The Amazing Spider-Man Is anyone else mad at sony?!

[Frodo]

I agree with you in saying that they aren't always cut for cut's sake, sometimes your bosses interfere. However, I've just never been one to believe rumors..old journalism habit. Unless I know for certain, without a shadow of a doubt that those scenes were cut because he was told to cut them, I'm taking the man at his word. But again, to each his own t:

I can see where you're coming from as far as rumors go. I do think I would have enjoyed the film more if they hadn't cut all those scenes , alot of which looked really good. All in all, I suspect Sony went into this project with alot of fear that it would be recieved badly like SM3 was , so they may have been a bit too cautious in several aspects of the production.

I can't really blame them given that Webb was unproven in terms of a film of this scale , but given the performances ,and the overall result of the flick ,I think Sony can rest a bit easier now . On the bright side, Im betting that they'll give Webb and the new writers a bit more creative freedom to craft the story they want to tell, because it looks like this film has made up for the mess that was Spiderman 3.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I can see where you're coming from as far as rumors go. I do think I would have enjoyed the film more if they hadn't cut all those scenes , alot of which looked really good. All in all, I suspect Sony went into this project with alot of fear that it would be recieved badly like SM3 was , so they may have been a bit too cautious in several aspects of the production.

I can't really blame them given that Webb was unproven in terms of a film of this scale , but given the performances ,and the overall result of the flick ,I think Sony can rest a bit easier now . On the bright side, Im betting that they'll give Webb and the new writers a bit more creative freedom to craft the story they want to tell, because it looks like this film has made up for the mess that was Spiderman 3.

Word. The thing about something like this and I know most people overlook this, but Webb has always said Marvel has certain things you have to stick to with spider-man so it's not always Sony that is making the call. He said there are things in the movie that Marvel told him had to be in there because they want to protect their character, and they have every right to do so.

 

[The Sage]

Two pages into this topic and people are already throwing flames at each other. Guys, I'm sure you can a civil discussion and keep it level. Please aim to do so.

 

[cobrastatus]

When Webb says Marvel, he means Avi

 

[Spider-Dude23]

Avi needs to just retire -.-

 

[cryptic name]

Im actually so mad at Sony right now. I cant believe they cut out so many scenes in this movie. For so long they kept saying that this was "the untold story" what ****ing untold story?! The untold story was supposed to be about peters parents and the new origin(probably how the spider activated peters powers) but they cut all of this out. They hired Marc Webb to do his own thing and when he did, they pissed all over it just like what they did with sm3. But they're lucky this movie is still AMAZING. but I'm still mad at the fact they cut all this out. Such as more scenes with dr ratha, etc. Ah well. I do really feed bad for marc. I really hope he comes back for TASM2.

What do you guys think? Are you not bothered by what Sony did? Do you feel bad for Marc? Do you wish they let him have full control over this film?

I wish they had let Webb do his thing uninterrupted, but it's hard for me to feel angry when I feel like I've seen the best depiction of Spidey in any medium outside the comics.

 

[bosef982]

The Untold Story is clearly about Richard Parker's work in genetics.

Which was not touched on AT ALL in the previous franchise, and is here.

The work on genetics was clearly seen in the film and clearly impacted both Peter and the storyline.

What's the issue here again?

I dont' buy that you are so incredibly obtuse to not see that the Parker gene storyline was completely abandoned mid-way through, and whole scenes excised that the trailers and promotional materials promised would be explored.

 

[bosef982]

Also this. Marc Webb has said over and over again that he didn't intend for the story to be wrapped up in one movie. He wanted it to be the overcast over a course of movies. Now of course whether you agree with that approach or not is a different argument

If he didn't intend, then why did he film close to 20 minutes of very critical, non-filler scenes only to then cut it less than a month from release....

Please...

 

[Spider-Dude23]

I wish they had let Webb do his thing uninterrupted, but it's hard for me to feel angry when I feel like I've seen the best depiction of Spidey in any medium outside the comics.

I feel the exact same way man! Best spidey movie yet.

 

[GuestStar2004]

if the rumour about peters dad having a bigger role in his origin is or had been true people would have been hating on it

its really was a no win situation

 

[Harley2004]

Thankfully Sony had this and not Marvel/Disney. If they had it there would obviously be an Avengers aspect. Meaining Nick Fury would just show up or somebody from SHIELD, and completely take you out the story. The style and depth that Marc Webb brought to this, you have not seen in any marvel studio movie, except Iron man 1, imo. The only thing I did not like was the Lizard, they just went too far.

What Dr Ratha scenes were cut? Consdiering the scenes he was in thats a good thing. This movie was at its best when it was with Peter/Spiderman.

 

[DigificWriter]

All this fake outrage is making me seriously question the sanity of some fans. The Amazing Spider-Man is a dang fine film as-is; the major things that were cut * would * make the story flow better, but they wouldn't make a noticable difference in terms of the overall quality of the film.

 

[forgot10]

This is getting seriously tiring, the other 100 threads on this topic weren't sufficient?

 

[The Guard]

I dont' buy that you are so incredibly obtuse to not see that the Parker gene storyline was completely abandoned mid-way through, and whole scenes excised that the trailers and promotional materials promised would be explored.

It was tied into the larger storyline. It wasn't abandoned so much as Peter's investigations led him to something else. And it may well have been cut or edited. But pretending that this movie didn't present an Untold Story is silly.

 

[Picard Sisko]

There was indeed an untold story here, but there was also another plot that was clearly just thrown out the window. I don't think its an "Ang Lee Hulk" origin, but something else and I just can't put my finger on it.

 

[DigificWriter]

It was tied into the larger storyline. It wasn't abandoned so much as Peter's investigations led him to something else. And it may well have been cut or edited. But pretending that this movie didn't present an Untold Story is silly.

QFT.

I've said this elsewhere, but the material that was cut vis a vis Dr. Ratha, Connors, and what role Richard Parker and Connors' early experiments may or may not have had in Peter becoming Spider-Man would not have had any major impact on the overall quality of the film; that material would have made the story flow better, but it wouldn't have improved the film's overall quality to any noticable degree.

I also have to say that, although the issue of Peter's search for his uncle's killer was never resolved, it ultimately didn't need to be because the film clearly and more than adequately demonstrates a shift in Peter's focus and priorities, first through his argument with Captain Stacy at the Stacy family dinner table and the crisis on the bridge where he ends up saving the kid (Jack) who was trapped, something that Peter conveys pretty succintly in his conversation with Gwen after the Lizard/Connors scratches him up in the sewers.

 

[Frodo]

I think the issue here like anything else is in the eye of the beholder. If you liked the final product , you may be less convinced that the deleted scenes would have made the film stronger or made more sense, for, you. By the same token , if you feel the film was lacking because of theabsence of said things , then the film may have been better , for you.

There is no absolute , answer either way whether or not the deleted scenes would have made the film better for everyone because whether someone liked the film or not depends their own preference, and what they were satified with.

 

[Dragon]

I also have to say that, although the issue of Peter's search for his uncle's killer was never resolved, it ultimately didn't need to be because the film clearly and more than adequately demonstrates a shift in Peter's focus and priorities, first through his argument with Captain Stacy at the Stacy family dinner table and the crisis on the bridge where he ends up saving the kid (Jack) who was trapped, something that Peter conveys pretty succintly in his conversation with Gwen after the Lizard/Connors scratches him up in the sewers.

The search for Ben's killer absolutely needed to be resolved. Peter isn't just getting revenge for Uncle Ben's murder- he's doing what he's supposed to do- which is bringing a dangerous menace to justice, to prevent him from taking another life. Back in Amazing Fantasy #15, Spidey doesn't go for revenge- he doesn't kill the guy, only knocks him unconscious. And even in Raimi's film Peter doesn't kill him. The guy stumbles and falls accidentally to his death. So Webb wasn't saying anything new here, but he was leaving something important left unsaid.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well nobody said that Spider-Man is not going to continue looking for the killer in the next movie. Or perhaps he will run into him again and find that he is a henchman for Kingpin or some other powerful criminal.

 

[Radioactive]

Anyone care to educate me why Avi Arad is disliked so much?

 

[Dragon]

Well nobody said that Spider-Man is not going to continue looking for the killer in the next movie. Or perhaps he will run into him again and find that he is a henchman for Kingpin or some other powerful criminal.

It won't matter then. The point of the flow of events is that-

1. Peter arrogantly allows an evil-doer to escape.

2. Uncle Ben is killed. Peter doesn't know by whom.

3. Peter hunts the killer down assured that his vengeance is righteous.

4. Peter learns that the only reason this man was able to kill Uncle Ben is because of Peter's own arrogance. So his moment of triumph is taken from him by his own failure. This is why Peter can never allow a criminal to roam free if he can stop him.

The way Webb is handling it is merely a superficial attempt to make things seem different, when he totally ripped the sequence off from Raimi in the first place.

In TASM- Peter speaks of his sense of guilt over the Lizard- and why he has to stop him- when he isn't responsible for the Lizard at all (He had no way of knowing what the formula would do- but he did have a way of knowing what the robber would do-) but he never actually owns up to his part in Ben's death. Not to himself, not to Gwen and not to May as Tobey's Peter did.

 

[Picard Sisko]

More "deja vu?" Well be more specific, please point out the scenes that are "Ripping off" Raimi's movies.

 

[Dragon]

I'm going to list things that were unique to the Raimi films:

1. Peter in love with the class beauty.
2. The spider being part of a genetics experiment.
3. Peter discovering his powers after passing out.
4. Peter being victim of bullying.
5. Peter gets the great responsibility speech after a minor confrontation with Flash, even though Peter is in the right.
6. Ben's death.
7. The villain acts as mentor to Peter.
8. The film ends with a funeral.
9. The villain discovers Peter's identity and seeks "revenge" for betrayal.
10. Major confrontation on a bridge which involves saving a child/children.
11. The villain has to experiment on himself in order to preserve his life's work.
12. The villain shifts back and forth between normal self and villainous self (In the comics, both the Goblin and Lizard remain in those states until an outside event causes their return to normal).
13. Peter is shy (He isn't in the comics, cartoons or TV series).

I'm tired now, but I'll likely think of more.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'm going to list things that were unique to the Raimi films:

1. Peter in love with the class beauty.
2. The spider being part of a genetics experiment.
3. Peter discovering his powers after passing out.
4. Peter being victim of bullying.
5. Peter gets the great responsibility speech after a minor confrontation with Flash, even though Peter is in the right.
6. Ben's death.
7. The villain acts as mentor to Peter.
8. The film ends with a funeral.
9. The villain discovers Peter's identity and seeks "revenge" for betrayal.
10. Major confrontation on a bridge which involves saving a child/children.
11. The villain has to experiment on himself in order to preserve his life's work.
12. The villain shifts back and forth between normal self and villainous self (In the comics, both the Goblin and Lizard remain in those states until an outside event causes their return to normal).
13. Peter is shy (He isn't in the comics, cartoons or TV series).

I'm tired now, but I'll likely think of more.

1. So what if Peter was in love with the class beauty? They go to the same school, and is supposed to have a crush on her like he did in the comic books.

2. The spider was part of a genetics experiment, but in SM1, it was a "new species" spider that combined several other species into one. The spider in this movie is at Oscorp, and related to Peter's father and cross-species genetics.

3. Peter discovers his powers after passing out, but once again is different. In SM1, he goes home, passes out, and wakes up the next morning flexing his muscles. Here on the way home, he wakes up on the subway on the ceiling and quickly enters a small "battle."

4. Peter? A victim of bullying? WHOA! Sam Raimi came up with that one, didn't he?

5. Really, once again, I'm going to say who cares? Another nitpick. Yes, this is a similar plot point, but once again VERY different.

6. We discussed Ben's death already, and it is not EXACTLY the same as in SM1.

7. Didn't Connors act like a mentor to Peter in the comic books as well?

8. The film ends with a funeral because of the death of the Captain. Not because SM1 ended with one.

9. The villain does discover Peter's identity, but he didn't want to kill him for "betrayal," but because Spider-Man was getting in the way of his plans.

10. Yeah, there is a major confrontation on a bridge. There was also one in X-Men: The Last Stand. Same for many other movies. Once again, another nit pick.

11. Connors experiments on himself to save his "life's work" for different reasons. He wants to find this "cure" in order to get back his arm, and "change the lives of millions." Norman Osborn wanted to test the serum on himself to see if it worked in order to keep the funding for his company.

12. Now here I have a problem with him shifting from his normal self to his villainous self, but as I said many times, the Lizard is my biggest issue with the movie.

13. Peter is shy, but that is a big part of being a nerd or outcast. Also helps him become more relatable.

 

[Arun1910]

Okay so I am seeing TASM next wednesday (I KNOW I am sorry I cant wait either) and reading that they have left out some scenes is ridiculous. Not that leaving out scenes is bad, every movie does it, but why show them as clips and then not put them in the movie?