The Amazing Spider-Man Naturalistic and Convincing Characters in TASM

[Vid Electricz]

I thought it'd be interesting to start a discussion concerning the treatment and rationalization of the characters in "The Amazing Spider-Man".

After viewing the trailer, it became very obvious that this series is moving in quite a different direction. The tone is darker and more "serious" and there seems to be a very distinct choice made to concentrate on the character of Peter Parker in more depth than the previous series.

The previous series approached the character, for the most part in a much simpler, breezier, more melodramatic way. That is not to say there is anything wrong with this, especially when it's done well, (Just look at Neil Gaiman's work) as the original Lee/Ditko comics were in fact, exactly the same.

I'm not starting this thread looking to see things like:

"Tobey wuz flat and boring. Andrew is more reelistic. Raimi sucks"

Whether this is your opinion or not, this kind of stuff has been regurgitated about a million times on these boards and I'm starting to wonder if anyone has got anything original to say...So if you feel the need to prove your lack of creativity, go for it, but I'd prefer if you had something thoughtful to share on the subject.

I digress.

The question I pose, is, how in this film and future Spidey films, (since they are going for a more realistic take on the character) will the characters themselves and their actions and motivations be realized?

In Batman Begins, for instance, bruce is distraught over the murder of his parents and through a series of events ends up traveling the world, etc...finding his path and realizing what he must become. His Batman persona is dreamed up and justified in as logical of a way as possible.

We all know the origin of Spider-Man, but I wonder, in this take, what motivates Pete to create his Spidey costume and take on the Spider-Man persona. Batman wears his costume out of function- to strike fear into criminals etc...What will Peter's justification be? We all know of his vow made after his Uncle's death, but why the Spidey suit? It's not enough that he has to wear the suit by virtue of the fact that he's Spider-Man (I'm really looking forward to what Marc Webb has cooked up)

In making these fantasy and sci-films increasingly "realistic", the characters and their actions must all be increasingly justified and rooted in the "real world" as well, so to speak (even if there are guys crawling on walls and super-powers and whatnot) in order us to believe in and care for them on the screen. Marc Webb has said that he wants us to be able to leave the movie theater recognizing the world from the movie being the same as our own. The Raimi films took place in a world similar to ours, but more exaggerated and colorful. it was easy to suspend our disbelief towards Osborn donning a goblin suit (as we do in the comics). In the real world, it is less so.

Steve Kloves (or Webb?) had said that the "villain" doesn't think of themselves as being villainous, it is simply a contest of competing ideals. This is true and the blueprint for a great character. The Lizard is a nice way to begin because there is a solid basis and motivation for his (Doc Connors) actions (to re-grow his arm). This results in drama (and built in sympathy as he cannot control his actions as the Lizard).

Raimi gets a lot of flack around here, but he did make a great effort to evolve the "villains" past the one-dimensional cut-outs we usually get in comic book films. Sure he went a little out of his way with the sympathy angle (Doc Ock, Sandman) but the intent, if not the perfect execution was there. I hear a lot of people slamming this idea, insisting on the villain being purely villainous with no connection to Parker. This sort of thing only works for characters like the Joker, when it's presented as two competing forces of nature that represent opposite ideals...Plus, he's THE JOKER, the greatest criminal mastermind in comics history. We, as an audience, believed every second of his actions and motivation in TDK. That's why the movie worked. We did NOT believe every second of Venom's actions in SM3 or his motivations.


David Mamet has a great quote (I'm paraphrasing): All great drama revolves around three things: What does your character want, how are they going to get it and what will happen if they dont.

Simple, but true. What are your thoughts on how Spider-Man "villains" (which are the toughest) and other characters can be truly realized as full fleshed out, human beings in this franchise and not just "bad guys" that exist for Spidey to fight or one note "secondary characters" that exist as a foil for the main character.

 

[cherokeesam]

From what I've seen of the trailer, I get the feeling that this version of Spidey will be a lot more immersive than the Raimi trilogy, and by movie's end, you'll almost believe such a critter as Spider-Man actually exists in a real-life, fleshed-out world. The Nolanites will still howl that it's not nearly as high-art as The Dark Knight, but that question remains to be answered (subjectively) next year (I'm personally predicting the potential for Oscar buzz already, though).

I can't really comment on whether or not Lizard winds up being a great, credible villain or not, since very little has been seen of him (even in the spoilerific descriptions coming out of SDCC), but I'm confident enough in what I've seen of Parker to say that Marc Webb will show the same attention to detail and character for Dr. Connors.

As for Raimi's villains, I give him credit for making a great one in Doc Ock (which probably contributes to most people's assessment of SM2 being the best of the series), but failing miserably with Gobby, Venom and Sandman.

 

[DigificWriter]

One thing that I noticed almost immediately upon viewing the trailer is that the film seems, in many ways, to be based more, tonally, on Marvel's 'Ultimate' take on the character(s) than on what is regarded as the 'traditional' take on the character(s) as per the 'mainstream' Marvel universe, which I think is entirely appropriate given that this is a reboot of the franchise (it helps separate this film - and any subsequent films - from the Raimi trilogy). I just watched a video interview that Entertainment Weekly conducted at Comic Con with the cast and director of TASM, and Marc Webb offered some interesting insight into his take on the film that says a lot about how I think the material will be approached, which is that he wanted to explore the idea of Peter being an orphan (essentially), which is not an angle I've seen explored before with regards to the characters of the Spidey universe. Webb also described the film as being about a 'boy who starts out searching for his father, but ends up finding himself', which leads me to suspect that what Peter discovers about his parents (particularly his father), coupled with losing his uncle, will play a role in his motivation for taking on the Spider-Man persona.

 

[JackIvyGB]

I'm very intrigued and excited by the approach to the characters here as well. Especially the angle of Peter "searching for his father and finding himself". I mean, his dad disappears/dies, his uncle is killed, and now he's got these 2 other potential father figures in his life: Dr. Connors, who, at least in the comics (not sure how they'll play the relationship between them in the film), Peter has always admired and respected as a man of science and aspired to be like, but has this darker side and ultimately becomes a villain. On the other side of the coin is Captain Stacy, who apparently is not a big fan of Spider-Man at all, but is Gwen's dad. I think they're really going to play up the theme of "at what point in a young man's life does he stop looking for other men to guide them/follow/aspire to be/be a father to them, and instead become their own man", which I think could really be cool and move the story as far as Peter maturing and coming to terms with any remorse or regret in regard to the possible fates of all 4 of the aforementioned men.

Outside of that, I love that Webb is really giving such attention to detail to making these into true, 3 dimensional, relatable people and not just "characters". I love the description of the scene in the SDCC footage when

Spoiler

Gwen runs into Pete and Ben at school and Uncle Ben makes the comment about her pictures being on his computer and Peter says Ben is a pathological liar and he really meant Gwen Stefani

. Stuff like that, though insignificant in the big picture of the plot, REALLY help to bring you into the world of the movie and the characters, and make Peter, Gwen, or whoever else feel like any kid you might actually go to school with or know.

The shots/scenes in the trailer I think really help to sell it too. I don't know, I just love the shot of Peter walking down the hall in his school and of him with his skate board and his headphones as the sun sets by the pier. It feels more like bringing the superhero into our world as opposed to putting us into the superhero's world. Granted that approach does not work for every hero or story. Likewise, there are some heros that can get away with either one. The last Spider-Man films were more of bringing us into Spidey's world, which was fine. It worked. Those films had their problems, but none of them had to do with that. Watchmen is another film which brought us into the world as opposed to the other way around. I love Watchmen. However, my personal opinion as a guy who aspires to be a screenwriter (I'm actual working on an original superhero screenplay right now), a comicbook fan, and a film fan, I am always more intrigued, more entertained, and more completely submerssed in the film when it takes the approach of bringing a character into our world. Batman Begins, TDK, X-Men: First Class, etc., and now The Amazing Spider-Man. I am honestly the most excited for this film than any other superhero film because of the approach and because of what Spidey has done in my life (honestly, if you haven't seen Andrew Garfield's speech from SDCC, he just about sums up mine and I'm sure countless others' feelings toward Spidey perfectly).

Long story short, can it be 2012 now???

 

[Vid Electricz]

I'm very intrigued and excited by the approach to the characters here as well. Especially the angle of Peter "searching for his father and finding himself". I mean, his dad disappears/dies, his uncle is killed, and now he's got these 2 other potential father figures in his life: Dr. Connors, who, at least in the comics (not sure how they'll play the relationship between them in the film), Peter has always admired and respected as a man of science and aspired to be like, but has this darker side and ultimately becomes a villain. On the other side of the coin is Captain Stacy, who apparently is not a big fan of Spider-Man at all, but is Gwen's dad. I think they're really going to play up the theme of "at what point in a young man's life does he stop looking for other men to guide them/follow/aspire to be/be a father to them, and instead become their own man", which I think could really be cool and move the story as far as Peter maturing and coming to terms with any remorse or regret in regard to the possible fates of all 4 of the aforementioned men.

Outside of that, I love that Webb is really giving such attention to detail to making these into true, 3 dimensional, relatable people and not just "characters". I love the description of the scene in the SDCC footage when

Spoiler

Gwen runs into Pete and Ben at school and Uncle Ben makes the comment about her pictures being on his computer and Peter says Ben is a pathological liar and he really meant Gwen Stefani

. Stuff like that, though insignificant in the big picture of the plot, REALLY help to bring you into the world of the movie and the characters, and make Peter, Gwen, or whoever else feel like any kid you might actually go to school with or know.

The shots/scenes in the trailer I think really help to sell it too. I don't know, I just love the shot of Peter walking down the hall in his school and of him with his skate board and his headphones as the sun sets by the pier. It feels more like bringing the superhero into our world as opposed to putting us into the superhero's world. Granted that approach does not work for every hero or story. Likewise, there are some heros that can get away with either one. The last Spider-Man films were more of bringing us into Spidey's world, which was fine. It worked. Those films had their problems, but none of them had to do with that. Watchmen is another film which brought us into the world as opposed to the other way around. I love Watchmen. However, my personal opinion as a guy who aspires to be a screenwriter (I'm actual working on an original superhero screenplay right now), a comicbook fan, and a film fan, I am always more intrigued, more entertained, and more completely submerssed in the film when it takes the approach of bringing a character into our world. Batman Begins, TDK, X-Men: First Class, etc., and now The Amazing Spider-Man. I am honestly the most excited for this film than any other superhero film because of the approach and because of what Spidey has done in my life (honestly, if you haven't seen Andrew Garfield's speech from SDCC, he just about sums up mine and I'm sure countless others' feelings toward Spidey perfectly).

Long story short, can it be 2012 now???

Great point about bringing the characters into our world instead of vice versa. I think that doing this successfully and convincingly while still being fun is quite a challenge. I'm hoping Webb can pull it off!

I agree that it is the little things that really allow us to believe that two people on the screen really care for each other, whether it's a drama, a romantic comedy or a sci-fi adventure. It's VERY rare to see it done well. I like that little example you provided between Peter and Gwen. It let's us know that these are flawed people with quirky senses of humour and not just archetypes. Again, this is a very fine line to walk, but given Marc Webb's approach in 500DOS, I think it'll work. Think about it, when is have we ever seen characters that act like real people in a superhero movie? To my knowledge, never. Although I don't want them to go too dark or serious, I think this approach is exactly right for a flawed, human character that Spider-Man was originally intended to be.

Usually the romance or relationship is painted in broad strokes and I find myself never actually caring for the characters at all, aside from the fact that I know that I'm *supposed* to. Think about how many movies/books/tv shows where, by virtue of the fact that they is the male lead and female lead, that they must end up together. Like I said, this can work in a melodramatic sort of way, but it does become dull quickly.

 

[Billy the Poet]

To add, one of the themes that Raimi never really explored in his films was puberty. In comics, Peter's superpowers that came out of nowhere and his further moral growth with acceptance of responsibility always played a role of the metaphor to what a typical teenager faces, while becoming mature. Raimi never really hit the point of what actually teenagers will when they start to experience both external and internal transformation as a next phase to their maturity. I believe Webb won't ignore this and pay a lot of attention of how Peter's puberty correlates with his gradual development into Spider-Man.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

I haven't a lot to contribute to the key discussion, but one aspect of The Amazing Spider-Man that I like is how the spider-bite itself seems to occur. The trailer gives the impression that Peter is off snooping around and looking at things he shouldn't be at the time of the bite. What happens to him seems to be because of his personal interest in the field, something that is very much a part of Parker before the bite. We saw a bit of this in the previous films. (e.g. Peter speaking to Octavius about the science behind the machine) Nevertheless, it's something I'm glad to see continuing in this one. The scientist aspect of Peter Parker, although not major when it comes to Spider-Man himself, is always a welcome one.

Most of all, however, I just wanted to say 'wow.' It's incredible to see so many well thought out posts, 'spoken' reasonably and mentioning the faults of Raimi's films without bashing them. Nice to know the Spider-Man boards aren't complete hell.

You all get cookies.

 

[JackIvyGB]

Oh boy, cookies!

 

[NinjaCarm]

As long as they talk and act like real people as opposed to card board cut out versions of themselves like I saw before, I'll be hooked.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Great point's JackIvyGB and I definitely agree.

From what we know, that definitely seems to be the main difference in tone between the reboot and the previous films.

Raimi brought us into the character's world and it felt like a live-action comic book and it was great for what he was going for. Where as Webb seems to be doing the opposite by bringing the characters into our world and I'm incredibly excited by this approach and was hoping this is how they would go about it.

 

[Billy the Poet]

I also like the core theme Webb chose for his movie, which is related to relationships with fathers. It's evident in so many storylines of the film, such as:

1. Peter and his parents. The protagonist is left by his parents in childhood. This explains the reason for his alienation and self-reliance. He also seeks to discover the truth about them, as, by doing that, he believes he can find the connection with them, the feeling that will replace the loss of them in his opinion. He wants to "find" them through discovering the truth about their past.
2. Peter and Uncle Ben. I believe that while Peter searches for the facts about his parents, he becomes less aware of the people that actually brought him up. Despite his love and admiration for Ben, Peter doesn't notice how distant he becomes to them and how he starts to disregard his dependence on them. This results in the murder of Ben, which finally opens Peter's eyes that the father's figure he was looking for all this time died in front of him, on his hands, because of Peter's neglection.
3. Peter Parker and Spider-man. Webb stated the film is about a young man, who looks for father and eventually finds him in himself. This exaplains one of Peter's personal motivation to become Spider-man. Through his virtues and deeds, Peter becomes the figure he always looked for and this is one of the reaons for him to continue being a superhero, regardless of all the problems that fall on his shoulders.
4. Kurt and Billy Connors. I can say that Peter has his own personal interest in stopping the Lizard and saving Connors, as it also serves the father theme. By saving Connors, Peter will save another father's life as well as another person's childhood. He strives to save Connors, because he knows that somewhere around his only son is waiting for him to come home and this idea is what drives Peter, as Spider-man, to bring Coonors back to his consciousness and the role of father. In addition, Peter realizes that what is happenning to Connors now is the consequence of his relation to Oscorp, the company behind Peter's parents' death.
5. Gwen and George Stacy. Gwen loves and respects her father, even if she tends to disagree with him. But, despite her beliefs, once he dies during the fight between Spider-man and the Lizard, she loses her faith in Peter, blaming him for the loss of her father. As we see in the teaser, Gwen isn't George's only child. So, once he dies, some of the responsibility of keeping the family bonds strong will fall on Gwen. Moreover, she becomes frustrated that, though Peter saved the life of Connors, he didn't succeed to do the same with hers. She may even suspect Peter neglected George's life, after he is the one to lead police against SPider-man. This only intensifis the whole conflict in the relationship between Peter and Gwen. Peter los his parents, but he had his uncle and aunt to take care of him, thus, he manages to put up himself to differently emerged conditions in his further life. But, maybe, as a matter of her personality, it's harder for Gwen to accept the death and live a new life. Even Peter spent years looking for the answers of his parents' death. No wonder why Gwen puts all her blame on Spider-man, i.e. Peter, which puts their relationship in a sort of status quo.

I think if this scenario holds true, Webb brilliantly connects all the major storylines in his film by one strong emotion theme, which becomes the motif for many characters' actions, decisions and later consequences.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think my fear for this film is that in an attempt to create this more naturalistic world with convincing characters, that the entire film takes on a somber tone that it is never able to escape.

When looking at Nolan's Batman, people like to talk about how "dark" and "realistic" the world Batman inhabits is. Personally, I don't think that is necessarily true when we are talking about Batman and his opponents. BB and TDK work because the hero and villains are cool and fun. You want to be around them. Their dialogue is sharp, they dress the part and they walk with an air of invincibility. You love them because in this "real world" setting, they are demigods who walk above it all and are capable of shaping the world. I disagree with the premise of wanting to relate. I think you want to see your hero elevate.

People get annoyed when the word "emo" comes up in reference to the new trailer, especially with the news about the Comic-con footage. However, the point I think some fail to realize is that if you are going to try and build a real and rational world around an emotional teenage orphan, you are going to have those moments of irrational and selfish starring off into a world unaware of how much pain Peter is "truly in". Imagine if Bruce had went about the entire first film the annoying brat who came home for Chill's trial. It would annoy the crap out of you.

When it comes to villains, I don't think one-dimensional characters work all that often, nor do those that overpower the film with their slightly demented "I am doing what is right" angle. Deep seeded motivates are unessential when it comes to villains. The two most important things is that they do not overshadow the hero and that they a joy to be around during their minimal screen time. I don't want to hang out with a corny villain or one who is all kinds of tormented. In a tale about an emotional teenage superhero, who wants a villain who is every bit as moody when he isn't trying to kill our hero?The one exception is Loki, but that is for a whole host of reasons.

Finally, the supporting cast, possibly the most important bit, and here is where I agree that the words naturalistic and convincing play a huge role. One could probably argue that what has allowed Nolan's Batman to succeed are his supporting characters. Gordon, Rachel, Alfred, etc. They are what "ground" Batman. Tie him to the world.

Gwen, uncle Ben, aunt May, Flash and Captain Stacy need not be these grand, complex characters, but they must have feel genuine. Considering what is known about the potential tone of TASM, the portrayal of Gwen maybe the key to the entire thing. Raimi's MJ wasn't terrible because she kept getting taken, or because Dunst "looked" wrong, or because she seemingly slept with every guy in town before Pete, or any other superfluous reason. The character failed because she was a cardboard cut out of an idea whose only purpose was to be the prize Peter couldn't quite attain. She did not exist outside of him, nor did any of the characters in Raimi's films. One could point to her engagement or acting career, but those literally ebbed and flowed with Peter's needs as a characted. When MJ needed to be attainable but unwanted, bad things happened to her. When she needed to be off limits to Peter, her life away from him excels. There is nothing more unrealistic then that and it leaves the heroes and his opposition in an uninhabited world.

 

[Billy the Poet]

I think my fear for this film is that in an attempt to create this more naturalistic world with convincing characters, that the entire film takes on a somber tone that it is never able to escape.

When looking at Nolan's Batman, people like to talk about how "dark" and "realistic" the world Batman inhabits is. Personally, I don't think that is necessarily true when we are talking about Batman and his opponents. BB and TDK work because the hero and villains are cool and fun. You want to be around them. Their dialogue is sharp, they dress the part and they walk with an air of invincibility. You love them because in this "real world" setting, they are demigods who walk above it all and are capable of shaping the world. I disagree with the premise of wanting to relate. I think you want to see your hero elevate.

People get annoyed when the word "emo" comes up in reference to the new trailer, especially with the news about the Comic-con footage. However, the point I think some fail to realize is that if you are going to try and build a real and rational world around an emotional teenage orphan, you are going to have those moments of irrational and selfish starring off into a world unaware of how much pain Peter is "truly in". Imagine if Bruce had went about the entire first film the annoying brat who came home for Chill's trial. It would annoy the crap out of you.

When it comes to villains, I don't think one-dimensional characters work all that often, nor do those that overpower the film with their slightly demented "I am doing what is right" angle. Deep seeded motivates are unessential when it comes to villains. The two most important things is that they do not overshadow the hero and that they a joy to be around during their minimal screen time. I don't want to hang out with a corny villain or one who is all kinds of tormented. In a tale about an emotional teenage superhero, who wants a villain who is every bit as moody when he isn't trying to kill our hero?The one exception is Loki, but that is for a whole host of reasons.

Finally, the supporting cast, possibly the most important bit, and here is where I agree that the words naturalistic and convincing play a huge role. One could probably argue that what has allowed Nolan's Batman to succeed are his supporting characters. Gordon, Rachel, Alfred, etc. They are what "ground" Batman. Tie him to the world.

Gwen, uncle Ben, aunt May, Flash and Captain Stacy need not be these grand, complex characters, but they must have feel genuine. Considering what is known about the potential tone of TASM, the portrayal of Gwen maybe the key to the entire thing. Raimi's MJ wasn't terrible because she kept getting taken, or because Dunst "looked" wrong, or because she seemingly slept with every guy in town before Pete, or any other superfluous reason. The character failed because she was a cardboard cut out of an idea whose only purpose was to be the prize Peter couldn't quite attain. She did not exist outside of him, nor did any of the characters in Raimi's films. One could point to her engagement or acting career, but those literally ebbed and flowed with Peter's needs as a characted. When MJ needed to be attainable but unwanted, bad things happened to her. When she needed to be off limits to Peter, her life away from him excels. There is nothing more unrealistic then that and it leaves the heroes and his opposition in an uninhabited world.

I may be wrong, but did any of descriptions from Comic-Con ever have a reference to Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker as an emo kid?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I may be wrong, but did any of descriptions from Comic-Con ever have a reference to Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker as an emo kid?

No. My point is that, not unlike the trailer, people are using a few minutes of footage to paint the picture they want. Using the Comic-Con footage as an example of why we will not see some annoying traits that may paint Peter in an "emo" light is no better then using the trailer to say that is all he will be.

Basically, there is a lot of generalizing going on.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I may be wrong, but did any of descriptions from Comic-Con ever have a reference to Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker as an emo kid?

No. In fact, every report and every video blog on the subject says that he is Peter Parker from the comics. Some guys even went as far as to say "finally, I'm getting the Peter Parker I know on screen". The very second someone looks sad, it's emo which makes no sense to me. Especially when there is so much evidence stating that this movie will balance out the deeper moments with levity and humor. It's like people refuse to read. On IGN, there were comments on their spidey article saying "why is this movie going to be so dark?" clearly commenting without reading because the article addressed that and said it's not like that.

The guys at IGN said from what they saw it doesn't feel comic bookish or even look like a comic book film. I don't get why people refuse to read

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

No. My point is that, not unlike the trailer, people are using a few minutes of footage to paint the picture they want. Using the Comic-Con footage as an example of why we will not see some annoying traits that may paint Peter in an "emo" light is no better then using the trailer to say that is all he will be.

Basically, there is a lot of generalizing going on.

And that is really bugging me for some reason. It's not just because I love Spidey or because the people working on the movie obviously have a passion for it, it's because it shows how stupid and bias people can be. If that's the generalization they want to make, they either can't read or just don't want to like the movie

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No. In fact, every report and every video blog on the subject says that he is Peter Parker from the comics. Some guys even went as far as to say "finally, I'm getting the Peter Parker I know on screen". The very second someone looks sad, it's emo which makes no sense to me. Especially when there is so much evidence stating that this movie will balance out the deeper moments with levity and humor. It's like people refuse to read. On IGN, there were comments on their spidey article saying "why is this movie going to be so dark?" clearly commenting without reading because the article addressed that and said it's not like that.

The guys at IGN said from what they saw it doesn't feel comic bookish or even look like a comic book film. I don't get why people refuse to read

I think you refused to read my original post.

I think the last thing they were going to do was show up at Comic-Con with footage of Peter at his most emotionally fragile.

I also think people misunderstand what is meant when people use the world "emo" in the context of film. We are talking about an annoying habit of of a character demonstrating self pity. Having Peter walk around with big, floppy hair, those clothes, looking somber, invokes that very image.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And that is really bugging me for some reason. It's not just because I love Spidey or because the people working on the movie obviously have a passion for it, it's because it shows how stupid and bias people can be. If that's the generalization they want to make, they either can't read or just don't want to like the movie

Both sides are generalizing at this point. Basing your argument on reports of about five minutes of footage, is no different then using the trailer to do the same thing.

Just because Spidey is lippy in costume, doesn't mean he won't play a game of self-pity/hate. In fact, it is implied he will.

 

[Billy the Poet]

People are stubborn, like to generalize and mislead others, feeling more confident about themselves and their opinions. The film will have to through water and fire in order to prove its quality. Even if Sony releases the best material, the movie will still be bashed by some for the sake of bashing it and the fact it's a re-start of the series. 10 years ago people were saying "Tobey doesn't look like Spider-man" and "Organics suck", but now they're claiming "Tobey is Spider-man, Andrew sucks" and "I hate the costume".

This time it will be only harsher. They'll blindly believe their own words till the day the film is released. Any, only a year after the release, they'll realize the film was worthy of the chance, but only when it's too late. Either way, they'll always feel confident in their words instead of drawing a clear line in what is and what they want it to be.

I still believe TAS will receive critical acclaim and become a success in box office. I just don't want its fate to depend on those that aren't aware of what the hell they're talking about. This scenario held true for so many great films, such as:

Lord of the Rings
Batman Begins
Transformers
Star Trek
Sherlock Holmes
The Social Network (this one received the most hate)
X-Men: First Class

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

I think you refused to read my original post.

I think the last thing they were going to do was show up at Comic-Con with footage of Peter at his most emotionally fragile.

I also think people misunderstand what is meant when people use the world "emo" in the context of film. We are talking about an annoying habit of of a character demonstrating self pity. Having Peter walk around with big, floppy hair, those clothes, looking somber, invokes that very image.

Oh nah, I wasn't responding to you man. Just in general because I've looked at several sites stating how good the footage looks and how expectations for the movie have risen and how he isn't emo or it's not the dark knight, etc. Yet, there are some people who refuse to read anything and that just bugs me..I think it bugs me more as a communications major/journalism grad student..reading has always been fundamental and why in the hell are these people who claim to be so smart, acting in a way that's so ignorant?

And I see where you're coming from on the "emo" thing but two things: 1, that's life. Peter's life is a lot worse off than mine is yet I'll be damned if there weren't days in high school or college or even now when I don't walk around looking sad with an "F the world" look on my face..stuff happens and I've seen many incarnations of Peter Parker that handle it the same way. 2, there is no context for any of the scenes in the trailer, so it'd be better to see if there's a reason for the look on his face first because none of those scenes with him looking that way have any context..plus again, there is evidence to refute that

 

[DarthSkywalker]

People are stubborn, like to generalize and mislead others, feeling more confident about themselves and their opinions. The film will have to through water and fire in order to prove its quality. Even if Sony releases the best material, the movie will still be bashed by some for the sake of bashing it and the fact it's a re-start of the series. 10 years ago people were saying "Tobey doesn't look like Spider-man" and "Organics suck", but now they're claiming "Tobey is Spider-man, Andrew sucks" and "I hate the costume".

This time it will be only harsher. They'll blindly believe their own words till the day the film is released. Any, only a year after the release, they'll realize the film was worthy of the chance, but only when it's too late. Either way, they'll always feel confident in their words instead of drawing a clear line in what is and what they want it to be.

I still believe TAS will receive critical acclaim and become a success in box office. I just don't want its fate to depend on those that aren't aware of what the hell they're talking about. This scenario held true for so many great films, such as:

Lord of the Rings
Batman Begins
Transformers
Sherlock Holmes
The Social Network (this one received the most hate)
X-Men: First Class

It would be very easy to point out that you are doing the very same thing you complain others of doing. Also would be quite easy to point out the many hyped failures.

But that isn't what this thread is about, so we should probably leave it here.

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Both sides are generalizing at this point. Basing your argument on reports of about five minutes of footage, is no different then using the trailer to do the same thing.

Just because Spidey is lippy in costume, doesn't mean he won't play a game of self-pity/hate. In fact, it is implied he will.

Well I'm not saying he won't have some of that because he has in the comics..this is a guy who walks around with A LOT of guilt on his shoulders and a lot of regrets and again, I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but this is how he was in the Ultimate comics and if that's where they and Andrew are drawing some inspiration from, it makes sense. Ultimate Peter was a genius and a good kid, but he was an outcast and carried the whole thing about his parents on his shoulders when the comic first started and before he got bit by the spider

oh and sorry if I came off as generalization because that wasn't my intent. For all I know, the movie could be really whack and I may want to walk out of the theater, but I'm saying that if the director, writers and actors are to be believed, this movie will find a balance between the deep character moments and the lighter character moments

 

[Billy the Poet]

It would be very easy to point out that you are doing the very same thing you complain others of doing. Also would be quite easy to point out the many hyped failures.

But that isn't what this thread is about, so we should probably leave it here.

I am just open-minded. I am not struggling against other peoples' opinions. Otherwise, I would have spent all my days commenting on each and every negative comment about the film. I'm not saying the movie is going to be great without any doubt. I have both positive and negative feelings regarding the film's future. One thing is that I'm open to new experiences and always prefer to give a chance to any film, unless it either doesn't attract me after all what I saw or reveals to be a disappointment before I spend my money to watch it.

You're right, there were also many hyped failures. But, what I'm saying is that it's pointless to speak out and bash something you haven't experienced yet. Especially, if you don't provide any points and reasons behind your opinion. Instead of just randomly posting everywhere "TAS is going to rock" and "Spider-man will be da best", I just prefer to state my opinion, defend it or argue it.

Being rational and simply adoring things for the sake of it are different things. Likewise, providing reasons behind your negative opinion and stating you hate something without any point are opposite. I'd rather respect the person that doesn't like TAS and provides clear and coherent reasons that can be argued, than supporting a person that simply puts it like that "TAS is the best and I don't care about the rest".

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oh nah, I wasn't responding to you man. Just in general because I've looked at several sites stating how good the footage looks and how expectations for the movie have risen and how he isn't emo or it's not the dark knight, etc. Yet, there are some people who refuse to read anything and that just bugs me..I think it bugs me more as a communications major/journalism grad student..reading has always been fundamental and why in the hell are these people who claim to be so smart, acting in a way that's so ignorant?

And I see where you're coming from on the "emo" thing but two things: 1, that's life. Peter's life is a lot worse off than mine is yet I'll be damned if there weren't days in high school or college or even now when I don't walk around looking sad with an "F the world" look on my face..stuff happens and I've seen many incarnations of Peter Parker that handle it the same way. 2, there is no context for any of the scenes in the trailer, so it'd be better to see if there's a reason for the look on his face first because none of those scenes with him looking that way have any context..plus again, there is evidence to refute that

I agree that context is key, and I think your point about "That's life" is important when it comes to the very point of this thread. As are expectations. After all we live in a world where Twilight is quite popular with a large part of society.

The aesthetic of a character mean so much. It isn't necessarily about the actor "looking" like the character, but how they look in the boarder strokes of the world. Like it or not, more people are going to learn about TASM from that trailer then Comic-Con or any message board. People know, or least they think they know, what Peter Parker and Spider-Man should look like. And lets be honest, he looks a little Twilighty. That is seemingly the farthest thing from what the GA expects from Spidey. In this world seemingly driven by social media, presenting that image of TASM was kind of... well dumb imo. Asking people to educate themselves on the film seems harsh. They see the image and they comment on it.

But, lets get away from the trailer, and lets talk "realism" in our characters. I am of the belief that that is one of the last thing we want from our characters. Otherwise, why are they so pretty? t:

What I think the GA want is the illusion of realism, without the material being so. They want the characters to act how they wish they could, not how they would necessarily. Act and talk natural, but go on and be your awesome self. Thus, Peter doesn't get to spend a good chunk of the film "being realistic" and wallowing in pity.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well I'm not saying he won't have some of that because he has in the comics..this is a guy who walks around with A LOT of guilt on his shoulders and a lot of regrets and again, I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but this is how he was in the Ultimate comics and if that's where they and Andrew are drawing some inspiration from, it makes sense. Ultimate Peter was a genius and a good kid, but he was an outcast and carried the whole thing about his parents on his shoulders when the comic first started and before he got bit by the spider

oh and sorry if I came off as generalization because that wasn't my intent. For all I know, the movie could be really whack and I may want to walk out of the theater, but I'm saying that if the director, writers and actors are to be believed, this movie will find a balance between the deep character moments and the lighter character moments

That is very good point. I think the whole premise of Spidey lends itself to more then its fair share of teenage self-pity. Heck, I think we all feel more then a bit of pity for Peter. However, taken with the entire package (Garfield's look), I think it is hard to simply brush aside the idea that the film has potential of being a bit self-indulgent in that matter. In an attempt to bring "realism" into the character and his world, I fear an overly somber place I may not want to be.