The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

[davejames]

I gotta say, I just started watching that Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I thought they handled the Lizard origin in a MUCH more compelling and believable way than the movie.

Having the family there not only made him more sympathetic as Connors, but made him seem quite a bit more dangerous as the Lizard as well. His transformation was a lot more gradual and creepy, and his motivation was a whole lot clearer too. Instead of that odd "World Without Weakness" nonsense, his goal was simply to help amputees grow their limbs back.

[trekkiebaggio]

^I was disappointed his wife family didn't get a mention. I always liked that aspect of his character in the comics, it made his transformation all the more tragic. His wedding ring was visible in the film, it's a shame that the stuff with his family apparently got cut.

[Warped9]

A guy at work saw this movie yesterday and this morning was saying how much he liked it. Now I'm even more discouraged because I have a rather low opinion of this guy's taste and judgement. We never like the same things and he watches crap I would never even glance at.

[Trekker4747]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

These don't resemble anything close to Liefield designs.

Well, less the design and more the over muscularness of them and the lines/details on it and how every muscle can be seen through the costume (rather than having places where a material would drape or bunch-up) as well as Spider-man's "smooth area."

[davejames]

After seeing those, the final design they went with looks better than ever. It was still recognizably Spidey, but with a slightly more modern and edgy twist.

As good as the classic design is, I'm not sure it would have been quite as good a fit for this movie as it was with Raimi's.

[Emh]

AvBaur wrote:

---

One reason why there might be tensions between Webb and the studio is that the film seems to have been reworked significantly shortly before release:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/w...ng-spider-man/

I noticed some of these things as well as I was watching the film, but they didn't detract from my enjoyment of it too much.

Wow, that was an interesting read. Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me because I noticed some of those things missing, particularly Peter losing his drive to find Uncle Ben's killer and the mystery behind his parents' death and/or absence, as well as the lack of the Connors' family despite being cast. I am disappointed, however, that the studio (or whoever) decided to do this last minute edit of the film and I agree with the author of the article that it negatively impacts the film (although I would still have some of the issues I talked about in my review).

trekkiebaggio wrote:

---

IGN had this article which speculates about what the end-credits scene means.

I've long championed Mysterio to be the villain so I hope it's him. Electro would be visually interesting as well.

His father is a strong possibility too given that storyline is going to span the next films.

I really hope it doesn't turn out to be Richard Parker because that's a major deviation from the comics but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me.

[CaptainCanada]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Really?
So he's what then the King Nerd of all NERDS?
Essentially even the "dumb" jocks at Nerd high are AP student caliber material then?

Until I see it tomorrow I'll reserve full judgement but just this type description piles onto the reasons why you don't tinker with an already perfect origin OR retell it again so soon when it was done so recently and that one adhered so closely to the perfect original origin.

What's the issue, exactly? Peter's supposed to be a great student; that's the kind of school he'd want to go to, if it was available, which it is in major cities.

Anyway, I liked it overall. It was clearly doing some things differently for the sake of being a little different than the first Raimi movie because it's hitting a lot of the same beats, but it gets better as it goes along. Strong acting from the principals (probably better than the original cast, in a number of instances; Martin Sheen, notably, probably also Garfield and Stone), and I can identify a number of things that I like better than Raimi formula that became wearisome over three movies (like not having saving the girl be a major part of the climax, and giving her a bit more of a role; and the little things with Flash were excellent).

It lacks some of the iconic images the first film had, but then, the first film already did those images, so they were working against that from the get-go.

[Trekker4747]

What's the issue, exactly? Peter's supposed to be a great student; that's the kind of school he'd want to go to, if it was available, which it is in major cities.

The "issue" is Peter (apparently) being in an advanced placement academy/school while at the same time there's the typical high school nonsense with the dumb jock slamming the nerdy kid into the locker for just being. That's what was confusing to me in one way it seemed like a school for advanced students but in other ways it seemed like a regular, typical, high school with your typical bullshit going on it.

[captcalhoun]

something i want to add, i think this movie made a better job of Spidey's webswinging looking like it was ripped out of the comic's panels. particularly good examples are when Spidey swings past the helicopter's spotlight, when he swings and twists before swinging again during the police pursuit and in the last scene when he swings past the moon (you all know the shot i mean, i had it as my av)

[CaptainCanada]

The webslinging effects have certainly advanced quite a bit in five years; the improvements perhaps aren't as groundbreaking as the effects in the '02 film seemed at the time, but they're nonetheless quite impressive.

[Warped9]

Just saw it. It was fair, just okay. there are some things I liked and other things I didn't.

What this movie didn't have was the charm of Raimi's films. Raimi nailed the original source materiel sensibilities. This one goes mostly for angst and something of that Twilight feel. On that score I give Raimi the nod. Webb's film makes me think of Smallville. It's okay for what it is, but it's not Superman.

Toby McGuire vs. Andrew Garfield. It depends on what you want. McGuire felt like he stepped out of the comic pages as Peter Parker. Garfield did a good acting job, but to me he didn't really feel like the Peter Parker I'd immediately recognize.

Kirsten Dunst vs. Emma Stone. Kirsten Dunst was suitable for the way MJ was portrayed, but I'd have to give the nod to Stone for giving us a character I actually liked. Dunst's MJ seemed like she was all over the map emotionally while Stone's Gwen impressed me as more consistent. She was also portrayed to be smarter.

Rosemary Harris vs. Sally Field. Again it's a matter of perspective. Harris gave us the Aunt May of the comics. Field gives us a nice aunt, but not one I recognize as Aunt May.

Cliff Robertson vs. Martin Sheen. It's a draw.

Green Goblin vs. The Lizard. Overall I'd have to give the nod to Curt Connors and The Lizard as a more interesting villain. I think it's really a fine line, but Connors' motivation is simply more clearly laid out then Norman Osborn's.

Instead of J. Jonah Jameson we got Captain Stacy. J.J. was a riot. Capt. Stacy was just another cop who could have been anyone.

Like a lot of superhero films the hero keeps getting unmasked...and often enough the one who learns the hero's identity gets killed. Okay this time Connors isn't killed (but Stacy was) and that isn't a good threat to be hanging over Peter's head.

I didn't like the convoluted and contrived retconning of Spidey's origin. Filmmakers love to make everything cute-and-tidy. Peter Parker was an orphan living with his Aunt and Uncle. Done. We don't need to know anymore. We can simply assume his parents were lost somehow and Ben and May Parker took Peter into their care. But now we have to tie Richard Parker into Spidey's origins and connect it even more cutely with his first opponent, The Lizard. And we spend a whole hour on this.

Some of Spidey's quips were fun, but I also thought it was overdone at times.

The new suit looks like crap. Yeah, a skinny Spider-Man does evoke the early images of the character way back in '62, but the new design is crap and the overall finish of the outfit looked cheap too. Sorry, but Raimi's version nailed it in making the classic design work live-action. At best one could have tweaked the tone of the red and blue, but everything else works. The eye pieces of the new suit looked bad as well. And what the hell was with the red flashes when Spidey shoots his web??? Sure, this is window dressing, but the suit is a fail.

Overall it's an okay movie, and it wins on certain specific points and moments, but overall I much prefer Raimi's films, particularly the first two. Yeah, this one is better overall than SM3, but that wouldn't have been too hard.

[Warped9]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

The webslinging effects have certainly advanced quite a bit in five years; the improvements perhaps aren't as groundbreaking as the effects in the '02 film seemed at the time, but they're nonetheless quite impressive.

Meh, I don't think that were really much better overall.

[CaptainCanada]

Warped9 wrote:

---

McGuire felt like he stepped out of the comic pages as Peter Parker. Garfield did a good acting job, but to me he didn't really feel like the Peter Parker I'd immediately recognize.

Maguire's take on Spider-Man was rather different from the comics version in some ways, just as Garfield's was.

I didn't like the convoluted and contrived retconning of Spidey's origin. Filmmakers love to make everything cute-and-tidy. Peter Parker was an orphan living with his Aunt and Uncle. Done. We don't need to know anymore. We can simply assume his parents were lost somehow and Ben and May Parker took Peter into their care. But now we have to tie Richard Parker into Spidey's origins and connect it even more cutely with his first opponent, The Lizard. And we spend a whole hour on this. :roll eyes:

That also has basis in both the 616 and Ultimate comics. Peter's parents were spies with a mysterious background in the former, and connected to genetics research in the latter.

[Warped9]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

Maguire's take on Spider-Man was rather different from the comics version in some ways, just as Garfield's was.

That also has basis in both the 616 and Ultimate comics. Peter's parents were spies with a mysterious background in the former, and connected to genetics research in the latter.

Goody for them.

[Relayer1]

I have to say that I'm heartily sick of reboots already. Recast, move on, whatever, you just don't need to keep hitting the reset button. Batman, Daredevil, Superman and Co. take note.

Having said that, although it wasn't perfect (you can nitpick for ever and a day regarding adherence to the source material) it really worked and was head and shoulders better than even the best of the Raimi's films. It avoided much of the stupidity of them and had a great cast (even if I do miss Willem Dafoe) - I never really liked Toby Maguire.

This is a Spidey that feels like he could fit into the Avengers universe...