The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man (First Reactions: Critics, Fans) (Spoiler Alert) - - - - - Part 14

[GENERAL RAAM582]

It will probably occur in TASM3.

 

[ALP]

Ok...how much longer are we going to have to hear people whining about the fact that the killer wasn't brought to justice in this movie? This is CLEARLY a plot thread that will continue into the next film. Peter CLEARLY hasn't forgotten about him, as evidenced by the sketch in his bedroom toward the end of the film.

Also, I don't think the film showed that Peter feels responsible for his Uncle Ben's death...because he may well not.

He didn't kill Uncle Ben. Nor is Uncle Ben choosing to go out to look for Peter and to confront the robber actually Peter's fault.

I'm sick to death of superhero movies where the heroes blame themselves for someone else's actions and we get all this forced drama that overshadows real emotional issues.

It's powerful enough that Peter recognizes that with his powers, he COULD have done something, and Ben could still be alive, and that he recognizes that he can do this for others, and that this leads to him becoming a hero. And that he misses Ben, and regrets their last encounter.

That's a much better reason for being a hero than simply feeling guilty over something you didn't do.

Okay. Thank you for making this clear.

 

[optimus2861]

Also, I don't think the film showed that Peter feels responsible for his Uncle Ben's death...because he may well not.

With great power there must come great responsibility.

I've long believed Spider-Man's origin as told in AF#15 is damn near perfect. Start to mess with it, tinker around with its elements, and all that ends up happening is that you undermine the central message. These elements ought to be sacrosanct:

1. It must be Spider-Man, in costume, who fails to act to stop the burglar, not Peter, the civilian. Peter must connect his failure to use his powers responsibly to the tragedy that befalls him. If he is in civvies, I argue this gets undermined as Peter doesn't use his powers in his civilian garb, nor would any bystanders expect that he has the power to (easily!) stop the burglar.
2. The burglar must kill Ben.
3. Spider-Man must realize that Ben's killer is the same burglar he let escape; this hammers home his failure to use his powers responsibly.
4. Spider-Man must bring the killer to justice, and not succumb to the temptation for revenge; this is the first truly responsible use of his powers and marks his acceptance of the lesson.

AF#15 emphasized #1 by having a policeman order Spider-Man to stop the burglar, but Spider-Man arrogantly brushes him off (Raimi downgrades the cop to a security guard, and also gives Spidey a reason beyond arrogance to let the burglar go). It also uses #3 to reinforce #4; the shock at recognizing Ben's killer's face is what drains Spider-Man's wish for revenge.

The Ultimate comics were the first to screw up item #1, and now Webb has followed suit, by having the civilian Peter be the one who fails to act (Raimi straddled the line by having the early-costumed but unmasked Spider-Man let the burglar go; a fair adaptation). Nobody has dared mess with #2 or #3. Raimi again straddled the line with #4 by having the burglar fall to his death accidentally; Spectacular corrected this flaw by having Spidey save the burglar. Webb has now chosen to all but eliminate #4 and instead has Peter accept the lesson through a much longer - and I'd argue less satisfying - route.

tl;dr version: Spidey's origin has never needed updating. Spidey adaptations that do so tend to weaken it, not enhance it.

 

[Eddie Brock]

1. It must be Spider-Man, in costume, who fails to act to stop the burglar, not Peter, the civilian. Peter must connect his failure to use his powers responsibly to the tragedy that befalls him. If he is in civvies, I argue this gets undermined as Peter doesn't use his powers in his civilian garb, nor would any bystanders expect that he has the power to (easily!) stop the burglar.

I disagree. What does it matter whether bystanders know Peter has the power? Peter himself knows it, and that's all that matters. He knows that he had the power to stop it, and he knows that he refrained from using that power.

 

[LordofhouseEl]

[/LIST]
I disagree. What does it matter whether bystanders know Peter has the power? Peter himself knows it, and that's all that matters. He knows that he had the power to stop it, and he knows that he refrained from using that power.

Agreed and it also sticks with what Ben said about his dad believing if you had the power to help those in need then help. Was hoping this film was going to out right state with great power comes great responsibility but feel that Webb and co were stepping on egg shells making this movie in hopes of not getting slammed for "ripping of Raimi".

 

[Eddie Brock]

Agreed and it also sticks with what Ben said about his dad believing if you had the power to help those in need then help. Was hoping this film was going to out right state with great power comes great responsibility but feel that Webb and co were stepping on egg shells making this movie in hopes of not getting slammed for "ripping of Raimi".

And yet, they still got slammed for "ripping off Raimi" and alienated fans by leaving certain things out.

 

[Jexx]

Erm.. are people forgetting that he actually had the power to stop the burglar before he left the store?

 

[LordofhouseEl]

And yet, they still got slammed for "ripping off Raimi" and alienated fans by leaving certain things out.

I know Webb must be scratching his head, its blatantly obvious they have omitted certain bits in order to avoid such claims and yet the claims come anyway.

 

[Eddie Brock]

I know Webb must be scratching his head, its blatantly obvious they have omitted certain bits in order to avoid such claims and yet the claims come anyway.

It was an inevitable side effect of revisiting the origin. There are story beats that you simply can't change, and masking them under different circumstances only does so much. It doesn't bother me, but it's a big deal to most critics and a lot of other people.

 

[The Guard]

It must be Spider-Man, in costume, who fails to act to stop the burglar, not Peter, the civilian.

Why?

Why is a civilian Peter, prior to becoming a superhero, not compelling enough?

 

[terry78]

I do think the reason for Peter not stopping the crook in this version is hliariously Seinfeld-esque.

 

[Jexx]

Well, they did have an episode of it up on the TV in the beginning of the movie.

Or maybe it was friends.

(How does that make sense btw, aren't those two franchises owned by WB?)

 

[AF3619]

i saw the movie is Great

Spoiler

and I LOVED the final swing and Uncle Ben´s voice mail

i can see why people complain about the reboot stuff but i LOVED this movie and i can say that Andrew Garfield = Spiderman/Peter Parker, my only complain is that yeah it seems like after

Spoiler

the school fight there was footage missing like how did Doc. Connors got another lab coat? and Captain Stacy was a little under used

so, i probably see this again! 9/10 for me

Spoiler

Actually my sister told me this was better than Raimi´s but the CGI was off

 

[the.wolf]

I straight out loved this movie. There are flaws, but no "Katie-Holmes-in-Batman-Begins" type flaws.

There some things I noticed straight off, like Ratha's disappearance and when Connors is in the sewer and he's walking away and he has a blanket on him. I asked myself "he's in a wet sewer... his clothes were all shredded when he became the Lizard.... where'd that blanket come from?"

 

[grieven]

I straight out loved this movie. There are flaws, but no "Katie-Holmes-in-Batman-Begins" type flaws.

There some things I noticed straight off, like Ratha's disappearance and when Connors is in the sewer and he's walking away and he has a blanket on him. I asked myself "he's in a wet sewer... his clothes were all shredded when he became the Lizard.... where'd that blanket come from?"

I'll take a stab on the blanket. He set up his lab/lair below ground in the sewer, right? With the wipeboard, computer, videocamera, etc. So maybe he had a blanket with him down there? You know, for those times when you're working on scientific experiments and it gets late and cold?

t:

 

[Eddie Brock]

I'll take a stab on the blanket. He set up his lab/lair below ground in the sewer, right? With the wipeboard, computer, videocamera, etc. So maybe he had a blanket with him down there? You know, for those times when you're working on scientific experiments and it gets late and cold?

t:

The blanket is after the first time he transforms. He hasn't set up his sewer lab at that point.

 

[grieven]

The blanket is after the first time he transforms. He hasn't set up his sewer lab at that point.

In that case, he absconded it from a hobo on the sidewalk.

 

[Eddie Brock]

In that case, he absconded it from a hobo on the sidewalk.

He wakes up in the water and is seen walking around the sewer in a blanket. He never goes above ground in between those scenes.

 

[Jexx]

I gave it to him.

 

[Eddie Brock]

I gave it to him.

Nailed it.

 

[Jexx]

Yea, I figured, wouldn't want Curt Connors walking around naked on screen. Would scar the little children.

 

[grieven]

He wakes up in the water and is seen walking around the sewer in a blanket. He never goes above ground in between those scenes.

It was a hobo's blanket that drifted underground during the last rainstorm. Conveniently it was nearby when he woke up in the water, bucknekid.

 

[Jexx]

..I was that hobo.

 

[ALP]

He stole the blanket from a vegabond off the street, I have an official detailed photo of the blanket.

 

[grieven]

..I was that hobo.