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

[Admiral James Kirk]

Agreed to both points.

Triple-agreed.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mary-Jane (especially the Mary-Jane of the 70's and 80's) and hate what they've done to her character in recent years in the comics, but I think Kirsten Dunst was horrible as Mary-Jane (although it doesn't help that I think she's a terrible actress in general). That being said, I always thought it was important to introduce Gwen first and then move onto Mary-Jane but Raimi completely fucked that up. As I said in my review, I found the retelling of the origin story unnecessary, but since they were there anyways, I am happy they went with Gwen first this time around.

Me too. In the 616 universe Gwen Stacy is my preferred Spider-Man girlfriend. I like how she started as a spoiled daddy;s girl who was slowly being driven nuts because Peter was the one man alive who had no interest and then mellowed into the woman who is arguably the great love of Spider's life.

Don't get me wrong, I think MJ is great but Gwen... I loves me that girl.

Oddly enough... in the Ultimate Comics I prefer Ultimate MJ to Ultimate Gwen and can't stand the Peter/Gwen pairing. It's almost... incestuous.

It looks though like the Peter/Gwen pairing in the ASM movie is like a cross between the 616 Peter/Gwen and the USM Peter/MJ relationships.

I can't wait to see the new movie. But then I'm one of the few who disliked the bulk of Raimi's Spider-Man output.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ With some "Spectacular Spider-Man" animated series Gwen added in as well

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

is the studio as desperate as they sound? they released a 25 minute super preview.
WTF!

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I thought that was fan made.

 

[Ian Keldon]

(also there's been little hints for those actually reading Amazing Spider-Man over the last few months, especially in Spider-Island, that Dan Slott could be in the process of undoing One More Day).

I'll believe that if it happens, not before...I've read too many times how Slott and the other writers HATED the Spider-Marriage and couldn't wait to split them up.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I've never read that Slott has personally said that. The second half of Spider-Island was practically a love letter to Peter and MJ fans. At least I took it like that. Especially the final issues.

I thought that preview was fan made as well. From everything I've read and heard...Sony is ecstatic about "The Amazing Spider-Man", has been for a while now.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

oh i guess it is fan made.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Been meaning to ask: was this filmed in 3D or upconverted?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

In 3D which, unfortunately, was my only option at the theater.

 

[davejames]

I'm not averse to 3D, but looking at how fast some of the action is-- with Spidey doing all those quick spins in the air and everything (and plus the fact a lot of the action seems to take place at night), I think I'm definitely going to stick with 2D.

That kind of stuff is just too hard to follow in 3D, which some of the critics have already complained about.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I'm going 2D as well. 3D doesn't look like it's going to add much to this movie and certainly not enough to justify the 3D surcharge.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

It really doesn't but then I'm not best person to trust on that count because I despise 3D so much (and I only watch when I have no other option, which has been a grand total of 5 times over the last 3 years). The fast motion is definitely one of my biggest complaints, although I have to admit The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't quite as bad as other films, especially The Avengers.

 

[Roshi]

Unfortunately our cinemas over here have such a huge hard on for 3D that it's impossible to find 2D showings.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm going 2D as well. 3D doesn't look like it's going to add much to this movie and certainly not enough to justify the 3D surcharge.

True, especially if it's upconverted, which most seem to be...

 

[Dream]

Why The Amazing Spider-Man Can't Catch a Break

 

[Admiral_Young]

Another positive review.

http://www.newsarama.com/film/amazing-spider-man-film-review.html

 

[davejames]

Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars. Although beware, he gets a bit spoilery.

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120628/REVIEWS/120629969/-1/RSS

 

[C_Miller]

I'm actually pretty excited about this one. Certainly not the same level of anticipation as Avengers and Dark Knight Rises, which we've all been invested in for years (2005 for DKR and 2008 for Avengers).

But I'll consider myself a Spider-Man fan. And this Spider-Man fan never really enjoyed the Raimi films. I never really liked Tobey McGuire. Something about him rubbed me the wrong way. I thought Kirsten Dunst was horribly miscast. She was okay in the first film, but just okay. It went down hill from there. And they also fell into the trap of superhero films being about the villain's character arc, rather than the hero's. I hate that. In fact all of the favorite superhero films are more about the hero than the villain now that I think about it.

All of them had good qualities, mostly from the supporting cast. Jameson, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Harry (until the 3rd film), were standouts. But that's not enough to make a film.

So I'm kind of glad they're rebooting and from what I see, this looks pretty good.

 

[Warped9]

I'm torn about this film. Part of me is intrigued because I've always liked Spider-Man, but I was also quite happy with the Raimi/McGuire version.

I even liked Spider-man 3 to an extent. I didn't think it was horrible, but that it just wasn't as good as the first two films. For one thing I feel they chose the wrong villain(s). I've never cared for Venom and I didn't care for how he was visualized in the film. I also thought the Sandman wasn't very interesting. I think it would have been far better to have stuck with one villain and go for something more interesting like the Vulture, the Lizard or Mysterio. Beyond that I would have liked a fourth Raimi/McGuire film that could have brought the franchise back to what it had been with the first two films.

The only thing that didn't really work for me in the Raimi films was Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. She wasn't horrible, but she was just serviceable. I just couldn't really buy her as MJ. I was happy with most everything else.


Now in this reboot I'm intrigued and I have reservations. Yeah, it's nitpicky, but I don't care for the redesigned suit. I think Raimi's version nailed it for live-action. I like the idea of seeing the Lizard as a villain, but I don't care for the whole retcon of Peter's origin as Spider-Man tied to his father's research with Connors. It's too much like the retconning we got that made the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents in the '89 Batman or having Ras al Gul involved with Batman's origins in Batman Begins. In Hollywood there is this compulsion that everything has to tie in together neatly because it's DESTINY or something. :roll eyes:

I do like the idea of Gwen Stacy instead of MJ as Peter's first love.


I'll see this out of curiosity, but I'm not really juiced about it, not like I was for the previous Spidey films. I am much more hyped for The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[the G-man]

I've noticed a lot of friends are not particularly excited. I don't know if it's because it's so recent for them, but for me... it just doesn't look like fun. Not with all of the "secrets" of Parker's past... blah blah blah.

I'm sure the movie will do fine... I just don't know if I'll see it anytime soon.

This critic seems to confirm your suspicions...

'Amazing Spider-Man' Not Much Fun

• Here’s a cool idea for a movie: Teenage dweeb Peter Parker weathers the taunts and pokes of high-school bullies until one day he’s bitten by some kind of magical spider and starts shooting sticky webs out of his hands and scampering up walls and…
  
  Oh, wait—we’ve already seen this movie. Ten years ago, in Sam Raimi’s opening installment of the first Spider-Man series....
  
  Will The Amazing Spider-Man suck up millions over the long Fourth of July weekend? Sure. So did the goopy Spider-Man 3—even though that film wound up tanking the first Spidey series.

A few more reviews....

critics are divided down the middle on Sony's 'Spider-Man' reboot: The consensus is not unlike Parker's own superhero career: rocky at points, healthy at times and flat-out "amazing" in other areas.

Spidey Peters out: hardly awful but not coming close to living up to that adjective in the title either. Sometimes dull and mostly uninspired, it’s much less a satisfying reboot like “Batman Begins’’ than a pointless rehash in the mode of “Superman Returns.’’

Marc Webb's new Spider-Man is the superhero film for the Twilight generation: On paper Gwen might be the love interest, but in many ways she’s the main character, giving us a human perspective on the superhuman drama.


Looks like there are some positive reviews but the fact this is being viewed as essentially a remake of a ten year old film is doing the production no favors.