The Amazing Spider-Man Naturalistic and Convincing Characters in TASM

[Ajendo]

This gif gets me every time t:

 

[Vid Electricz]

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.

Right on. I think that's a subconscious thing in movies like this. I don't think it's something that many people ever really put their finger on, let alone think about. It's the way the character exists within their world that informs and inspires, to a degree, the way we live (or aspire to) in ours. Not literally of course.

You hit the nail right on the head. People go on about how poor her acting was or that she didn't look like a supermodel (whatever fanboy writer projecting his fantasies that decided MJ should ever have had that title, therefore planting it in thousands of fanboys little minds, should be shot), it's that the character didn't have any personality or attributes that, as you so very well put it, didn't exist outside of Peter's world. She existed out of necessity to the plot. Peter gets girl, Peter looses girl and so on and so forth. I suppose you could say the same thing about the Star Wars prequels. All the actors were just fine. Yes, even Hayden Christensen, but the writing was SO dull, poorly contrived and lifeless that even the most brilliant actor couldn't have elevated the material.

I do disagree with you about your stance on the villains. You mentioned Loki, who is a "villain" for all intents and purposes, but does not exist within the antiquated framework which we have come to understand and accept as what defines a character as the "villain". This whole stance makes things way too clear cut and black and white. I prefer the murkier shades. I don't want or expect the villain to have a depressing sob story that torments and motivates their actions, but I do ask that the "villain" if he/she must be called that, be a fully fleshed out character in the story. A character, who, as it just so happens, has ideals or motivations that are diametrically opposed to the protagonist.

 

[OoAnd1]

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.

You nailed it.