The Amazing Spider-Man Does anyone else get an empty feeling from this movie?

[Spider-Fan]

I think he means in terms of SM1, Raimi did the origin better. And I agree with him. The origin was more faithful and stronger than it was here. The Sandman retcon is stupid, and I am VERY critical of it. But watching SM1, the origin is well done.

 

[Schlosser85]

This one zipped through everything too fast.

 

[El Payaso]

I think he means in terms of SM1, Raimi did the origin better. And I agree with him. The origin was more faithful and stronger than it was here. The Sandman retcon is stupid, and I am VERY critical of it. But watching SM1, the origin is well done.

Therefore my question: is it okay/less wrong to screw things later then?

And it's not like they haven't changed lots if not every other superhero's origin before: Joe Chill being captured the very night he killed the Waynes, Uncle Ben's killer dying right away, Hulk... you name it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Therefore my question: is it okay/less wrong to screw things later then?

And it's not like they haven't changed lots if not every other superhero's origin before: Joe Chill being captured the very night he killed the Waynes, Uncle Ben's killer dying right away, Hulk... you name it.

I think it honestly depends on what the idea is and if it works for whether it can be tinkered later. In SM3's case, Sandman killing Uncle Ben was stupid and didn't work. Should never have been attempted.

It's not the fact the movie made changes really where I take issue with the film. My issues come from the narrative itself, and the mistakes I felt it made along the way (inconsistancies and stuff like that). Not so much they changed some of the origin around. Heck, even Raimi made the origin a momentary revenge thing! AF15, Peter was just looking out for #1. But once again, it all goes back to does the idea work.

 

[Schlosser85]

Sandman killing Uncle Ben was idiotic.

 

[forgot10]

Watched it again today, only empty feeling I get is that I wanted the movie to continue.

 

[AF3619]

Watched it again today, only empty feeling I get is that I wanted the movie to continue.

same , i felt the same way when i saw Spiderman 2 i wanted the movie to continue and is the same in this case

 

[Tony Stark]

The problem with the origin here is that Peter does not immediately realize that his inaction directly leads to Uncle Ben's death. In fact he never really aknowledges that in the film. The only thing that happens is Captain Stacey guilts him into realizing that he's not trying to fight crime but he's trying to exact revenge, but he never acknowledges that his inaction and selfishness led to his Uncle's death. Not once, it never happens and that is the unforgivable sin of this rendition of Spider-man.

 

[AF3619]

The problem with the origin here is that Peter does not immediately realize that his inaction directly leads to Uncle Ben's death. In fact he never really aknowledges that in the film. The only thing that happens is Captain Stacey guilts him into realizing that he's not trying to fight crime but he's trying to exact revenge, but he never acknowledges that his inaction and selfishness led to his Uncle's death. Not once, it never happens and that is the unforgivable sin of this rendition of Spider-man.

true, he felt the revenge but not the guilt , maybe in a sequel when he sees the guy face to face he will remember the "getting even" speech with the thief or by getting even with [BLACKOUT](this will sound silly)[/BLACKOUT]the [BLACKOUT]*****e [/BLACKOUT]from the store it stopped him from doing the right thing and getting his Uncle shot from doing what he was supposed to do

 

[ClarkLuther55]

I enjoyed this movie very much, and rated it 9/10. I was in a pretty cheerful mood as I drove home from the theater. It was definitely not an "empty" movie to me...but I also don't have much of an urge to talk about it. I'm sensing that from some other people as well. And I think there's an easy explanation for that:

It's practically the same movie as Raimi's 2002 film.

To be fair, this was not a shot for shot remake of the first Spider-Man movie. A lot was different. But despite how much the differences (such as the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents, Gwen Stacy, and Captain Stacy's manhunt) were advertised, none of them really amounted to much. Peter's parents are a big deal in the first part of the movie, then just fade away and become a virtual non-issue. Gwen interacts with Peter, but doesn't really push or challenge him in any way. Captain Stacy appears fairly late in the movie, gets a few scenes, then passes away.

Meanwhile, so many of the same beats are there: Peter having fun testing out his powers, Uncle Ben dying, a kindly scientific mentor becoming the villain after an experiment gone wrong, Peter turning away his love interest out of a sense of responsibility, etc.

So despite not being a literal remake of the 2002 movie, it feels like one. TASM really doesn't tread any new ground. It does exactly what the 2002 movie did, bettering it in some ways while falling short in others. It duplicated greatness, which means that it did well for itself. But it didn't change the way things were done.

Not yet, at least. Despite how much I think Raimi was screwed by the studio and his own disloyal fans (who pushed for Venom) in Spider-Man 3, I was not exactly enthusiastic for his proposed fourth film. Spidey was a damaged series by that point. While TASM doesn't break new ground, at WORST it's completely harmless. And it gives the series a fresh start. We're guaranteed to learn more about Peter's parents in the sequel, and I'm hopeful that Norman Osborn will get a better costume than he did in 2002.

 

[Frodo]

I think he means in terms of SM1, Raimi did the origin better. And I agree with him. The origin was more faithful and stronger than it was here. The Sandman retcon is stupid, and I am VERY critical of it. But watching SM1, the origin is well done.

I agree, and to be honest , the GA really didn't have a problem with the first two Raimi films. It was mainly alot of the die hard fans of the comics who had issues with all of the Raimi films. I think if you talked to the average non comic book fan about ASM and Sm1 , I think they would say they liked them both as opposed to saying something like, "Raimi got Spiderman so wrong...or Webb got it so right" or visa versa.

 

[Juicy J]

The only thing I felt the film had missing was JJJ. I've read thousands, literally thousands, of Spider-man comics and I'd say that Jameson and/or the daily bugle are in pretty much every single issue in one way or another. I definitely felt his absence, and I feel like the second movie won't have much of a chance with me if he's not included.
Other than that semi-tiny complaint it's my favorite Spider-man movie to date, and my second favorite superhero movie besides the Avengers.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I just feel that we were kinda screwed with the lizard... He wasn't a bad villain, but amongst all the character driven stuff there was so much potential with the lizard that it's pretty hard to let it slide

 

[Scarilian]

I agree.

We were promised the untold story, all we got from the film was how they died and that Richard Parker was employed at Oscorp working on a super-soldier syrum.

We were told Ratha was an important character yet they cut the part where

Spoiler

It explained he opened the door for Peter to become Spider-man and they removed his death

Lets not forget the fact the 'end credit scene' which defeated the entire point of the film

Oh and the fact that Dr.Connors family scenes were cut

We were shown one thing then given another.

 

[Dragon]

I agree, and to be honest , the GA really didn't have a problem with the first two Raimi films. It was mainly alot of the die hard fans of the comics who had issues with all of the Raimi films. I think if you talked to the average non comic book fan about ASM and Sm1 , I think they would say they liked them both as opposed to saying something like, "Raimi got Spiderman so wrong...or Webb got it so right" or visa versa.

Yahoo did two polls last week asking who the public preferred as Peter Parker/ Spidey.

In both polls Tobey trounced Andrew. 61/39% and 77/23%. Now does this mean that Andrew isn't as good as Tobey? Nope. But it does mean that comic fans don't always get things from the real world perspective.

I think the reason why so many more people liked Tobey better is that- while comic fans can go on about how Tobey wasn't as much like the comics as Garfield (Which is an innaccuracy considering how many approaches and eras there have been in the Spider-Man mythos over 50 years) Tobey has what is at the core of Spider-Man's concept.

When Stan created the idea of a "Spider-Man" he meant for him to be the ultimate underdog. The guy who isn't supposed to win but does. And even while winning, he still loses. That's Tobey's Spidey all the way.

Garfield's Spidey such as he's written and performed in this film doesn't have that quality at all. He's too cool. It isn't believable at all that this guy can't get girls and isn't popular. He isn't a nerd/geek. He's what nerds/geeks wish they could be. Ultimately no one is supposed to wish they could be Peter Parker. We're supposed to root for the guy and respect him because he tries so hard to do the right thing. That's what the train sequence in Spidey 2 played out. When those folks are looking at Peter, unmasked, unconscious, they aren't envying him. They actually feel a little sorry for him. But they're also thankful that he's there. TASM didn't present that and it was a a gaping hole in the film.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Yes.

TASM, to me, was a mixture of Batman Begins and Spiderman (2002) -- with a poorly written villain, weaker origin and subpar editing.

 

[spider-neil]

Garfield's Spidey such as he's written and performed in this film doesn't have that quality at all. He's too cool. It isn't believable at all that this guy can't get girls and isn't popular. He isn't a nerd/geek.

Betty, Gwen, MJ, Felicia were all into Peter because he was smart...

 

[spider-neil]

Yes.

TASM, to me, was a mixture of Batman Begins and Spiderman (2002) -- with a poorly written villain, weaker origin and subpar editing.

I thought the villian in BB was completely rubbish, I don't think I've ever been so uninterested in the climax fight between the hero and villian.
Good mentor, rubbish villian.

As for the origin, I much prefer the way it is presented in this movie. SM1 the origin is closer to the comics but in this movie I was more engaged while watching Peter become the hero. Each to their own.

 

[Dragon]

Betty, Gwen, MJ, Felicia were all into Peter because he was smart...

That's too much of a generalization. In fact each of those girls were into him for different reasons. Betty liked his personality and rarely was concerned about his brains. But she was ultimately turned off by his always taking risks. Gwen liked his overall persona. His smarts, his heart, his sense of humor. MJ needed his strength. And Felicia hated Peter Parker. She was into Spider-Man.

 

[spider-neil]

That's too much of a generalization. In fact each of those girls were into him for different reasons. Betty liked his personality and rarely was concerned about his brains. But she was ultimately turned off by his always taking risks. Gwen liked his overall persona. His smarts, his heart, his sense of humor. MJ needed his strength. And Felicia hated Peter Parker. She was into Spider-Man.

I was being sarcastic. I'm sure none of those girls would have been interested in Peter if he looked like a foot and was socially inept.

 

[Dragon]

I was being sarcastic. I'm sure none of those girls would have been interested in Peter if he looked like a foot and was socially inept.

But then, Ditko's Peter wasn't supposed to be handsome, yet both Betty and Gwen were interested in him. And Felicia (As ridiculous as it seems) didn't want him to unmask. Add into that Liz Allen, who developed a crush on Peter during the Ditko era.

 

[Picard Sisko]

This movie was a big disappointment.

Here's what they got right:

This Peter talked a bit more nerdy.
The web shooters
Gwen Stacy
Peter started out catching small time bad guys and leaving them for the police (This was really only done half right)
I do like the ominous feel of Oscorp Tower, even knowing what's coming
The spider's origin makes good sense of the web formula for the shooters, but not for the origin of his powers

Okay, I do agree with this part.

What they got wrong:

Everything else lmao
Uncle Ben's death. Why change that? Just redo it a little better
No wrestling match
They butchered the origin. Raimi's was much better.
The Lizard should NOT have been in this one
Peter wasnt cocky in the beginning in the comics
He became a martial arts master from the spider bite apparently
Those 1st person sequences were stupid
Every one of the main characters knew his identity by the end of the movie
The city itself (the people) played almost no role in this film

-Uncle Ben's death was changed, but it wasn't enough for me to dislike the movie.
-There was no wrestling match, which disappointed me, but the movie didn't need it.
-They didn't "butcher" the origin, it was just different from Raimi's. Different does not mean "butcher."
-While I do think a smaller villain should have been chosen for this movie, I liked the Lizard a lot more the second time I watched this film. How much can you do with a guy who turns into a giant lizard monster? I supposed they could have done a story with Kraven, but even still.
-What was wrong with the 1st person sequences? I wanted more if anything.
-The only people who knew his secret identity in the movie were Gwen Stacey, Captain Stacey, and Dr. Connors. Captain Stacey is dead, and Dr. Connors is behind bars in an asylum. So really Gwen is the only one who knows. I don't remember Aunt May finding out he is Spider-Man.
-Did you really just say that the city had no role in the film? Um.. crane scene anyone?

It seemed as though they were willing to butcher the story just so they wouldnt have to repeat any of the things Raimi got so very right in his SM1. I wouldnt have cared to see some of the same things redone, because they are true to the story. I honestly hope they dont make a part 2. Give it 15 years or so and try again, but if they're going to redo the origin, at least be true to the story. There's a reason why Spidey is so popular.

Seriously? This movie makes me want a sequel so bad. FYI there are going to be at least two more movies in this series btw. And why 15 years for another movie? As long as Sony has the film rights for Spider-Man, they will be making more movies, otherwise Marvel Studios will be using the character for their films obviously. It is Spider-Man!

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I know it's been said but the only emptiness came from it being over and wanting a sequel at tat very moment. Seen it 3x and still love it. Didn't mind they left out the stuff that some feel should've been there because I understand why and it didn't dampen my movie experience.

 

[AF3619]

I know it's been said but the only emptiness came from it being over and wanting a sequel at tat very moment. Seen it 3x and still love it. Didn't mind they left out the stuff that some feel should've been there because I understand why and it didn't dampen my movie experience.

this

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

this

but to clarify, and thanks for the thumbs up lol, I'm not saying I begrudge anyone who is bothered by no JJJ, no Harry, no wrestling or any other issue. I don't agree with you but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. Stuff like that has never bugged me as long as it makes sense as to why something is included or not included. The last thing I'd hate for any filmmaker to do is to shove something in a movie just because they want to be a slave to what happened in the comics or the book. If it doesn't make sense for your story then leave it out and see if it makes sense the next time out. Don't pander to me cause I hate that and it insults my intelligence. Same reason I wasn't upset there was no Q or Moneypenny in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. It didn't make sense for the story they were trying to tell