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

[trekkiebaggio]

sonak wrote:

---

Isn't Spidey a little too casual with his identity, though? He reveals his face to a kid who's DEFINITELY old enough to remember and describe it. He lets Gwen know. He LEAVES A CAMERA WITH HIS NAME ON IT when he's fighting as Spider-Man. Then he gets captured and discovered by Stacy's dad.

Over half the main characters in this movie knew his identity by the end it seemed like. I'm surprised Flash Thompson wasn't told.

To be fair though, I think a little kid's life is more important than preserving his identity, but I did agree that it seemed a lot of people knew. The leaving the camera with his name on it was particularly stupid

[Warped9]

trekkiebaggio wrote:

---

To be fair though, I think a little kid's life is more important than preserving his identity, but I did agree that it seemed a lot of people knew. The leaving the camera with his name on it was particularly stupid

I half expected him to tell Aunt May at the end. At least Raimi kept MJ in the dark until the second film. And Raimi's Aunt May still doesn't know (although sometimes I wonder if she suspected).

[stj]

^^^He didn't need to, it was clear that May was supposed to have figured it out.

[Warped9]

stj wrote:

---

^^^He didn't need to, it was clear that May was supposed to have figured it out.

Yeah, that conversation in May's back yard while she's packing up her stuff to move (SM2) really makes you believe she knows.

One thing about Peter Parker in all four Spidey films: Peter periodically does not-so-bright things. But in the character's defence he is supposed to be a kid, a young adult, and they're prone to having less-than-bright moments. Hell, there are grown adults who are supposed to know better that do stupid things all the time (collectively speaking).

[Mr Light]

As someone who felt luke warm on all three Rami movies, I felt lukewarm on this one as well. The action scenes were cool, but there were hardly any and it was 2h15m long. Spider-Man had a sense of humor, thank god. Garfield was a much better pick than Maguire.

But the Lizard did not look good. No snout? No white lab coat? A silly nit perhaps but that's what makes him look cool. Otherwise he's just a dinosaur monster.

And he doesn't become Spider-Man for an hour into the movie? I just saw this origin story ten years ago, and it didn't rivet me to the screen then, either. Some origins, like Batman's, are epic enough to sustain interest, but Spidey's is just a teen soap opera.

[stj]

^^^Yes as to Raimi. But also the new movie. Sally Field is a great ctress. If she looks thoughtful and scared as she looks at Peter when hearing about the vigilante, she's communicating on purpose that May is suspicious. When she looks appalled and proud and stoic and doesn't ask questions when he comes back victorious, she's communicating that May knows.

[Warped9]

Mr Light wrote:

---

But the Lizard did not look good. No snout? No white lab coat? A silly nit perhaps but that's what makes him look cool. Otherwise he's just a dinosaur monster.

Yeah, I overlooked commenting on that. I, too, was disappointed with the Lizard. Of course we know it's cgi, but I just didn't buy into his design/appearance. Maybe they did it that way to keep the eyes expressive? I also don't recall the Lizard being substantially larger than Spidey, but maybe I'm not remembering it right.

[Warped9]

stj wrote:

---

^^^Yes as to Raimi. But also the new movie. Sally Field is a great ctress. If she looks thoughtful and scared as she looks at Peter when hearing about the vigilante, she's communicating on purpose that May is suspicious. When she looks appalled and proud and stoic and doesn't ask questions when he comes back victorious, she's communicating that May knows.

Again I think it's yet another reveal too soon. For ages we wonder why no one can figure out Clark is Superman and yet in modern superhero films they can't unmask the guy soon enough or often enough.

[DWF]

The movie lacked some energy for me, the casting was great and I thought Emma Stone was adorable as Gwen Stacy and she had some nice chemistry with Adrew Garfield. But they did leave alot of things open so the movie felt alittle incomplete to me.

[Saul]

Pretty disappointed with it. I felt Garfield as Peter Parker doesn't change much throughout. The character goes on a journey but he is still the same guy by the end of it and it less of a nerd than what I think Peter Parker ought to be. This is just a cool guy getting cool powers instead of below average joe getting them. Uncle Ben, Aunt May, did we need such high quality actors for these roles?

Lizard pointless.

Spider-man is all willy nilly with his true identity. No more problems balancing two lives eh?

[Captain Craig]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

^I'm pretty sure he meant that Captain Stacy's death was an element that was true to the comics, not that it was humorous.

Yes.

[davejames]

TremblingBluStar wrote:

---

One thing I enjoyed more about this film than the Raimi versions was the humor. Spider-Man was always a smart ass who would make wise cracks to throw off his enemies, and that was missing from the previous films.

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:

"That's a cute outfit. Did your husband buy it for you?"
"Hey kiddo, let Mom and Dad talk for a minute, will ya?"
"It's you who's out, Gobby. Out of your mind."
"Whew! Beats taking the subway!"

Plus his whole demeanor was just a whole lot lighter and more fun.

Garfield certainly has his moments, but most of the time his Spidey seemed just about as dark and gloomy as his Peter Parker was in this movie.

[Gaith]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

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.

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!

Relayer1 wrote:

---

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.

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.

[CaptainCanada]

sonak wrote:

---

Isn't Spidey a little too casual with his identity, though? He reveals his face to a kid who's DEFINITELY old enough to remember and describe it. He lets Gwen know. He LEAVES A CAMERA WITH HIS NAME ON IT when he's fighting as Spider-Man. Then he gets captured and discovered by Stacy's dad.

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.

[Admiral_Young]

"The Amazing Spider-Man" won it's opening weekend raking in $65 million dollars, and a six day total of $140 million (which is over what I actually predicted a month or so ago). This is also about ten million below what "Spider-Man 3" pulled in during it's opening back in 2007 as well. Fans were way more excited for 3 at the time, though than they seem to have been for this one.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni31649108/

I haven't had a chance to see it yet. I'm going on the 16th.