The Amazing Spider-Man Marc Webb to return? - Part 1

[Troy_Parker]

I think it's definitely coming back. Connors mentioned that nobody survived the cross-species thing... or something else severe, like what happened to Connors.

I'll welcome a little twist like Richard did something to Peter to protect him, the powers were a side effect, or even Richard used his own DNA in the cross-species stuff. The only way I'd hate it if Richard used his son as a guinea pig for Oscorp or something, which is unlikely.

It's still a freak accident if you think about it. I can see why some might not like it because it's not the "classic" origin, but I'm always up for seeing a different spin on things.

 

[AF3619]

I think it's been dropped, because everything that hinted toward Peter's tampered DNA, was cut. I think it'd be stupid to cut it from the Origin Movie, only to introduce it later again. It's gone now and won't be coming back. Not that I'm disappointed by it. Just wish they would have stuck with the classic origin in the first place. Just a freak accident.

jaja true , but that didn´t make test audiences, i still think RIM saw the unedited origin and that why he hated it /disliked it

 

[Troy_Parker]

He didn't. He mentioned that the movie was missing scenes and lines we saw in trailers.

 

[Nathan]

They even changed how Peter gave Connor's the formula. From working in his office, with a giant chalkboard full of scientific shenanigans, to a quick write down on a napkin. Dr. Raja is never heard from again after the Bridge incident and an exchange of dialogue between Connor's and Peter in the sewers is gone too. There are just some pretty important moments missing.

Just because they left a line of how no one else survived this, I don't think it'll be coming back. You can just view it as Peter being lucky. Like he had a 1 in a million chance to survive this. Just like Peter in the comics could have just as well died from Radiation poisoning, but instead got Super powers.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I think you're linking two different things together. One's an alternate take of the same thing... and one's a scene that's been removed entirely and doesn't show up in any form in the movie.

I still think it's coming back. ESPECIALLY if Peter's father was involved in Peter's development of powers. Considering the last bit in the movie is about "The truth" about Peter's father.

And the lair scene, the one with Ratha, Connors and Peter is the big scene that everyone has their panties in a knot over because that was the scene where Ratha said "Do you think what happened to you, Peter, was an accident?" to Peter... it was also the scene where Ratha was killed by the Lizard.

 

[Micromind]

And the lair scene, the one with Ratha, Connors and Peter is the big scene that everyone has their panties in a knot over because that was the scene where Ratha said "Do you think what happened to you, Peter, was an accident?" to Peter... it was also the scene where Ratha was killed by the Lizard.

I think that they cut that scene so that Dr. Ratha could make an appearance in the sequel, that would also mean that they will be references to his father's research on Arachnid DNA and how Peter got his powers.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I think that they cut that scene so that Dr. Ratha could make an appearance in the sequel, that would also mean that they will be references to his father's research on Arachnid DNA and how Peter got his powers.

This is what I think too. lol

 

[Nathan]

You don't really need Ratha for that though. Especially with they way the Movie ended, Ratha is shown to be not the only one to know about his Father's work. If they really wanted to go down that route, why would they get rid of all hints except for a single line that can be interpreted differently?

 

[Troy_Parker]

What? We're not saying that scene's going to show up again. We're saying that scene was removed because it delved into something that was going to be explained anyways in a sequel.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I'm interested in the supposed "changed" origin. Just because everything wasn't answered in movie 1, why do you all think it's been dropped? Have we forgotten there's 2 more movies on the way?

Because thats not how writing works. You see they built up to that moment in the lab where connors ratha and peter have a confrontation and peter is bombarded by confusion from the two scientists about who he is. It's not necessarily a complete reveal, but it's the scene where the parents arc makes headway, maybe hinting more is be told in the sequels. There is a reason they cut the scene out, and most likely its because Sony saw people weren't exactly happy with the subplot and they decided to just remove it entirely rather than risk the fan-base.

Most likely they hired new writers because the writers because they needed someone to reimagine the direction the trilogy could go in.

If the movie was written like say, Batman forever, then I could buy that the writers were just "saving it for the sequels", but given that the dialogue and everything leading up to the plot holes was great I'm positive this is not the case.

To better explain what I mean, a lot of people have pointed to Star Wars as an example of a movie not resolving everything, with Lukes Jedi arc. Well through the movie Luke finds out his father was a Jedi, fought in Wars, and was hero. He also learns to use the force and let go of his need to cling to technology by the end of the movie. No it wasn't resolved, but it made some headway. Peter in this movie finds out his Dad was friends with a future Crazy Lizard man, everything else he already knew at the beginning of the film, the subplot made NO progress. Anyway, my overly long response is basically just trying to say that they didn't just decide to save the story for sequels.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I think that they cut that scene so that Dr. Ratha could make an appearance in the sequel, that would also mean that they will be references to his father's research on Arachnid DNA and how Peter got his powers.

Personally I think it was just going to be hinted at and Peter was going to be given the choice to pursue he is original goal of learning the secrets of his parents or going after the Lizard and being the hero Captain Stacy and Uncle Ben have inspired him to be. Then it would be explained more in the sequels. I think the studio just decided screw it, this subplot is doing us more harm than good and we need to not have the fans speculating what this could mean if we're not brining it back. The parents will still be a part of the franchize I'm sure, but not the new origin.

 

[Micromind]

But, after taking into account what was shown in the movie, the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents, the briefcase they were hiding (from whom ? and why ?)

Plus the fact that Dr. Conners is not surprised that Peter has the formula and the fact that he suddenly becomes Spider-Man, that too without showing signs of unstable DNA, something that Dr. Conners was not able to replicate, as he could transform into Lizard only for a short duration of time before his genes decayed into their more natural human state.

There was certainly more going on that what was shown.

 

[spidergeek232]

I am definately on the boat that Troy_Parker and Bruce_Begins are on. Your guys' thoughts and theories are just like mine. It will be explained in the sequels!

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Yeah. I thought it was the best Spider-Man movie to date though.

There's exaggerations being made about this movie from both sides.

I liked TASM, but I don't think it was groundbreaking either. It was my favourite Spider-Man movie though... and now that the origin stuff has been done, I've got a feeling that Webb can really tap into something great and blow everyone away.

I agree that ASM was nothing really groundbreaking but it now ranks as my second favorite Spidey film behind SM2. There were some flaws with ASM but at the same time it had some very nice positives.

Webb is a great pick because I'm sure he'll continue with the grounded approach to his characters, relationships and their stories. I'm eagerly looking forward to see where they go and how they get there. Webb has a ton of potential for this next movie and here's hoping that he is able to take full advantage. Most importantly though let's also hope that the execs above him at Sony are with him and on the same page.

But, after taking into account what was shown in the movie, the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents, the briefcase they were hiding (from whom ? and why ?)

Plus the fact that Dr. Conners is not surprised that Peter has the formula and the fact that he suddenly becomes Spider-Man, that too without showing signs of unstable DNA, something that Dr. Conners was not able to replicate, as he could transform into Lizard only for a short duration of time before his genes decayed into their more natural human state.

There was certainly more going on that what was shown.

Yeah...this.

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

Sorry I'm late to the party but this is the best news I've heard all month.

Yeah. I'm happy they're all coming back.

 

[socool]

Did anyone notice that Sony's official press release states that Jeff Pinker is now working on the script as well? Jeff Pinker was one of the writers on LOST and Fringe. That makes me really excited. I love both of those shows.

 

[©KAW]

"The Buffy director" isn't derogatory given that Buffy is one of the most successful and critically recieved tv series of all time. I never said Avengers was on the quality level of Dark Knight, however they're both two very different films. They're like Apples and Oranges, they're both very different tasting and in composition but both are fruits none the less. I'm not going to derail this topic again with your attempts at convincing us that a universally acclaimed movie is just michael bay.

Buffy is a campy and cheesy TV show, being popular doesn't change that. And they (TDK/TA) are two very different fruits, but one is rotten to the core, because the director doesn't know how to direct his actors, making them empty vessels on screen, played for nothing but jokes for the next action scene. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone no more than I could when I said Spider-Man 2 is mediocre, and it is. When the two stars of the movie are the weak link and focus point of the trilogy, everything else falls apart. Some people like hammy ass acting and an arch enemy who recites nursery rhymes, I don't.

Being said, I love Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, they both summarize the themes and tones that Spider-Man has at it's core, but thats not the only way to go about making a superhero film. It's obvious the studio saw what Marvel did with Iron Man, making grounded serious Batman Beginsesc superhero movie, while maintaining a light hearted tone, and said "hey we could totally do that with Spider-Man". They hired an up coming director who can handle the charming average joe that Peter Parker should be, listened to the fans (webshooters, when Gwen, the Lizard), and pulled together a talented cast. They then however went on to edit the movie poorly and cut out possibly pivotal scenes, which is a bad move.

Spider-Man is more connected to Spider-Man 3 than SM2, it's where his true origin lies. I don't think that the core of Spider-Man is to let anyone fall to their death right in front of him, with full powers intact and do nothing, or to find and let his Uncle Ben's killer go free.

Dear Lord, no one took anything from Iron Man, a movie where the lead actor (RDJ) is playing himself. Like Jack Nicholson as The Joker, basically playing Jack Nicholson. He's a Man-Child, watch the movie BIG. There was nothing serious or meaningful in any of those IM films, he's a character played for sh--s and giggles, that unfortunately spilled over into The Avengers. I'd take ASM (edits and all) and X-Men: FC over IronMan and The Avengers any freakin' day, and I don't mind being in the minority.

Anno and I aren't "Raimians", we simply just see that the movies is a bit forgettable and flawed, and not better than Spider-Man 1 or 2. There are plenty of great things about the movie, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a bad movie either. It just isn't quite what it should have been.

Well, I am going as far to say that all three Spider-Man films were mediocre, and when I even try to view them today, they are pretty bad, I ain't pulling punches. Flawed is having Peter Parker believe in the With Great Power motif...and then let his Uncle Ben's killer go free. That's cutting off the core of the character. Spider-Man now believes that by law, you should let bank robbers and murders go free. Hmm...why is he a hero again?

To that end, this why I'm happy that Marc Webb is returning (and love that Raimians hate him). I despise how Marvel treats their core characters, and feel that Marvel themselves are their worst enemy (fanboys included). Sure, they know how to make a lot of money off of their classic characters on film, but unfortunately, that's about it.

 

[Anno_Domini]

^ The New Michael Bay is at it again.

 

[Sawyer]

Love seeing that Jeff Pinkner is involved on the writing side. He used to be showrunner on one of my favorite series on the air today.

 

[LegendAssemble]

But, after taking into account what was shown in the movie, the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents, the briefcase they were hiding (from whom ? and why ?)

Plus the fact that Dr. Conners is not surprised that Peter has the formula and the fact that he suddenly becomes Spider-Man, that too without showing signs of unstable DNA, something that Dr. Conners was not able to replicate, as he could transform into Lizard only for a short duration of time before his genes decayed into their more natural human state.

There was certainly more going on that what was shown.

yeah it asks questions, but it doesn't do anything with them. Look I know the movie isn't bad, but Sony didn't cut the scene for the hell of it. They don't want to deal with the changed origin. Connors was actually, as it seemed to me, very take a back when Peter popped out the formula, the whole "my god? where did you get this!?" "You should come by the lab some time!" didn't sound not surprised.

With what the movie presents us with, not taking into account any knowledge of production or the marketing, is Peter got bit by a Spider and his father knows something about cross species genetics Connors is working on. It doesn't indicate Peter is by any means remarkable. "Did you tell the boy the truth about his father?" could mean anything.

His parents are coming back, but it's not like they don't have 50 years of comic history to draw upon for inspiration or even have the sequel planned out. The theories that they cut the scene either to A. save it for a sequel or B. because a sequel addresses it, are just not practical at all. If they cut it, it's cut, they even cut the writers, maybe to re-imagine the story?

EDIT: And since the movie never states Peter is a cross species, the line about no one surviving without horrible side effects, could be taken more as foreshadowing of Connors fate. We know what was supposed to be there so it's harder to look at it this way, but they took a great deal of effort to remove the origin.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Buffy is a campy and cheesy TV show, being popular doesn't change that. And they (TDK/TA) are two very different fruits, but one is rotten to the core, because the director doesn't know how to direct his actors, making them empty vessels on screen, played for nothing but jokes for the next action scene. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone no more than I could when I said Spider-Man 2 is mediocre, and it is. When the two stars of the movie are the weak link and focus point of the trilogy, everything else falls apart. Some people like hammy ass acting and an arch enemy who recites nursery rhymes, I don't.

Spider-Man is more connected to Spider-Man 3 than SM2, it's where his true origin lies. I don't think that the core of Spider-Man is to let anyone fall to their death right in front of him, with full powers intact and do nothing, or to find and let his Uncle Ben's killer go free.

Dear Lord, no one took anything from Iron Man, a movie where the lead actor (RDJ) is playing himself. Like Jack Nicholson as The Joker, basically playing Jack Nicholson. He's a Man-Child, watch the movie BIG. There was nothing serious or meaningful in any of those IM films, he's a character played for sh--s and giggles, that unfortunately spilled over into The Avengers. I'd take ASM (edits and all) and X-Men: FC over IronMan and The Avengers any freakin' day, and I don't mind being in the minority.

Well, I am going as far to say that all three Spider-Man films were mediocre, and when I even try to view them today, they are pretty bad, I ain't pulling punches. Flawed is having Peter Parker believe in the With Great Power motif...and then let his Uncle Ben's killer go free. That's cutting off the core of the character. Spider-Man now believes that by law, you should let bank robbers and murders go free. Hmm...why is he a hero again?

To that end, this why I'm happy that Marc Webb is returning (and love that Raimians hate him). I despise how Marvel treats their core characters, and feel that Marvel themselves are their worst enemy (fanboys included). Sure, they know how to make a lot of money off of their classic characters on film, but unfortunately, that's about it.

There are so many things thats are wrong here, i don't think this even merits a response from anyone.

Edit: however i can't not address the RDJ comment. he's playing himself because he's basically got the same personality as Tony Stark. They guy was a rich drug addict trying to rebuild his life. He woke up in some random dudes house in the mid 90s after a cocaine binge! In IM2, he regressed a bit as a character but in IM he makes profound changes and growth. The cave has so much meaning to it, it's basically symbolizing Hell and teaches him what really matters in life. At the end of the sequence when he finds out the doctor plan to see his family again was to join them in death, was moving. Up till this point we've seen him as womanizer a drinker and a horrible careless person. You really see the look on his face where he realizes how much of an awful person he's been up till now and how despite all his money, fame, and women, when it comes to what really matters this poor 3rd world doctor is infinitely more wealthy.

Say what you want, but that movie was not bad.

 

[SpiderMarvelite]

Webb is back.

No words.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Because thats not how writing works. You see they built up to that moment in the lab where connors ratha and peter have a confrontation and peter is bombarded by confusion from the two scientists about who he is. It's not necessarily a complete reveal, but it's the scene where the parents arc makes headway, maybe hinting more is be told in the sequels. There is a reason they cut the scene out, and most likely its because Sony saw people weren't exactly happy with the subplot and they decided to just remove it entirely rather than risk the fan-base.

Most likely they hired new writers because the writers because they needed someone to reimagine the direction the trilogy could go in.

If the movie was written like say, Batman forever, then I could buy that the writers were just "saving it for the sequels", but given that the dialogue and everything leading up to the plot holes was great I'm positive this is not the case.

To better explain what I mean, a lot of people have pointed to Star Wars as an example of a movie not resolving everything, with Lukes Jedi arc. Well through the movie Luke finds out his father was a Jedi, fought in Wars, and was hero. He also learns to use the force and let go of his need to cling to technology by the end of the movie. No it wasn't resolved, but it made some headway. Peter in this movie finds out his Dad was friends with a future Crazy Lizard man, everything else he already knew at the beginning of the film, the subplot made NO progress. Anyway, my overly long response is basically just trying to say that they didn't just decide to save the story for sequels.

If the makers listened to whiny fans on the Internet, Spidey's shoes would have been removed... and the rest of his costume would have probably been different too.

See what I'm saying?

It's fine you don't think it's coming back, but I think this is something that's going to be pursued in sequels, especially if Richard is involved.

 

[LegendAssemble]

If the makers listened to whiny fans on the Internet, Spidey's shoes would have been removed... and the rest of his costume would have probably been different too.

See what I'm saying?

It's fine you don't think it's coming back, but I think this is something that's going to be pursued in sequels, especially if Richard is involved.

We got pictures of the costume after production and filming was well underway. Those costumes cost about 100K to make each. I get what you're saying, however it's much more practical to edit something out of a movie than to change the costume in the middle of filming.

EDIT: It all depends though, as I've said, they have ideas of what they might want to do in the future films. But it's not like 3 is even written yet or 2 is finalized.

 

[Troy_Parker]

The effects for the lair scene were completed too, that's also money down the drain.

Wonder how Irfan Khan feels about having the one scene where he has somewhat of an important role being cut.