The Amazing Spider-Man Daefoe slams TASM

[UltimateWebhead]

Well said, Senator.

 

[WarriorDreamer]

Maybe it would have been better if Sam Raimi directed Andrew as Peter. Maybe it would have been better overall.

 

[GuestStar2004]

No Toby and Kirsten were not the only problems with Raimis films, his direction was cheesy and silly and Toby can't be blamed for all the problems with them films

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I think it more likely that Raimi was just a fan of the early comics from the 60's and so naturally tried to capture some of that feel. The original comics are fairly cheesy when viewed from a more modern perspective themselves.

I have my issues with the original films but Raimi isn't some noob, he's a pro and knew what he was doing.

 

[Green Goblin]

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.

Other than in SM1 there was virtually no quips.

Weather you found the quips on TASM good or not is subjective. Atleast Webb tried, Rami just ignored it really. That was a really big slap in the face

 

[Green Goblin]

I think it more likely that Raimi was just a fan of the early comics from the 60's and so naturally tried to capture some of that feel. The original comics are fairly cheesy when viewed from a more modern perspective themselves.

I have my issues with the original films but Raimi isn't some noob, he's a pro and knew what he was doing.

Great post Wiskey

 

[Green Goblin]

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.

I might not like Year One or Birthright but they were used as inspiration for their respective reboots of Batman or Superman. Like Ultimate, they were modern reimaginings of these characters. TASM was accurate to Ultimate, Rami (with SM1 anyway) was accurate to the 60's era. They obviously had to try something new and ultimate is (or was popular).

 

[StarLord]

Didn't Franco slam it too?

Seems like the OG Osborn's are sticking together on this one.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Well said, Senator.

Thanks. Remember to vote for me in the next elections.

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

Didn't Franco slam it too?

Seems like the OG Osborn's are sticking together on this one.

Yes, and same as Dafoe, it was because it was all for money and too quickly. Because, we all know, Franco did Spider-man 1 for free, you know. Such a non-profit movie that was. But well, it was 2002.

 

[Visualiza]

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.

"Red herring, Your Honor."

"Sustained."

Thanks for projecting your code of ethics onto all of us, but that has nothing to do with the topic.

I notice that you have a habit of resorting to circular logic when you have nothing of substance to say, as if it's too much for you to bear to either concede, agree, disagree, or say nothing at all. Very reminiscent of our dearly departed Anno Domini. I'm fairly certain that the matter at hand is about the content of Dafoe's statements, not his character.

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?

Non-sequitur, equivocation.

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.

More equivocation, dogmatism.

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

Yet another irrelevant red herring, coupled with good old character assassination to boot.

I'll debate with you all day, but you need to learn how to do so first. You can be as verbose as you want, but if everything you say amounts to little more than irrelevant dodging, then it doesn't hold much value in the first place. Stop talking in circles and stay on topic; I won't get sucked into one of your endless quote wars if the discussion is going nowhere.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

nvm

 

[Senator Pleasury]

"Red herring, Your Honor."

"Sustained."

Hey, I like how you create characters that think you're right. it's like you need someone at least.

Thanks for projecting your code of ethics onto all of us, but that has nothing to do with the topic.

Where did I do that exactly?

I notice that you have a habit of resorting to circular logic when you have nothing of substance to say, as if it's too much for you to bear to either concede, agree, disagree, or say nothing at all. Very reminiscent of our dearly departed Anno Domini. I'm fairly certain that the matter at hand is about the content of Dafoe's statements, not his character.

I notice that you open the door to your own code of ethics - "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" - and to assumption: "You know damn well that you and everyone else here does the same." Then you dislike if you think anybody else walks into that open door.

Spider-man 1 and The Amazing Spider-man were done for money. Accept that fact and you won't have to resort to legal jargon.

Non-sequitur, equivocation.

Again, you opened that door when assumed that "Webb doesn't seem to know or care much for the character or the world."

If you don't like these cold draughts of air, don't open those doors.

More equivocation, dogmatism.

See above.

Yet another irrelevant red herring, coupled with good old character assassination to boot.

Like "Webb doesn't seem to know or care much for the character or the world"?

I'll debate with you all day, but you need to learn how to do so first. You can be as verbose as you want, but if everything you say amounts to little more than irrelevant dodging, then it doesn't hold much value in the first place. Stop talking in circles and stay on topic; I won't get sucked into one of your endless quote wars if the discussion is going nowhere.

Dude, if you add the topping of assumption to this pizza, you must be brave enough to have a slice and enjoy it.

 

[henzINNIT]

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

Dafoe was paid for his work, obviously. Doesn't mean he had no emotional connection to the role though. I doubt he got a sack-full of cash when he reprised his role for those tiny segments in both sequels. He was happy to come back, which is worth something to me, He speaks highly of Raimi and clearly felt that it was a labour of love for the director.

Seeing the film essentially remade a few years later stands out as a particularly cynical cash-grab to me, so I'm not surprised that an actor who worked on the original felt the same way.

 

[Lord]

No Toby and Kirsten were not the only problems with Raimis films, his direction was cheesy and silly and Toby can't be blamed for all the problems with them films

His direction was great, cheesyness that worked with the character in a world that was relativelly "realistic" but still embraced the weirdness. There was nothing wrong with his direction, it clearly had a soul.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Dafoe was paid for his work, obviously. Doesn't mean he had no emotional connection to the role though. I doubt he got a sack-full of cash when he reprised his role for those tiny segments in both sequels. He was happy to come back, which is worth something to me, He speaks highly of Raimi and clearly felt that it was a labour of love for the director.

Webb and Garfield were paid for his work, obviously. Doesn't mean they had no emotional connection to the character though. My answer to your previous statement: "The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony."

Seeing the film essentially remade a few years later stands out as a particularly cynical cash-grab to me, so I'm not surprised that an actor who worked on the original felt the same way.

No, some characters and stories are made into movies twice in the same year. Doesn't mean it was all for the money or all for good intentions.

 

[cloverfan98]

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.

The biggest take away from TASM for me was how awesome the cast was I was blown away by the performances. But the script was a huge let down and nearly took the whole film down with it. I too am looking forward to the sequel but every news story I've heard about who's going to be in be in/how awesome Amazing Spider Man 3,4,5,6,7, are my enthusiasm begins to falter.

 

[S. Grundy]

The biggest take away from TASM for me was how awesome the cast was I was blown away by the performances. But the script was a huge let down and nearly took the whole film down with it. I too am looking forward to the sequel but every news story I've heard about who's going to be in be in/how awesome Amazing Spider Man 3,4,5,6,7, are my enthusiasm begins to falter.

Also, the Orci and Kurtzman factor, those two are two of worst screenwriters working today (slight hyperbole), but they are terrible. And any hope that issues with TASM would be fixed in the sequel were dashed away.

 

[cloverfan98]

Also, the Orci and Kurtzman factor, those two are two of worst screenwriters working today (slight hyperbole), but they are terrible. And any hope that issues with TASM would be fixed in the sequel were dashed away.

I'm mixed on them. I LOVE Star Trek 09, thought TF1 was good, the TF sequels were bad and STID had a lot of issues. Plus I can't decide how to feel about MJ getting the axe. On the one hand I'm made she was cut, on the other hand there's already WAYYYYY too much happening in this film.

 

[S. Grundy]

Star Trek '09 is good, but flawed (I'll chalk it up to the writer's strike). I find them generally terrible though, and Orci just rubs me the wrong way, what with the whole 9/11 truther BS.

 

[Green Goblin]

His direction was great, cheesyness that worked with the character in a world that was relativelly "realistic" but still embraced the weirdness. There was nothing wrong with his direction, it clearly had a soul.

My main problem with SM1 was that it didn't know what direction to go. On one hand it was fantastical because a teenager could make this very professional costume but a Goblin with a mask and a teenager making webshooters isn't "grounded?

 

[henzINNIT]

Webb and Garfield were paid for his work, obviously. Doesn't mean they had no emotional connection to the character though. My answer to your previous statement: "The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony."

It was a nice attempt to recycle my own words but you've missed the point. I've never said anything about Webb or Garfield, or their intentions. The latter in particular has made it abundantly clear how much Spiderman means to him. This doesn't have any impact on my quote: "The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony."

No, some characters and stories are made into movies twice in the same year. Doesn't mean it was all for the money or all for good intentions.

Depends on the context of course. Bring me some specific examples if you like, but still TASM exists solely because it was a cheaper option in the long term.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It was a nice attempt to recycle my own words but you've missed the point. I've never said anything about Webb or Garfield, or their intentions. The latter in particular has made it abundantly clear how much Spiderman means to him. This doesn't have any impact on my quote: "The only reason the new series exists is because it was more profitable for Sony."



Depends on the context of course. Bring me some specific examples if you like, but still TASM exists solely because it was a cheaper option in the long term.

In a nutshell, both TASM and SM1 were made because of how profitable they were. There were some fans involved in the production (actors, directors) but all in all, neither was made just to cherish the character.

 

[Lord]

My main problem with SM1 was that it didn't know what direction to go. On one hand it was fantastical because a teenager could make this very professional costume but a Goblin with a mask and a teenager making webshooters isn't "grounded?

yep. If you question their decisions about what is grounded in that universe or not it's fine, but that's the decision they thought was best and they did seem to know where they wanted to go.

 

[Green Goblin]

yep. If you question their decisions about what is grounded in that universe or not it's fine, but that's the decision they thought was best and they did seem to know where they wanted to go.

But it wasn't, if you can have a teenager make a comic bookish costume then at the very least you could have a villain who did the same. No with SM2 and SM3 it remained fantastical but in SM1 he created a universe that didn't follow his own rules.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

yep. If you question their decisions about what is grounded in that universe or not it's fine, but that's the decision they thought was best and they did seem to know where they wanted to go.

If they did, it wasn't somewhere nice. That plastic mask never ever worked.