The Amazing Spider-Man Daefoe slams TASM

[GuestStar2004]

Spider-man is a cash cow for sony and raimi obviously planned on ending Spider-man on SM4

yes its a cash grab but for spider-man fans i wouldn't say we lose here

 

[henzINNIT]

It makes Sony more profit to reboot Spider-Man than make a fourth.

Fixed.

 

[Morbius]

During an interview he said "when I first saw the trailer I thought, this is crazy it's basicly the same story, this is just to grab money".

Perfectly understandable. There's a few things to consider here however. The Spidey franchise is a guaranteed money-maker and while perhaps TASM came about a little soon after Spiderman 3 was fresh out of the oven, I think it's safe to say it was treated with the kind of integrity and respect that it deserved.

As much as I can see where Dafoe is coming from, I have faith in Webb and his Team and i'm happy this entirely new movie franchise has come about.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

He ought to be slamming that dumbass costume they made him wear.

 

[Morbius]

Oh gawd. Such a bad costume

 

[UltimateWebhead]

He ought to be slamming that dumbass costume they made him wear.

Dafoe's GG costume? Absolutely. If anyone was lacking good intentions, it was the costume designers.

 

[Green Goblin]

Fixed.

And for the franchise as a whole

Where could you go after 4?

 

[Morbius]

Its obvious, MJ and Peter would give birth to the emo tabletop-dancing Snaggletooth Spiderbaby

 

[Senator Pleasury]

He ought to be slamming that dumbass costume they made him wear.

 

[Visualiza]

Your right,

It didn't take the ultimate characterisations bar Gwen, the look and feel of the ultimate universe and it didn't adapt general Spider-Man lore like web shooters or quips.

Yeah not even close

Ultimate Marvel is not exactly held in high regard. USM has its fans, and I'm one of them, but it still doesn't hold a candle to 616. Otherwise, the bullet points that people keep mentioning for this films 'comic book street cred' are superficial at best. That costume sure is traditional, by the way.

Web shooters. Ok, wonderful. That's a nice bullet point, but were they used creatively in the film? Nope. They never ran out of fluid, featured different cartridges, adjusted the width of the stream, or the viscosity of the fluid. It doesn't even take much thought to realize that Raimi managed to use the less flexible organics in more diverse ways than Webb did with the mechanicals.

The quips were also either superficial or out of character. This is Spider-Man's MO, but he typically does it to get into the heads of his more threatening foes. Bullying a car jacker is not Spidey, whether vintage, Ultimate, or otherwise. It was another example of the filmmakers approach to this film - tell, don't show. They were so wrapped in differentiating themselves from Raimi's films that many things felt either unnatural, forced, or both.

In any case...who the hell cares? I get this nagging feeling that when the conversation devolves to the point where we're arguing about who did the comics more justice, we're dealing with a film that doesn't have much merit otherwise. If we have to mention web shooters and jokes, I think it's safe to say that we're splitting hairs. I can't take someone seriously who tries to tell me that one movie is better than the other for the aforementioned, and I'm a lifelong Spider-Man fan myself, but also a movie nut. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand.

 

[S. Grundy]

The quips were also either superficial or out of character. This is Spider-Man's MO, but he typically does it to get into the heads of his more threatening foes. Bullying a car jacker is not Spidey, whether vintage, Ultimate, or otherwise. It was another example of the filmmakers approach to this film - tell, don't show. They were so wrapped in differentiating themselves from Raimi's films that many things felt either unnatural, forced, or both.

The quips thing gets blown out of proportion, there aren't a lot of them in the Raimi movies, but they are there. I'd say TASM just has slightly more though, but like you said some of them aren't that funny ("Hey! I'm swingin' ova here!"), or out of character/kinda cruel.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I don't see the big deal. That's exactly what I thought when I first watched the first trailer for TASM. What's the issue?

 

[Visualiza]

The quips thing gets blown out of proportion, there aren't a lot of them in the Raimi movies, but they are there. I'd say TASM just has slightly more though, but like you some of them aren't that funny ("Hey! I'm swingin' ova here!"), or out of character/kinda cruel.

Exactly. It says as much about the audience as well, in that they're easily manipulated into thinking that this stuff was in any way noteworthy, when it was more surface rather than substance.

Either way, when it gets to the point where these are the sort of things you have to argue about in favor of your movie, it says to me that there isn't much movie there otherwise. Quips and webshooters are not what makes a Spider-Man movie superlative. There's a lot more that goes into a film than superficial bullet points.

 

[The Joker]

Mr. Dafoe did not even watch TASM according to that quote. He's basing his opinion purely off the trailer. He shouldn't slam it if he has not even watched it.

 

[Visualiza]

Well, he didn't go out of his way to critique the film, just the intentions and the premise.

Every one of us do the same all the time.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Mr. Dafoe did not even watch TASM according to that quote. He's basing his opinion purely off the trailer. He shouldn't slam it if he has not even watched it.

That sums up everything. He just assumed and speculated.

Well, he didn't go out of his way to critique the film, just the intentions and the premise.

Every one of us do the same all the time.

Do we? Ok, that's gotta make it right.

 

[Visualiza]

Do we? Ok, that's gotta make it right.

No need to get crass, but it's not a matter of right and wrong. If I see a trailer that leads to me believe that the film is another mindless slasher remake that's little more than a cash grab, I'll say so. You know damn well that you and everyone else here does the same, so let's leave the high horse at the door, please.

We all form preconceived notions about a film based on trailers...that's what a trailer is for, to steer you in one direction or the other.

This is little more than another example of people over-scrutinizing the words of a celebrity. I hear worse on this forum all the time, i.e. "That movie is gonna be so bad ass!!!" I don't hear anyone cry foul when people deliberately judge a film in that manner after getting caught up in trailer hype. Go to any of the boards for an upcoming film and you'll see this sort of mindless fervor everywhere.

 

[cloverfan98]

Lets be fair, TASM was made because Sony wanted to hold on to the film rights from Disney and make money off of it. Now that doesn't mean that Webb or Garfield were purly in it for money. I really do think they have a love and appreciation for the character and I look forward to the sequel which I hope is better than the first.

 

[Visualiza]

Lets be fair, TASM was made because Sony wanted to hold on to the film rights from Disney and make money off of it. Now that doesn't mean that Webb or Garfield were purly in it for money. I really do think they have a love and appreciation for the character and I look forward to the sequel which I hope is better than the first.

I think we've got an interesting dichotomy with these two franchises.

Raimi was and is clearly a shameless Spidey fanboy. I've always respected him for that. Maguire seemed grateful about the role, but I don't think he had any personal investment in the character at all.

In the case of this new franchise, Webb doesn't seem to know or care much for the character or the world(on a personal level, before fanboys eat me alive).

Garfield, much like Raimi, is an unabashed fan of Spider-Man himself, and he makes no secret of it. I actually like Garfield as a person, I thought his appearance in the costume at Comic Con was a really nice gesture to fans...I just don't like the way his Peter was written, as well as the movie he's featured in. The sequel looks a lot better than the first though, so I'll hold my breath for that one I suppose.

 

[henzINNIT]

And for the franchise as a whole

Where could you go after 4?

Where-ever you like. There were plenty of villains and storylines to pursue in the original continuity. Hell with minor changes, the reboot series so far could have easily been further sequels. The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony, which ties nicely into Dafoe's comments in the OP.

 

[WarriorDreamer]

I completely agree with William. The film lacked heart and seemed a desperate attempt to make money from the character and the superhero genre in general. At least with Raimi he actually wanted to tell the story, from the place of love, not from a place of just having huge dollar signs in your eyes.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Did someone say money?

 

[Vid Electricz]

Ultimate Marvel is not exactly held in high regard. USM has its fans, and I'm one of them, but it still doesn't hold a candle to 616. Otherwise, the bullet points that people keep mentioning for this films 'comic book street cred' are superficial at best. That costume sure is traditional, by the way.

Web shooters. Ok, wonderful. That's a nice bullet point, but were they used creatively in the film? Nope. They never ran out of fluid, featured different cartridges, adjusted the width of the stream, or the viscosity of the fluid. It doesn't even take much thought to realize that Raimi managed to use the less flexible organics in more diverse ways than Webb did with the mechanicals.

The quips were also either superficial or out of character. This is Spider-Man's MO, but he typically does it to get into the heads of his more threatening foes. Bullying a car jacker is not Spidey, whether vintage, Ultimate, or otherwise. It was another example of the filmmakers approach to this film - tell, don't show. They were so wrapped in differentiating themselves from Raimi's films that many things felt either unnatural, forced, or both.

In any case...who the hell cares? I get this nagging feeling that when the conversation devolves to the point where we're arguing about who did the comics more justice, we're dealing with a film that doesn't have much merit otherwise. If we have to mention web shooters and jokes, I think it's safe to say that we're splitting hairs. I can't take someone seriously who tries to tell me that one movie is better than the other for the aforementioned, and I'm a lifelong Spider-Man fan myself, but also a movie nut. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand.

The things you say are far too lucid and make far too much sense. You don't belong here.

You're absolutely right though. All the fanboys have been so extraordinarily distracted by the superficial nonsense like webshooters and "quips", that they fail to realize that TASM fails as a standalone film (on a storytelling level, character wise, etc...).

 

[GuestStar2004]

I completely agree with William. The film lacked heart and seemed a desperate attempt to make money from the character and the superhero genre in general. At least with Raimi he actually wanted to tell the story, from the place of love, not from a place of just having huge dollar signs in your eyes.

you saying TASM lacked heart?... what film was you watching?

maybe sony wanted the money but webb,garfield and Co definitely injected enough heart into this film, its one of webbs strongest suits

 

[Senator Pleasury]

No need to get crass, but it's not a matter of right and wrong. If I see a trailer that leads to me believe that the film is another mindless slasher remake that's little more than a cash grab, I'll say so. You know damn well that you and everyone else here does the same, so let's leave the high horse at the door, please.

Does any of us get paid for those movies as Dafoe was for SM1? And thus, does any of us have the face to tell that "other people" do it for the money whereas I did it for, literally, "good intentions."

Dafoe did it for the money. It wasn't his long-time dream about becoming Green Goblin and taking original Stan lee's vision to the screen.

**************************************

In the case of this new franchise, Webb doesn't seem to know or care much for the character or the world(on a personal level, before fanboys eat me alive).

At least he cares enough to ask himself, what if Peter is not just a loser nerd? What if Uncle Ben is a proper fatherly figure tan can reprehend his son instead of bowing down when he gets angry? What if the girl is not kidnapped all the time?

Garfield, much like Raimi, is an unabashed fan of Spider-Man himself, and he makes no secret of it. I actually like Garfield as a person, I thought his appearance in the costume at Comic Con was a really nice gesture to fans...I just don't like the way his Peter was written, as well as the movie he's featured in. The sequel looks a lot better than the first though, so I'll hold my breath for that one I suppose.

Peter was written inherently heroic, shy but not idiotic. And his Spider-man was written funny, like in the comics. That's an improvement already.


**********************************

Where-ever you like. There were plenty of villains and storylines to pursue in the original continuity. Hell with minor changes, the reboot series so far could have easily been further sequels. The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony, which ties nicely into Dafoe's comments in the OP.

The only reason Dafoe did Green goblin was the paycheck, not "good intentions."