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

[Nathan]

By that logic, I guess he should've saved the Goblin too, right? If Peter can't save someone he can't. That has nothing to do with responsibility, especially if the person created their own fate as did the thief and the Goblin.

Ah, but he could have saved the thug. There's a difference between jumping out of the way of incoming danger and watching a guy stumble backwards and fall out a window. I mean, he has the time and reflexes to break the guy's wrist, but not hold him or shoot a quick web as he stumbles? Peter displayed Batman's "I don't have to save you." attitude right there.

 

[©KAW]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

But I think Spider-Man not saving the thug was worst, because it was a fair fight between Batman and Ras. Peter has superhuman speed and agility and was the sole cause of that man's death. Beating the living hell out of him (which I approve of), but not saving him (which I don't approve of) causing him to stumble and fall.

What makes the origin of Spider-Man great is, that he's able to stop himself from going overboard on Ben's killer and stopping himself from killing him. That's where Raimi completely destroyed the "With Great Power..." motif. Kick his ass, but don't allow him to die from the beat-down.

 

[El Payaso]

By that logic, I guess he should've saved the Goblin too, right? If Peter can't save someone he can't. That has nothing to do with responsibility, especially if the person created their own fate as did the thief and the Goblin.

Except Peter could have saved the thug. He had already learnt to use the spider-web, and I bet if it was Uncle Ben or MJ the one falling through that window he would have saved him.

 

[Jexx]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

But I think Spider-Man not saving the thug was worst, because it was a fair fight between Batman and Ras. Peter has superhuman speed and agility and was the sole cause of that man's death. Beating the living hell out of him (which I approve of), but not saving him (which I don't approve of) causing him to stumble and fall.

What makes the origin of Spider-Man great is, that he's able to stop himself from going overboard on Ben's killer and killing him. That's where Raimi completely destroyed the "With Great Power..." motif. Kick his ass, but don't allow him to die from the fight.

Because it's what the audience would of wanted.

Why do you think that all of the real villains in the Raimi movies all died?

 

[Mace Dolex]

ASM, could have done without the origin aspects. Because at the end of the day, his reasons for becoming the hero were exactly the same. I didn't feel like I learned anything new about Peter Parker by watching pretty much the exact same stuff lead up to his 'epiphany' about what it means to be a hero.

This quote is actually from the Man Of Steel thread but I wholeheartedly agree on this one, I'm fine with re-starting the franchise but we didn't need to see the origin retold again with little to nothing new. The audience doesn't care who Peter Parker's parents were or what they did we just want to jump right into the action.

My sister who isn't a comic book reader but has seen Raimi's trilogy and liked them the same didn't feel anything new about ASM.

 

[Jexx]

I felt like the origin was needed to be redone to re-establish relationships and what they were like in the new film.

 

[©KAW]

This quote is actually from the Man Of Steel thread but I wholeheartedly agree on this one, I'm fine with re-starting the franchise but we didn't need to see the origin retold again with little to nothing new. The audience doesn't care who Peter Parker's parents were or what they did we just want to jump right into the action.

My sister who isn't a comic book reader but has seen Raimi's trilogy and liked them the same didn't feel anything new about ASM.

It's a reboot. Tell that hussy to wait for the sequel.

 

[Gwendolyn Stacy]

Ah, but he could have saved the thug. There's a difference between jumping out of the way of incoming danger and watching a guy stumble backwards and fall out a window. I mean, he has the time and reflexes to break the guy's wrist, but not hold him or shoot a quick web as he stumbles? Peter displayed Batman's "I don't have to save you." attitude right there.

I always thought the thug got away. I didn't know he died.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I have no desire to see it again in theaters... if I do purchase it for home viewing, I doubt I'll watch it more than once. It's just not engaging enough for me to sit through again.

Especially the first hour where you're getting a sense of deja vu and you just want Spider-Man to show up already!!

The characters were good and seeing Spidey battle the Lizard on screen was fine, but by doing the origin again the whole movie feels "been there, done that" and that gives it the vibe of being stale. The second half is als overy awkwardly edited and paced, giving an uneven feeling.

I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling the same way too and I don't hate the movie I just feel it could've been a lot better.

 

[Jexx]

well.. he fell out of window..

 

[El Payaso]

I learnt that Peter was lonesome not because all nerds must be but because he's afraid of making affective bonds wioth people due to what happened with his parents.

 

[Jexx]

Especially the first hour where you're getting a sense of deja vu and you just want Spider-Man to show up already!!


I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling the same way too and I don't hate the movie I just feel it could've been a lot better.

Are you just gonna quote people repeating that you don't like the fact that it repeated the Origin?

I actually wanted Peter to be around longer :/

 

[Sony23]

In your humble opinion. The Uncle Ben death, The bridge rescue has lost of heart and emotion, so if you say the movie was soulless to you that's your opinion but it's not a statement of fact.

Umm...if someone says it's soulless to them wouldn't it therefore make it their opinion!? Did you miss the question asked in the title of this thread? I was simply answering it. The question itself asks one's own personal reaction to the film, it isn't asking for "statement of fact"...but then neither would yours or anyone else who likes the film be either.


My statement of "soulless" isn't eluding to specific scenes in this film, (though I prefer Raimi's handling of Uncle Ben's death and his portrayal theme of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility). I was questioning the NEED to tell this story again. Unlike SM1 where it was made because all those involved were interested in bringing Spider-Man's story to the big screen, this film was only made only because it HAD to be. No one is questioning the studio's wanting to make money it was the circumstances as to why this film exists.That's what makes it "soulless". Webb only seemed to make this movie because he was hired NOT because he was inspired to make a Spider-Man film. I think it would've benefited ASM if they had just made a standalone film instead.

Was this a bad film? No by any means. I just prefer the Raimi films. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[spider-neil]

Umm...if someone says it's soulless to them wouldn't it therefore make it their opinion!? Did you miss the question asked in the title of this thread? I was simply answering it. The question itself asks one's own personal reaction to the film, it isn't asking for "statement of fact"...but then neither would yours or anyone else who likes the film be either.


My statement of "soulless" isn't eluding to specific scenes in this film, (though I prefer Raimi's handling of Uncle Ben's death and his portrayal theme of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility). I was questioning the NEED to tell this story again. Unlike SM1 where it was made because all those involved were interested in bringing Spider-Man's story to the big screen, this film was only made only because it HAD to be. No one is questioning the studio's wanting to make money it was the circumstances as to why this film exists.That's what makes it "soulless". Webb only seemed to make this movie because he was hired NOT because he was inspired to make a Spider-Man film. I think it would've benefited ASM if they had just made a standalone film instead.

Was this a bad film? No by any means. I just prefer the Raimi films. Sorry if that offends you.

You're right, my saying Webb's movie has heart is and opinion just as you saying it didn't is another opinion.

 

[Dragon]

Ah, but he could have saved the thug. There's a difference between jumping out of the way of incoming danger and watching a guy stumble backwards and fall out a window. I mean, he has the time and reflexes to break the guy's wrist, but not hold him or shoot a quick web as he stumbles? Peter displayed Batman's "I don't have to save you." attitude right there.

Exactly. He didn't need to save a murderer. Points to Raimi.

 

[©KAW]

What, he's not The Punisher, he's Spider-Man?

Points taken away from Raimi.

 

[Dragon]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

But I think Spider-Man not saving the thug was worst, because it was a fair fight between Batman and Ras. Peter has superhuman speed and agility and was the sole cause of that man's death. Beating the living hell out of him (which I approve of), but not saving him (which I don't approve of) causing him to stumble and fall.

What makes the origin of Spider-Man great is, that he's able to stop himself from going overboard on Ben's killer and stopping himself from killing him. That's where Raimi completely destroyed the "With Great Power..." motif. Kick his ass, but don't allow him to die from the beat-down.

Peter didn't go overboard. He didn't kill the man. Because you see it as Peter's fault doesn't make it so. Peter defended himself and the idiot fell to his death. "Great power..." means that you use that power for the greater good. Saving a murderer does nothing for the greater good.

 

[Dragon]

What, he's not The Punisher, he's Spider-Man?

Points taken away from Raimi.

Right. He's not the Punisher- who would've executed the burglar. Peter didn't.

 

[El Payaso]

Exactly. He didn't need to save a murderer. Points to Raimi.

Becvause "it was the right thing to do." Something Spider-man himself knows (and says in SM1) he must do.

Peter didn't go overboard. He didn't kill the man. Because you see it as Peter's fault doesn't make it so. Peter defended himself and the idiot fell to his death. "Great power..." means that you use that power for the greater good. Saving a murderer does nothing for the greater good.

Yes it does, according to Peter Parker. If the thug hadn't been afraid of Peter then he wouldn't have fell. It was Peter's responsibility to have saved him.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's a reboot. Tell that hussy to wait for the sequel.

Teehee!!

 

[©KAW]

Peter didn't go overboard. He didn't kill the man. Because you see it as Peter's fault doesn't make it so. Peter defended himself and the idiot fell to his death. "Great power..." means that you use that power for the greater good. Saving a murderer does nothing for the greater good.

I see it as what was presented on film. He beats the hell out of him, the man stumbled and fell out the window (as Spidey watched and did nothing) as a direct result to what Spider-Man did to him. It's why Stan Lee allowed for Peter to NOT use his powers to go overboard, but hand him over to the police ALIVE instead. That man didn't have a chance in hell against Spider-Man even with a gun, the situation of what's to happen lie in Spider-Man's hands. "With Great Power..." in this situation means, you do the right thing (especially when you're MORE powerful than your opponent) by not allowing yourself to become a person who no longer cares for someone else's LIFE.

Spider-Man failed Uncle Ben. Sam Raimi failed Spider-Man. Translation: Reboot it, start over and try again.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Even Raimi himself must have felt icky about the whole thing, as he decided to revisit the scene for SM3 when Peter is talking to MJ about it and she goes "I'm not accusing you of anything...!"

 

[Dragon]

Becvause "it was the right thing to do." Something Spider-man himself knows (and says in SM1) he must do.

Who says it was the right thing to do? He didn't say he had to save the lives of murderers in SM1.

Yes it does, according to Peter Parker. If the thug hadn't been afraid of Peter then he wouldn't have fell. It was Peter's responsibility to have saved him.

Hilarious. If the thug weren't a thug he'd have had nothing to fear from Peter. You guys are just looking for things to gripe about in Raimi's films while applauding every screw-up in Webb's. It's okay that Webb blew the entire sequence, but Raimi simply increasing the drama is a problem.

 

[Nathan]

Spider-Man does not kill or let people fall to their death, when he's able to stop it. Simple as that. And I always had my gripes about Raimi's Films, I'm not starting just now with it.

 

[El Payaso]

Spider-Man does not kill or let people fall to their death, when he's able to stop it. Simple as that. And I always had my gripes about Raimi's Films, I'm not starting just now with it.

Dragon knows that, believe me.