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

[clint g]

I'm not surprised by that. Spider-Man 3 left a bad taste in many peoples mouths so a bit of franchise rebuilding is in order.

[TremblingBluStar]

davejames wrote:

---

People keep saying that, but other than the car thief scene I don't remember a whole lot of wisecracking going on.

In fact I just rewatched the first Raimi movie and I thought there was just as much joking around in that one:

In the first film, yes. I don't remember as much in the others. However, it could be because I thought McGuire's delivery was terrible.

Gaith wrote:

---

New Rule: Anyone who pays to see ASM in theaters is not allowed to complain about there being too many reboots.

Uh huh. Sure.

I personally don't care about remakes/reboots. They don't bother me, unless they are done terribly. I thought ASM was made by people who clearly cared about making a decent film, even if it wasn't with the same passion as the first film.

Either way, superhero films are exempt from criticism regarding remakes because they are all adaptations of another medium, and are constantly being remade. Complaining about this film being a remake says to me that someone thinks that Raimi created Spider-Man in 2001, which is stupid beyond words... but not terribly surprising.

The only remakes that upset me are ones that nobody asked for based on movies that may have a cult following, but no wide appeal. Like Total Recall. Or Robocop.

Next summer I'm looking forward to a remake of Enemy Mine starring Shia Lebeuf followed by a remake of The Last Starfighter where the arcade game is replaced by some gimmicky hologram VR bullshit Hollywood thinks needs to be in every scifi film.

[Relayer1]

Gaith wrote:

---

New Rule: Anyone who pays to see ASM in theaters is not allowed to complain about there being too many reboots.

This movie was a reboot. This was never a secret; the ads even played it up to the general population.

When you pay to see a movie, you cast a vote for more movies like it, regardless of what you then think of the movie, because either way, they studio's been paid.

For anyone who doesn't want to see Spidey rebooted only a decade after SM1, I have a brilliant, mind-bending strategy: don't see it!

So you paid to see a reboot you knew was a reboot, and rather liked it regardless?

Way to make the studios "take note" not to do any more reboots.

And I'll go to see the new Superman too ! I have a son who loves superhero films...

[stj]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Yes.

Missed this first time round. Thanks for the clarification, which makes perfect sense of course.

On the secret ID stuff, the Fantastic Four never had any. But, then, they had a skyscraper with a doorman. So I guess they didn't have privacy issues the way others would.
Keeping the secret from the near and dear doesn't actually make any sense, it would just cause huge problems. It's the hostile strangers who you need to avoid. On the other hand, telling Gwen means Peter can never dump her, lest she drop the dime on him to Kraven or Mysterio!

[sonak]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

Taking the mask off was necessary to save the kid, and nobody knows the kid knows what he looks like.

I don't mind the ID stuff. The secret identity is, in a lot of cases, a formula that kept getting included in the comics because Superman had one and everybody was mimicking his basic story setup, and kept it up even in many instances where it doesn't make much sense (one of the things I most like about the Marvel Studios films is their willingness to modernize and dispense with the characters' totally useless secret identities). If Peter trusts Gwen (or his aunt, etc.), there's no reason for him to make a big secret out of it.

I don't know that it was necessary for him to take off his mask to save the kid. Why not just persuade him verbally that he's just a regular guy, or tell a joke, or try something other than just taking his mask off?

[Captain Craig]

^^^
Because the actors contract calls for "x" amount of face time. I'm guessing. Otherwise why would this happen so often. It's a bit cliche now. The first time I really noticed it was for Batman Returns when he rips his cowl off. Since then it's just gotten worse.

Allegedly the new Dredd movie is going to buck that. V for Vendetta is the only other one to stay true where needed. I've read Urban is masked the whole time.

[Dream]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

^^^
Because the actors contract calls for "x" amount of face time. I'm guessing. Otherwise why would this happen so often. It's a bit cliche now. The first time I really noticed it was for Batman Returns when he rips his cowl off. Since then it's just gotten worse.

I always found that silly. Only superheroes with public identities like Iron Man and the Fantasic Four or maskless heroes like Superman and Thor should be going around without a mask on.

[CaptainCanada]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

^^^
Because the actors contract calls for "x" amount of face time. I'm guessing. Otherwise why would this happen so often.

They do it because they want to show the actor's face as much as possible. That's well-established (Mark Steven Johnson even talked about how, when making Daredevil, executives told him they didn't think he should be wearing a mask, because it made no sense to hire Ben Affleck and then hide his face).

sonak wrote:

---

I don't know that it was necessary for him to take off his mask to save the kid. Why not just persuade him verbally that he's just a regular guy, or tell a joke, or try something other than just taking his mask off?

It was presented as necessary in-universe. Maybe something else might have worked, but it was a tense situation on a pretty tight clock (the "persuasion" one, in particular, would have taken longer in all likelihood).

[davejames]

To be honest I've always thought it was kinda cool to see Spidey or Batman or Iron Man without their masks on. Somehow it makes it feel a bit more "real" when you see the actors actually wearing the suit.

Plus it's kind of a necessary evil at the end of a movie when you really NEED to see the actor's emotions (since there's no thought balloons or nonstop narration to explain everything). Especially with Spidey, who's completely covered up.

[TremblingBluStar]

davejames wrote:

---

To be honest I've always thought it was kinda cool to see Spidey or Batman or Iron Man without their masks on.

I don't mind seeing them without their mask. I do think it is kind of funny when Spider-Man, who in the movies clearly is wearing a one piece suit with no separation between the mask and neck can suddenly take his mask off.

Even funnier is when the mask is shown to be all fabric with no supports, but when he wears the mask you can't see his jaw move, so there is clearly something in their holding his face in shape!

[Warped9]

TremblingBluStar wrote:

---

I don't mind seeing them without their mask. I do think it is kind of funny when Spider-Man, who in the movies clearly is wearing a one piece suit with no separation between the mask and neck can suddenly take his mask off.

Even funnier is when the mask is shown to be all fabric with no supports, but when he wears the mask you can't see his jaw move, so there is clearly something in their holding his face in shape!

We've been turning a blind eye to this for years since he's been taking off his mask as a separate piece since he first started in comics.

[davejames]

Yeah that's true. You never see any kind of mask line around his neck in the comics.

[Guy Gardener]

With Sam's first I felt complete rage, but with this'n I feel nothing.

What's worse?

[Pauln6]

clint g wrote:

---

I'm not surprised by that. Spider-Man 3 left a bad taste in many peoples mouths so a bit of franchise rebuilding is in order.

It's interestig that some people loathe Rami's original, which I thought was note perfect. I suspect that my feelings are because I stopped reading Spiderman in the 70s so Rami's vision tied into that era. Perhaps modern readers of the comics relate more to the less cheesy stories of the modern comics?

Ironically, if they had adopted the more sombre tone of ASM in S3, it would have worked far better.

If MJ had said - you're a jerk get lost instead of applying the reset button at the end, it would have left more fertile ground for S4, much as they did in the teaser scene in ASM. Likewise, if Venom's creation had been the finale of S4, it would have left people more hungry for a sequel to see the proper showdown that he deserved (maybe even involving Carnage too). I think this is what Rami wanted to do but the producers pressured him to capitalise on Venom right now.

MJ's departure would also have left the field open for Gwen to have a bigger role in S4, possibly leading to her ultimate fate in S5 at the hands of the Hobgoblin, perhaps making way for the Black Cat in S5 and/or S6.

Rumour is that Rami favoured the Vulture for S4 and the producers weren't happy with that. Vulture would be an odd choice but no more a second fiddle villain than Scarecrow was in Batman I suppose.

[DarKush]

^
I like a lot how you envisioned a continuation of the Raimi films. That feels pretty organic. I would've liked to see that, especially a Venom & Carnage duo.