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

[TheForgotten]

Compared to (500) Days of Summer, The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't a great film from Webb.

Compared to Raimi's duology, The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't a great Spidey film.

Look everything up in comparing the films. How is that not fact?

500 Days of Summer was really good, and I really liked The Amazing Spider-Man. (Which is, IMO, on par with SM2.)

I thought ASM was better than SM1 and SM3.

That's your opinion, not a fact...

 

[©KAW]

The two lead actors in Raimi films were horrible. What did you all actually get from a doe-eyed Maguire drooling over an ugly ass Kirsten Dunst for three films? Sadly, everything revolved around Mary Jane, thanks to the horribly handled romance and the constant kidnapping of Peter's main squeeze.

 

[Lorus]

Avengers: THE END OF THE FIRST MCU phase! and the first modern hero team up!
TDKR:The conclusion of the highly acclaimed Nolan´s Batman films
TASM: a reboot of a very fresh franchise which was loved by many which was competend for a reboot and made 700m Worldwide!
and Critical Reception: ASM 76% RT (top critics) TDKR 76% RT (top critics)

yeah it was mediocre

I'm not sure why you feel the need to oppose the statement. It's not that disparaging to Spider-Man, given the level of success of his competition. The reasons you give for The Dark Knight Rises' commercial success is valid and the analysis of The Avengers too, to a lesser extent but you're ignoring the iconography of Spider-Man. The point is though, if out of three films, two are over one billion dollars in profit and the other has barely scraped 700 million then that one is mediocre in comparison. Especially when one of the other films lacks a 3D boost.

As for critical reception, the difference is obvious. Both Avengers and Dark Knight Rises received an explosion of near unanimous high praise when they were released while Spider-Man received a more mixed reaction. Glancing at the Rotten Tomatoes or iMDB scores shows you this clearly. Nobody is saying Spider-Man performed badly critically but, again, in comparison to the others its reception was mediocre.

 

[AF3619]

Nobody is saying Spider-Man performed badly critically but, again, in comparison to the others its reception was mediocre.

i get you point but the reception was "Mediocre" in comparation because the Avengers had a set up TDKR had a set up and TASM had mixed reception since the day that Sony announced because it´s a reboot and an origin story

 

[Anno_Domini]

500 Days of Summer was really good, and I really liked The Amazing Spider-Man. (Which is, IMO, on par with SM2.)

I thought ASM was better than SM1 and SM3.

That's your opinion, not a fact...

(500) Days of Summer -

The film received acclaim from critics upon its release.

Spider-Man -

Spider-Man received very positive reviews from film critics.

Spider-Man 2 -

Spider-Man 2 received critical acclaim.

Spider-Man 3 -

The film received mixed reviews from critics.

The Amazing Spider-Man -

The Amazing Spider-Man received mostly positive reviews from critics upon release.

I'm not saying TAS-M is awful, never did. But comparing these films...TAS-M is only better than Spider-Man 3 and not the best film of the two from Webb.

The two lead actors in Raimi films were horrible. What did you all actually get from a doe-eyed Maguire drooling over an ugly ass Kirsten Dunst for three films? Sadly, everything revolved around Mary Jane, thanks to the horribly handled romance and the constant kidnapping of Peter's main squeeze.

Didn't know I said anything about Spider-Man 1 and 2 about the lead actors. Everything else carried 1 and 2 besides Maguire and Dunst. If I only cared about the lead actor rather than everything else for the whole product, I would've liked Superman Returns

 

[Lorus]

i get you point but the reception was "Mediocre" in comparation because the Avengers had a set up TDKR had a set up and TASM had mixed reception since the day that Sony announced because it´s a reboot and an origin story

Spider-Man dug its own grave though in that respect. It took the risk, I guess, of redoing the origin and drawing parallels to Raimi's film when it didn't need to. Therefore it deserves any critical backlash it gets as a result of that. Not to mention the fact that merely having a set up doesn't actually make a film better reviewed. To say Avengers or Dark Knight Rises were received as well as they did because they are part of a series does a disservice to them because they stand on their own merits as entertaining and well made. There is no reason a Spider-Man film that opens a series shouldn't be as warmly received as films in a series.

 

[TheForgotten]

Anno, I couldn't care less what the "critics" say. t: Why are you wasting your time giving out all this pointless information? I mean, congrats on finding all those facts on how each film was recevied by critics,, but I simply don't care.

At the end of the day I will still say The Amazing Spider-Man was better than SM1, SM3, on par with SM2, and my favorite ever made so far.

So any other attempt to point out reception and numbers will be pointless. Though I would be glad if we could find a real discussion, instead of trying to persuad others opinios.

 

[Anno_Domini]

500 Days of Summer was really good, and I really liked The Amazing Spider-Man. (Which is, IMO, on par with SM2.)

I thought ASM was better than SM1 and SM3.

That's your opinion, not a fact...

Anno, I couldn't care less what the "critics" say. t: Why are you wasting your time giving out all this pointless information? I mean, congrats on finding all those facts on how each film was recevied by critics,, but I simply don't care.

 

[OP84CC82]

It took the risk, I guess, of redoing the origin and drawing parallels to Raimi's film when it didn't need to. Therefore it deserves any critical backlash it gets as a result of that.

Oh yes, because a film shouldn't ever be viewed on it's own, it shall always be compared another based on the same character. Please. I never hear anyone say **** about however many interpretations have been put out there of older stories and characters. This year, TWO, count em, TWO movies based on Snow White were released, did any of the critics complain about these films being re-interpretations of the Snow White story/characters? NO! But whenever a more recent comic book/movie/TV series or franchise is rebooted, people say that it's stupid and that Hollywood doesn't have creativity anymore.

 

[©KAW]

Didn't know I said anything about Spider-Man 1 and 2 about the lead actors. Everything else carried 1 and 2 besides Maguire and Dunst. If I only cared about the lead actor rather than everything else for the whole product, I would've liked Superman Returns

Yeah, but if the two leads are crap, that pretty much takes down the film as a whole. It's why I giggle when someone calls SM1/SM2 great. I'll give Maguire the first half hour of the trilogy, but after that crap hits the fan, and don't get me started on Kirsten Dunst. Sorry, there is no action scene that can make up for your two leads sucking ass. Especially when all three movies are focused solely on their romance and MJ's kidnappings.

 

[TheForgotten]

The first quote I was adressing your opinion.

Second one I was talking about the statements regarding how each was recieved.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yeah, but if the two leads are crap, that pretty much takes down the film as a whole. It's why I giggle when someone calls SM1/SM2 great. I'll give Maguire the first half hour of the trilogy, but after that crap hits the fan, and don't get me started on Kirsten Dunst. Sorry, there is no action scene that can make up for your two leads sucking ass. Especially when all three movies are focused solely on their romance and MJ's kidnappings.

Tobey Maguire was pleasant in Spider-Man 2. So he wasn't completely awful in every single film, but I know you disagree with that anyways.

The first quote I was adressing your opinion.

Second one I was talking about the statements regarding how each was recieved.

Nonetheless, what I stated as 'opinion' can be looked as fact as well with what I posted, lol.

 

[Oscorp]

The Evil Dead trilogy, Darkman, Spider-Man duology(see what I did there ) and Oz looks amazing. So...really? Raimi hasn't delivered any amazing films? Haha.

I was doing what you did, took my opinions and posted them as facts. I'm fully aware however that this isn't about facts at all.

And well, Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good I admit. But the rest...nah. Oz looks cool however.

 

[©KAW]

Tobey Maguire was pleasant in Spider-Man 2. So he wasn't completely awful in every single film, but I know you disagree with that anyways.

He was the same damn character in every film, never evolving, the same silly and social ****** throughout 3 years of college.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I was doing what you did, took my opinions and posted them as facts. I'm fully aware however that this isn't about facts at all.

Except I did post some facts on how many critics felt about Webb's two films and Raimi's Spidey trilogy.

And well, Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good I admit. But the rest...nah. Oz looks cool however.

See, now THAT would be an opinion

And I'll respect that. But to me, the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman are fantastic films whose elements should've been in Raimi's Spidey more often but we had less dark and serious moments and more corny moments, such as the entire symbiote plot.

He was the same damn character in every film, never evolving, the same silly and social ****** throughout 3 years of college.

Like I said, I knew you'd disagree. And I obviously disagree with your reply. Tobey Maguire felt like a mature Peter Parker in Spider-Man 2 and showed a Peter that truly had to deal with life with not being some rich kid with having to ride some silly bike, handling two jobs(at least in the beginning of the film) and living in possibly a rodent-filled apartment. I don't know where you got "silly" and "social ******" in S-M 2 as he was confident enough in having a long conversation with one of his icons in the film, Otto Octavius.

 

[©KAW]

Like I said, I knew you'd disagree. And I obviously disagree with your reply. Tobey Maguire felt like a mature Peter Parker in Spider-Man 2 and showed a Peter that truly had to deal with life with not being some rich kid with having to ride some silly bike, handling two jobs(at least in the beginning of the film) and living in possibly a rodent-filled apartment. I don't know where you got "silly" and "social ******" in S-M 2 as he was confident enough in having a long conversation with one of his icons in the film, Otto Octavius.

If Peter can't hold a decent conversation with MJ (without peeing on himself), who's pretty much the focus of everything that going on in his life--how is he not a social ******? The silliness comes from them allowing the "nerd" antics to last beyond high school and into 3 years of college. Not to mention, if he was mature, he would have figured out that Mary Jane was an awful girlfriend and left her. But the doe-eyed boy from across the way still loves her, even when she's jealous of Spider-Man, the guy who saves people's lives (well, except for that dude that he let fall to his death). Yeah, real mature. I never got the feeling that the character evolved, especially not after letting the killer of Uncle Ben go free. What lesson was learned from the first film, if you're letting killers go free?

 

[Anno_Domini]

If Peter can't hold a decent conversation with MJ (without peeing on himself), who's pretty much the focus of everything that going on in his life--how is he not a social ******? The silliness comes from them allowing the "nerd" antics to last beyond high school and into 3 years of college. Not to mention, if he was mature, he would have figured out that Mary Jane was an awful girlfriend and left her. But the doe-eyed boy from across the way still loves her, even when she's jealous of Spider-Man, the guy who saves people's lives (well, except for that dude that he let fall to his death). Yeah, real mature. I never got the feeling that the character evolved, especially not after letting the killer of Uncle Ben go free. What lesson was learned from the first film, if you're letting killers go free?

Here's the thing. You're only speaking of Peter's "social awkwardness" when it comes to Mary Jane when I gave a perfect example of the very opposite when he had a conversation with an idol of his, whereas, if he was a quote "social ******"(which is a bad term, so I'd advise you to say something smarter), he would have not been able to speak to Octavius at all and even have a wide open talk as the two had from science to love.

And again...letting Flint Marko go was in Spider-Man 3. I said nothing about S-M 3. I won't speak on a film I didn't even like. The film got everything wrong, and as I believe Peter was definitely maturing in S-M 2, it did not show in the third installment and it made MJ even more of a selfish brat.

 

[©KAW]

Here's the thing. You're only speaking of Peter's "social awkwardness" when it comes to Mary Jane when I gave a perfect example of the very opposite when he had a conversation with an idol of his, whereas, if he was a quote "social ******"(which is a bad term, so I'd advise you to say something smarter), he would have not been able to speak to Octavius at all and even have a wide open talk as the two had from science to love.

Okay, you thought those talks with Doc Ock were good, I beg to differ, especially the poetry talk, good God. Social ****** fits Maguire role as Peter Parker, and it won't be changed by me.

It's beyond just being awkward, he's mostly talking with MJ throughout the three films, not to Doc Ock. Remember the first time he spoke to Betty at the Bugle, ugh, she was looking at him like he sh--ed on himself. I'm telling you, just listening to the new Peter have a conversation is a thrill for me. The problem here is they allowed him to continue being a nerd after high school and into college. The character of Peter should have matured out of his nerdy/awkward/social ****** phase in college, he should have evolved as the character came of age, but he didn't.

And again...letting Flint Marko go was in Spider-Man 3. I said nothing about S-M 3. I won't speak on a film I didn't even like. The film got everything wrong, and as I believe Peter was definitely maturing in S-M 2, it did not show in the third installment and it made MJ even more of a selfish brat.

I'm speaking of all three films, as they are connected at the hip. Spider-Man's real origin is entangled and explained in SM3, so it can't be ignored. His maturity and evolution (or lack thereof) is apart of all three films.

 

[AgeOfIgnorance]

The only reason TASM got "mostly positive reviews" is due to the fact that it's a reboot. I've legitimately read reviews that have said, essentially, "it was good, but it was a reboot so...3 stars"

The final critical numbers are so painfully skewed that it's ridiculous. Look at the audience reaction:


SM1: 65% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (32 million votes)

SM2: 81% of audience members liked it with a 3.5/5 audience rating (1 million votes)

SM3: 54% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (2 million votes)

TASM: 81% of audience members liked it with a 4/5 audience rating (400 thousand votes)


According to the audience, TASM was the best Spider-Man film yet. The critic consensus shouldn't even be considered when examining this film due to the complete bias against rebooting films in the media.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Okay, you thought those talks with Doc Ock were good, I beg to differ, especially the poetry talk, good God. Social ****** fits Maguire role as Peter Parker, and it won't be changed by me.

Your idea that Maguire's Peter is awful or what not is diminished quickly when you say "social ******", fyi.

But...his talk with Otto was fascinating, imo. Peter talking to his idol and someone that could very well be a mentor, but also someone that Peter could turn into metaphorically.

It's beyond just being awkward, he's mostly talking with MJ throughout the three films, not to Doc Ock. Remember the first time he spoke to Betty at the Bugle, ugh, she was looking at him like he sh--ed on himself. I'm telling you, just listening to the new Peter have a conversation is a thrill for me. The problem here is they allowed him to continue being a nerd after high school and into college. The character of Peter should have matured out of his nerdy/awkward/social ****** phase in college, he should have evolved as the character came of age, but he didn't.

The new Peter is just as awkward. The scene at the school with Gwen Stacy was as upsetting to me as Maguire's Peter talking to any female besides Aunt May.

I'm speaking of all three films, as they are connected at the hip. Spider-Man's real origin is entangled and explained in SM3, so it can't be ignored. His maturity and evolution (or lack thereof) is apart of all three films.

He only let go of Sandman in Spider-Man 3, though, while Peter thought he met the real killer in the first one. Nothing about him letting Sandman go should hurt Spider-Man 1, and especially 2. As I said, Spider-Man 3 was ruined from the beginning and destroyed any credibility Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man was given the past two films and even letting Marko go. As I said, that's only on Spider-Man 3. No way anyone should say it killed the last two films because of how S-M 3 was written.

The only reason TASM got "mostly positive reviews" is due to the fact that it's a reboot. I've legitimately read reviews that have said, essentially, "it was good, but it was a reboot so...3 stars"

The final critical numbers are so painfully skewed that it's ridiculous. Look at the audience reaction:


SM1: 65% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (32 million votes)

SM2: 81% of audience members liked it with a 3.5/5 audience rating (1 million votes)

SM3: 54% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (2 million votes)

TASM: 81% of audience members liked it with a 4/5 audience rating (400 thousand votes)


According to the audience, TASM was the best Spider-Man film yet. The critic consensus shouldn't even be considered when examining this film due to the complete bias against rebooting films in the media.

Biased critics giving TAS-M a lesser score because of it being a reboot? That didn't really kill Batman Begins, Star Trek, et cetera. Imo, TAS-M was diminished by some critics because it felt too much like the '02 film in many ways. And that is a bad thing if you ask me. TAS-M should've felt new, refreshing and different.

 

[AF3619]

Biased critics giving TAS-M a lesser score because of it being a reboot? That didn't really kill Batman Begins, Star Trek, et cetera. Imo, TAS-M was diminished by some critics because it felt too much like the '02 film in many ways. And that is a bad thing if you ask me. TAS-M should've felt new, refreshing and different.

well true , but remember any other movie franchise that was rebooted,made the origin again?

 

[©KAW]

Your idea that Maguire's Peter is awful or what not is diminished quickly when you say "social ******", fyi.

But...his talk with Otto was fascinating, imo. Peter talking to his idol and someone that could very well be a mentor, but also someone that Peter could turn into metaphorically.

Okay, you thought it was fascinating, I didn't, I can live with that.

The new Peter is just as awkward. The scene at the school with Gwen Stacy was as upsetting to me as Maguire's Peter talking to any female besides Aunt May.

Yeah, but he wasn't walking down the street like a goofy ******, with the "Rain Drops..." song blowing in the wind while tripping over his shoe laces. What about the goofy scene with him and the broom in the closet, or the elevator scene, or the backyard scenes with MJ (yuck). When he's not a social ******, he's an awkward goofball, and when he's not an awkward goofball, he's a muted Spider-Man with the personality of a dead person.

He only let go of Sandman in Spider-Man 3, though, while Peter thought he met the real killer in the first one. Nothing about him letting Sandman go should hurt Spider-Man 1, and especially 2. As I said, Spider-Man 3 was ruined from the beginning and destroyed any credibility Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man was given the past two films and even letting Marko go. As I said, that's only on Spider-Man 3. No way anyone should say it killed the last two films because of how S-M 3 was written.

Yeah right, in SM1 he only let a man fall to his death without slinging a web to save him. When the idea was always to do the right thing and bring him to justice. And yes, as much as you don't want to connect SM1/SM2 to SM3, it didn't stop Sam Raimi from doing just that, and giving us his real Spider-Man origin story in SM3...not SM1. Letting Marko go defeats the purpose of "With Great Power...", now we have a hero who doesn't fight for or believe that a murderer/bank robber should go to prison. I would have settled for Spider-Man at least saying to Marko, "If you want my forgiveness than turn yourself in."

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Your idea that Maguire's Peter is awful or what not is diminished quickly when you say "social ******", fyi.

But...his talk with Otto was fascinating, imo. Peter talking to his idol and someone that could very well be a mentor, but also someone that Peter could turn into metaphorically.



The new Peter is just as awkward. The scene at the school with Gwen Stacy was as upsetting to me as Maguire's Peter talking to any female besides Aunt May.



He only let go of Sandman in Spider-Man 3, though, while Peter thought he met the real killer in the first one. Nothing about him letting Sandman go should hurt Spider-Man 1, and especially 2. As I said, Spider-Man 3 was ruined from the beginning and destroyed any credibility Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man was given the past two films and even letting Marko go. As I said, that's only on Spider-Man 3. No way anyone should say it killed the last two films because of how S-M 3 was written.



Biased critics giving TAS-M a lesser score because of it being a reboot? That didn't really kill Batman Begins, Star Trek, et cetera. Imo, TAS-M was diminished by some critics because it felt too much like the '02 film in many ways. And that is a bad thing if you ask me. TAS-M should've felt new, refreshing and different.

Honestly, if we are spending all this time comparing Tobey to Garfield, Raimi to Webb, 2002 to 2012, you have to look at the trilogy as a whole. Take the good with the bad. If Sony and Raimi thought SM3 was worth releasing, its one part of a whole trilogy.

And if you aren't gonna do that, you have to stick with just the first one. Spider-Man vs. Amazing Spider-Man, and compare them as origin stories. You can't pick and choose which performance by Tobey to compare with Garfield, because Garfield hasn't been given three movies to prove himself.

My opinion, of course. Just doesn't seem fair.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Honestly, if we are spending all this time comparing Tobey to Garfield, Raimi to Webb, 2002 to 2012, you have to look at the trilogy as a whole. Take the good with the bad. If Sony and Raimi thought SM3 was worth releasing, its one part of a whole trilogy.

And if you aren't gonna do that, you have to stick with just the first one. Spider-Man vs. Amazing Spider-Man, and compare them as origin stories. You can't pick and choose which performance by Tobey to compare with Garfield, because Garfield hasn't been given three movies to prove himself.

My opinion, of course. Just doesn't seem fair.

That whole statement is extremely hypocritical. Theres no reason to use Spider-Man 3, when everyone knows it was a developmental mess.

 

[Oscorp]

The only reason TASM got "mostly positive reviews" is due to the fact that it's a reboot. I've legitimately read reviews that have said, essentially, "it was good, but it was a reboot so...3 stars"

The final critical numbers are so painfully skewed that it's ridiculous. Look at the audience reaction:


SM1: 65% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (32 million votes)

SM2: 81% of audience members liked it with a 3.5/5 audience rating (1 million votes)

SM3: 54% of audience members liked it with a 3.3/5 audience rating (2 million votes)

TASM: 81% of audience members liked it with a 4/5 audience rating (400 thousand votes)


According to the audience, TASM was the best Spider-Man film yet. The critic consensus shouldn't even be considered when examining this film due to the complete bias against rebooting films in the media.