Saw TAS2 today and while it's really good, it's a little overlong and cluttered. Raimi's first sequel is the better fillm but Garfield, Stone and DeHaan beat Maguire, Dunst and Franco.
Spider Man ('02) vs. The Amazing Spider-Man ('12): VOTE
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
We reach.
It's great fans of the comix are finally getting their long awaited fixes of Spidey as they knew him from days gone by but it isn't what I prefer, it isn't 'my' Spidey.
I am going to see ASM2, however. I saw the 3D previews at CA:TWS and I decided the effects alone were worth the price of a matinee.
The web fluid running out in the middle of battle is supposed to be a plot point for suspense purposes. It's like Dirty Harry emptying his Magnum in a gun battle. Can he reload before the punk takes him out? You actually find that annoying? Are you also the type of person that reads the last page of a mystery to find out who did it without going through the whole book?
As for the money thing, he didn't build the shooters and develop the fluid to sell, and he might be gun shy about any commercialism after his last experience with it indirectly cost him his Uncle Ben. So he makes a modest living however he can and uses what spare change he can get to get web fluid ingredients. I apologize for him not being Tony Stark's love child.
No, you're the one who has it backward. It's not better because it's old. It's better because it shows Peter's intelligence and ingenuity by showing him developing the most unique device in comic book history instead of just having it handed to him by the radioactive spider.
And by the way, all you "organic is better" nazis, read up on web-spinning spiders, because if Raimi really wanted to be accurate about it those spinnerets would be in Peter's pelvis or ass, not on his limbs. The last thing I'd ever want to see is Toby Maguire swinging on pelvic-thrusted webs. Mechanical devices are just fine.
This is what biases me against Amazing Spiderman the most...the Sony's money addiction to the property.
While it's 10 years between origin stories, it's just 5 years between Spider Man 3 and the reboot. far different than the 40+ years for Star Trek TOS.
For me , Maguire & Dunst seemed liked normal people..people i can relate to. Yeah, Dunst's MJ is more like my picture of Gwen Stacy, but i can forgive that. The relationship seemed logical.
As another person said, the Raimi films way FUN. Lots of of little easter eggs, whether the original theme plugged in there to Bruce Campell, In there without being overwhelming .
Even with Spider Man 3 (with the messy part being the studio's fault, so i forgive it), the SPider Man Movies have Peter inspiring bad guys to be "good"...that inspires me more & make me want to t share the movie with my children.
ASM Spidey & even Peter seem like an arrogant prick, and from the commercials, Harry , looks/sounds like a punk.
Franco's Harry , to me, seems believeable as a neglected rich guy's kid who still connects with nerdy Peter, and can be redeemed.
By the way, how could you forget JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson? -- PERFECTLY cast!
I also didn't like the allusions to Peter's parents being super special, part of some conspiracy. part of the charm of Spiderman, to me, is that a normal kid that happens to get these special powers. Having an aunt & uncle rather than biological parents also can relate him to people with untraditional families
Lastly, this'll sound strange, but the organic webbing seems more "believable" to me than Peter magically creating the webbing after he just happens to get bit by a radioactive spider. (If he got stung by a radioactive octopus, would he have created some matching special ink? Or Camoflauge suit?). Spider man 2 established Peter's intellect, and what he can do with it.
Having his parents be secret agents is taken directly from the comics. The only difference in the comics is that his parents were working for S.H.I.E.L.D. rather than whatever they said they were working for in the film.
I assume that it eventually became a "storyline" under creative team #567 some decades after the concept was introduced. Initially it was a one-shot story in a 1960s annual that was pretty much ignored in the main title for at least the next couple of decades. In other words, not something that I'd consider a core element of the Spidey mythos.
Yes, I found it annoying as well as tedious since it happened, seems like, all the time. And generally, except for an embarrassing period involving S.T. Ent, I hate spoilers.
As I wrote earlier, his other powers were organic, why not his web? Would you also have preferred that Peter not have the organic ability to walk up walls so he develops some super sticky glue which he'd have had to apply to the soles of his boots and hands so he could walk up and down walls, but loses it's adhesive on contact with too much dust?
How about no Spider strength. Pete has to cart around an iron exoskeleton like Ripley's in Aliens? Or, no Spidey sense. He carries around a mirror so he can see behind, above, either side etc, that "occasionally" gets broken.
In fact, Pete gets NO organic powers from the spider bite and invents all of his powers like a really smart "Kick-Ass". The spider bite just sounds cool to him and he uses the story to get chicks.
Sounds to me like some don't like the organic web simply because it wasn't a part of the original character. However, organic web, once you open your mind, is no less logical for the character than any of his other powers.
He could have BEEN Stark's love child. Pete certainly had the intellct, except Tony was shown using his to make money while Pete was shown allowing himself to practically starve while siting on a veritable gold mine of an invention. But not using his inventions to make money wasn't a real concern for me, not like the mechanical web shooter.
I was makng a little joke; AS mech shooters are a step backward in time as well as creativity. Oh well.
Come on. You're better than this...I think.
As I wrote earlier, his other powers were organic, why not his web? Would you also have preferred that Peter not have the organic ability to walk up walls so he develops some super sticky glue which he'd have had to apply to the soles of his boots and hands so he could walk up and down walls, but loses it's adhesive on contact with too much dust?
How about no Spider strength. Pete has to cart around an iron exoskeleton like Ripley's in Aliens? Or, no Spidey sense. He carries around a mirror so he can see behind, above, either side etc, that "occasionally" gets broken.
In fact, Pete gets NO organic powers from the spider bite and invents all of his powers like a really smart "Kick-Ass". The spider bite just sounds cool to him and he uses the story to get chicks.
We definitely reach. Well said!
I voted Spider-Man down the line, with the exception of Emma Stone over Kirsten Dunst. Sure, Maguire's Spidey may not have been that into wise-cracks, but I thought his Peter Parker was much better than Garfield's. I prefer the nerdy outcast over the hipster loner.
I got into comics in the early 90's and had a few late 80's issues, so I'm used to Mary Jane being a supermodel and though far from ugly, Kirsten Dunst didn't look the part. She also didn't act the part. The Spider-Man Mary Jane was always troubled, whereas the comic version I remember was usually bubbly and had a million things going for her. In fact, it's this characterization which made many against her marriage to Peter, since he's the perpetual down-on-his-luck guy.
Spider-Man was fun and it was amazing seeing Spidey swinging through the city. Amazing Spider-Man to me lacked that joy. Sure he made wisecracks, but he didn't seem to enjoy being Spider-Man. Despite the tragedy, Spidey, to me, always seems to enjoy web-slinging (except for the times he quits, like the homage in Spider-Man 2).
I own the three Raimi movies, but seeing ASM once was enough for me.
I got into comics in the early 90's and had a few late 80's issues, so I'm used to Mary Jane being a supermodel and though far from ugly, Kirsten Dunst didn't look the part. She also didn't act the part. The Spider-Man Mary Jane was always troubled, whereas the comic version I remember was usually bubbly and had a million things going for her. In fact, it's this characterization which made many against her marriage to Peter, since he's the perpetual down-on-his-luck guy.
Spider-Man was fun and it was amazing seeing Spidey swinging through the city. Amazing Spider-Man to me lacked that joy. Sure he made wisecracks, but he didn't seem to enjoy being Spider-Man. Despite the tragedy, Spidey, to me, always seems to enjoy web-slinging (except for the times he quits, like the homage in Spider-Man 2).
I own the three Raimi movies, but seeing ASM once was enough for me.
I prefer the Raimi films all-around, and was OK with their choice to go with organic web-shooting. But, in the context of the original comics, I always like the element of Spidey having inherent super-powers that were augmented with a bit of motif-appropriate gadgetry. The dominant paradigm of the time was natural or artificial powers...Spidey had both.
I'm honestly befuddled by this critique I've sen more than once. ASM Peter doesn't enjoy being Spidey? Practically the first thing he does with his powers is to literally rope in the girl, whereas SM Peter hears MJ tell him to his face she has a crush on Spidey, then later kisses him for being Peter and not Spidey, and he still shies away from her. So, who really enjoys beings Spider-Man more, I ask you?!
Also, the scene in the warehouse were ASM Peter first practices swinging on chains is, to me, a more joyous sequence than anything in Raimi's movies.
I think Garfield is fine as Spider-Man. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between his performance and Maguire's. They gave Garfield one or two extra jokes to deliver, but they're pretty much the same.
It's Garfield's Parker that bugs me. Maguire's Peter Parker was an outcast because he was a hopelessly nerdy social misfit. Garfield's Peter Parker is a misunderstood hipster with a "kewl" haircut who avoids people because he's so painfully emo.
It's Garfield's Parker that bugs me. Maguire's Peter Parker was an outcast because he was a hopelessly nerdy social misfit. Garfield's Peter Parker is a misunderstood hipster with a "kewl" haircut who avoids people because he's so painfully emo.
Maguire's a much more accomplished comedic actor.
I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man because it was really the comics come to life for me. I liked the recent movie too, but the '02 version was the movie I had been waiting for most of my life so I voted for it.
As for the two movies, I really felt the tone was similar to the tone of the classic comics and the Ultimate line. In fact, I thought that was the intent.
As for the two movies, I really felt the tone was similar to the tone of the classic comics and the Ultimate line. In fact, I thought that was the intent.
Actually, none of the recent Spidey shows have done the origin at all. Spectacular Spider-Man starts with Peter finally settling in to being a superhero, having been bitten "a few months" before.
And Ultimate Spider-Man skips it too, with the first episode set one year after Peter becomes Spider-Man.
Even the 2003 CGI series starts after the origin. (Treating the first Raimi movie as a loose backstory.)
Well, Maguire's a much more accomplished actor, period. No argument there.
