet.  Both Marvel and Sony have hinted being in favor of a crossover.  Also, they agreed to put the new Oscorp building in the New York's skyline in the Avengers, but the CG model of it was not completed in time.  I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some kind of deal to make it happen.

The dynamic he could have with Stark, Banner, and Cap has the potential to be amazing.