The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 5

[SpaceWay2009]

Personally I think it will go down like this: Peter gets his powers and initially uses them to fight crime, but in a reckless, more self-satisfying way. Doing it more for the fun and thrill of it rather out of any sense of moral obligation. So when he finally has enough of being bullied by Flash Thompson, he doesn't hesitate to beat the crap out of him and humiliate him for revenge. Uncle Ben gets on Peter's case about it, which makes him mad. As a result, he goes out that night with an attitude of carelessness, and decides not to bother stopping the robber who runs right past him.

The more I think about it, the more I think it works. In my opinion, it hits all the same beats as the original story. It actually seems more natural and subtle, as opposed to just saying 1) He gets his powers 2) He becomes a selfish jerk 3)He learns not to be a selfish jerk and becomes a superhero.

In this case, it's about him having to grow out of his immaturity. The power and responsibility theme still applies, in fact maybe even more strongly here than in the original story.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Interview with a stuntman who worked on TASM:

For how long have you worked on The Amazing Spider-Man?

About a year and a half.

Did you have to wear the Spider-Man costume during some of your shooting? Was it somehow limiting your movements or not?

Yes, it was pretty flexible and didn't limit the movements except for the vision. It was hard to see at times.

Did you worked directly with the director, Marc Webb, and with the main actor, Andrew Garfield? Can you tell us something about it?

Yes, worked with both. They were both very nice and talented at what they did. We were all very communicative about the Spider-Man character. We all shared the same vision of how spiderman should move.

Which were the instructions you received from the stunt coordinator? Did you have to execute some particular movements during the shooting?

Depending on the stunt all the movements were different. I would first do the movement and they would agree or disagree. If disagreed then we would work together to come up with a the best movement for the scene.

The fact that this movie was all shot in 3D, with particular requirements, did it have some influence on your job? And if it did, how?

No influences for me. I'm in front of the camera doing what I can and the technicians handled all the 3D stuff.

Can you tell us, from your point of view, which are the biggest differences in the kind of action between this Spider-Man and the previous movies? For exemple, did you use a different acrobatic style?

It seems they are trying to go for more realistic stunt action rather then animation. There still is animation but hopefully all our hard stunt work will come through. The style is still Spider-Man.

From: CBM.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=54854
​

 

[elsewhere]

Practical with CGI enhancements. As it should be.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Some of the static boxes have been revealed on the Mark of the Spider-Man site...

Awesome!

 

[ShadowBoxer]

With all these theory's going around I am really curious as to how Uncle Ben dies in this movie. I thought the way Sami Rami did it in the first movie was good but I hope this one is even more emotional/ heart breaking.

 

[Octoberist]

RANDOM:

I just watched Spider-Man 2 the other day and it freaked me out that it's 8 years old because it looks so modern still. Besides the few bad CG (Sometimes the Spider-Man digital double lacked detail) the movie looked like it was filmed yesterday. I know people complain about the extras and how bad their acting was, but I thought it was enduring in a cheesy Raimi way.

Also, I kinda forgot how little we see of Peter in the Spidey suit. While his internal struggle was compelling and at the end, rewarding, I wish it was more..streamlined. Also, there's a nagging plothole that always bothered me even back in 2004: Why quit as Spider-Man when Doctor Octopus is still on the loose?

Overall, It's still a movie I like.

 

[Michael Frost]

I don't think it qualifies as a plothole since it doesn't break the plot logic. It might have slip the minds of the writers but it just makes Peter a big dick. :P

 

[Hotwire]

RANDOM:

I just watched Spider-Man 2 the other day and it freaked me out that it's 8 years old because it looks so modern still. Besides the few bad CG (Sometimes the Spider-Man digital double lacked detail) the movie looked like it was filmed yesterday. I know people complain about the extras and how bad their acting was, but I thought it was enduring in a cheesy Raimi way.

Just watched last night, myself. Twice, in fact. Once with the commentary, once without. I noticed the sad CGI in a few places. The bank vault door, the CG Spidey, and a few other shots done on green screen.

The dialogue felt a bit flat in a few places as well. Especially the scene with Peter getting stopped by Bruce "The Usher" Campbell. Compared to that scene we just got of Peter and Gwen's doorman, the old one was very wooden.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I can see what they meant by "naturalistic humour" after watching the doorman scene. I like.

 

[Octoberist]

Just watched last night, myself. Twice, in fact. Once with the commentary, once without. I noticed the sad CGI in a few places. The bank vault door, the CG Spidey, and a few other shots done on green screen.

The dialogue felt a bit flat in a few places as well. Especially the scene with Peter getting stopped by Bruce "The Usher" Campbell. Compared to that scene we just got of Peter and Gwen's doorman, the old one was very wooden.

Yeah, there was a part when CG Spidey was swinging and his webshooter stopped working in mid-air. That upclose shot of CG Spidey talking to himself looked so dated that I'm sure an Xbox 360 could do a better job.

The problem with some of the funny scenes (Bruce Campbell, Hal Sparks) is that they didn't know how to end the jokes, so they end awkwardly. Awkwardly in a "Don't know how to finish this scene' kind of way so there's no final punchline.

 

[Juicy J]

I can see what they meant by "naturalistic humour" after watching the doorman scene. I like.

Agreed, that's the best way to describe it. Pete's confusion was very understandable and natural, Andrew played it perfectly. They seem to have a great handle on the humor of the character, which is a much needed change.

 

[Spectacular23]

I can see what they meant by "naturalistic humour" after watching the doorman scene. I like.

I like this too t: Doorman scene was pretty cool. Love how PEter's costume was hanging out of his bag lol

 

[Octoberist]

The only awkward part about the clip is the establishing shot. It felt like the camera was panning too slow downwards, or most likely, a musical cue hasn't been recorded yet.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Yeah, there was a part when CG Spidey was swinging and his webshooter stopped working in mid-air. That upclose shot of CG Spidey talking to himself looked so dated that I'm sure an Xbox 360 could do a better job.

The problem with some of the funny scenes (Bruce Campbell, Hal Sparks) is that they didn't know how to end the jokes, so they end awkwardly. Awkwardly in a "Don't know how to finish this scene' kind of way so there's no final punchline.

The Hal Sparks scene went on longer and was better in Spider-man 2.1

 

[jacobed]

my problem with Spider-Man 2 besides the horrible montage, the not good cg and the cringe worthy cheesy "humor". Is when he supposedly doesn't have his powers which is also a dumb plot because his powers aren't cerebral anyways, its when he sees the guy getting beat up in the alley and just walks away. I don't care if you are having a bad day, have super powers or no super powers you help the guy. Peter became the ultimate tool when he walks away.

The clip with Peter and the doorman was really funny, I love Andrew as Peter.

 

[Web face]

Am I the only one who thought that the final swing in SM2 looked too fake? It was cool but it looked too CG.

 

[Juicy J]

Am I the only one who thought that the final swing in SM2 looked too fake? It was cool but it looked too CG.

Nope, I'm right there with you. It really did not look good. It's not even funny how superior the final swing in the first movie was.

 

[Web face]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGeOjK0I7JY
I just searched it up on youtube and it really does look bad. I got the movie from netflix last summer and it looked a little better on the tv but worse than the first one.

 

[Octoberist]

Am I the only one who thought that the final swing in SM2 looked too fake? It was cool but it looked too CG.

What made it worse was the fake looking helicopters.

 

[Web face]

Yeah they looked so ridiculously fake and I'm not even sure what purpose they had in that scene lol.

 

[Spideyfan93]

Even as a kid I never liked the helicopters there. Pretty unnecessary.

But the last swing in the first film will never ever get old. It's practically a classic cinematic scene now!

[YT]y6-BN5RTtCQ[/YT]

 

[Spidey_62]

The final swing in the first movie does kick ass. I was mezmerized seeing it for the first time in the theatre. So well done, exhilirating and triumphant.

 

[socool]

Man...that looks worse than I remember. What happened to that scene? The final swing for SM2 used to be my favorite. It looks so...fake now. Like, it's painfully obvious that it's fake. Spider-Man looks fake, the helicopters look fake, the city looks cooke-cutter basic, and the movements of Spidey are so floaty.

At least the final swing for SM1 is still awesome!

 

[Web face]

That one is gorgeous. I wish it were longer because that one is really better than the second.

 

[stillanerd]

Okay, like I said over in another thread on a similar topic, if the idea is to show that Peter is fighting crime before his Uncle Ben gets murdered as means of getting revenge and challenging his anger after years of being bullied and feeling abandoned, I think it's understandable and wouldn't have much of a problem with it--if it was depicted right, that is. However, what was great about Stan Lee's origin, and what Sam Raimi clearly understood with his Spider-Man film, was that once Peter Parker got his powers, the last thing on his mind was fighting crime. He was so caught up in having these great powers that he only thought about how they would benefit himself rather than how they could be used to help other people. And the best way to illustrate this is for Peter not to be fighting any crime at all until after his Uncle Ben gets murdered. Because if you have him fighting crime before his Uncle Ben gets murdered and the circumstances that led up to that murder, then the tragic lesson of "with great power comes great responsibility" get diluted because he, technically, is already using his powers responsibly.

Just because Peter has the power to fight crime, doesn't mean he has a motivation to. Most people wouldn't fight crime just because they gained superpowers. They would seek to exploit those powers for personal gain in some fashion, just as Peter does initially in most origin stories. That's part of what makes Peter Parker relatable as a character. Having him fight crime before Uncle Ben dies dilutes what makes the character unique.

If they really had to ditch the wrestling route and replace it with something else, why not have Peter use his abilities to play sports, a la Ultimate Spider-Man?

Exactly.

I understand that it might work from a motivation perspective and inner change perspective. Problem is that you folks forget this is a movie, where people watch things happen.

My point is, from a narrative perspective, having him fight crime because he wants to feel empowered only to switch to fighting crime because he realizes he has a responsability has a lot less impact in a VISUAL NARRATIVE than having a radical change from cheap wrestler and TV gigs to a full blown crimefighter.

The change depicted in the first is mainly inner. He changes his motivations but not what he's doing because he was already doing it before (even if it was clumsy or reckless). For an audience to truly grasp a change in behaviour, you need to really split the two behaviours apart by more than just inner turmoil. People need to see that change and it's not just as impactful if you just have him change the way he busts bad guys...

This is an excellent point. Not to say its impossible to show something internal through a visual narrative, but certainly the idea of Peter using his powers recklessly or selfishly prior to learning with his Uncle's death the value of personal responsibility comes across much more effectively by having him not be a full-blown crime fighting superhero before his Uncle's death.