The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man's Greatest Blunder

Discussion in 'The Amazing Spider-Man Movies' started by k1dn1nj4, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. k1dn1nj4 Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey guys. I'm a relatively new and inactive member of SHH (school and all) but I'm a huge Spidey fan and after my second viewing of the film (usually need two viewings to take everything in and make an opinion) I've come to the conclusion that... well, I really like the movie. And I know that people either love it or hate it. I think I know why the film is so polarizing.

    It's a much different super-hero movie. I don't think everybody "gets" that yet. In fact, with the recent onslaught of super-hero movies, I think that a lot of people have sort of got a subconscious mental check-list for what their prototypical super-hero movie SHOULD be because well, the genre has carved a niche for itself. I think this is especially seen in the marked differences between The Amazing Spider-Man and the just relatively recently released Avengers. People expect spectacle, and almost comic-balloon like wittiness in the dialogue, cameos, stylized set-pieces and well... explosions. And they have a right to, because all of that is awesome. But if that was the benchmark they were holding TAS up against when going to see the movie it's no wonder some people didn't like it. Simply because TAS had very little to none of that. It felt more like a really small character study than a big summer blockbuster in some aspects. Like it was about a kid who was trying to find himself, who's falling in love for the first time; that was the crux of the movie. It just so happened that the kid also became Spider-Man. The superhero theatrics sort of fell secondary to the humanity. There was really no snappy obviously scripted dialogue (i.e. The Avengers' "We need a plan of attack." "I have a plan: attack."). In fact, the dialogue felt natural, unscripted and very believably what people I know would say to each other in real life, which I found very captivating. I felt like I could have known these characters, or walked by them unknowingly on the street.

    I get why audiences are split in the middle for this film. I think it's because it took a risk at doing something that didn't fit the preconditions people had for the genre. However, with time and subsequent viewings I believe people will see what the film tried to do and in my opinion succeeded at doing. I'm very much looking forward to TAS 2 and where this contemporary take on Spidey will go next.

    But I digress. That's not what this thread is about. It's about what I think the movie's greatest blunder was. And this wasn't even anything in the film itself. I'm talking about the marketing. I admit the first time I saw the film I was a little underwhelmed. It wasn't until my second viewing roughly a week later did I realize why. The film was great. In fact I found the pacing to be good, the characters were all well acted and had their own motivations and character development (even Flash. Holy **** was Flash great in this), and the action was enjoyable (Spidey using his webs functionally and actually moving like... well, a spider). It was the marketing that ruined the initial experience for me, as I suspect it did countless others' experiences. It showed too much. Going in for the first time, all those movie magic moments (Spidey taunting the car-thief, Gwen's "I'm in trouble," the highschool ceiling fight, the climactic tower fall at the end, etc.) that would've been amazing upon first viewing became "oh it's that scene from the trailer." The first time I saw those scenes in the trailers/previews, I was floored by how good they looked and how well Spidey moved and how great the cinematography was. I can only imagine how awesome it would have been seeing those scenes for the first time in the theater. Instead it felt like a bunch of cool scenes that I'd already seen just pasted together in their proper order.

    I tested my hypothesis by not watching anything TAS related (no footage, no stills, no trailers) for those few days before going to see it a second time. Seeing the movie as a whole relatively unspoiled was a much more satisfying viewing experience. I'm not saying don't release trailers, just cut it better as to not showcase all of the wow moments. For instance I don't remember the train fight scene being that prominent in the Spider-Man 2 trailers and previews.

    What do you guys think?
     
    #1 k1dn1nj4, Jul 9, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  2. Figs Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    26,630
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nice post!!

    I do agree that trailers in the past decade or so have been giving away way too many money shots to get asses in the seats. Reminds me of the final trailer for Avengers. It was incredibly stupid of them to show the scene where Hulk catches Iron Man when he's falling. That would have been a great moment to be surprised by in the film, especially when you see Thor start spinning his hammer to fly making you think he's going to be the one.

    That was one of my few complaints with this film was that the action wasn't as exciting as the first two, or just part 2 now that I think about it. Maybe I felt that way because of, like you said, they showed too much in the trailers.
     
  3. Eddie Brock Golden Domer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought TASM's greatest blunder was that it got involved in a land war in Asia? :huh:
     
  4. Jexx the Emerald Eagle

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it's biggest blunder was them not explaining how Spidey got in the car.

    ...
     
  5. Thwip! Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dont do it Jexx, you'll herald the return of the Dragon
     
  6. Maximum Carnage Tanned User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    4,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Facepalm for half the posts in this thread.. :o



    Great post, K1. You'll be welcomed here with open arms with a fair review like that! :D
     
  7. Spider-Who? ERMERGERD!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    8
    Spidey sees car thief eyeing the car, figures he’s looking to steal it (“don’t dress like a car thief”). The car is unlocked while waiting for the valet to pick it up. As some point between the hand off, Spidey uses his speed and agility to quickly slip in unnoticed (city streets are loud, so a car door shutting quietly can go unnoticed). Spidey waits for the valet to park the car and leave before sitting up and waiting for the thief to get in.

    Boom.
     
  8. chaseter Esteemed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    45,874
    Likes Received:
    51
    I don't think lack of explosions was the polarizing factor here.
     
  9. k1dn1nj4 Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think so either. My point was that it was the overall tone of the movie. I included explosions as one of the elements that contributed to the difference of tone though, because... yeah.

    lol funny. Though we all know that was for comedic effect (at least I hope).

    ha... ha... ha... wait I don't get it.

    Anyway, thanks for the comments and welcome guys. And jokes aside, I really was looking for a discussion on the marketting and how much it took away from the film on first watch. I still think that was the biggest mistake on the studio's part. Figs knows what's up!
     
  10. Eddie Brock Golden Domer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    More people need to see The Princess Bride. :o
     
  11. k1dn1nj4 Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...OH.

    As you wish!

    Whoa that was a pretty subtle reference. I mean I usually catch the usual "I don't think that means what you think it means" but this... this was pretty masterful. Kudos dude.
     
  12. Eddie Brock Golden Domer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    :yay: I can't hear the word "blunder" without thinking of that scene. :hehe:
     
  13. amazingfantasy15 Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2000
    Messages:
    12,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    The biggest blunder wasn't marketing it was the whole of the film, here's a few of the blunders;

    Making Peter a dick for, well, basically the whole movie. He was an ********* for the most part.

    Completely messing with the origin. Peter should go for fame and glory when he gets his powers, be completely self centered, that didn't really come across. He runs out on May and Ben after working on sciency stuff with Connors.

    Gwen and Peter's relationship, it's first little bit was fine, but then he's showing up for a first date at her window? Arguing with her dad? Being a general @$$ and then saying he's Spider-man and they're now a couple. Creepiest and worst first date ever gets him the girl?!?!

    Leaving Connors family out, a large part of the Lizard is feeling sympathic to him and a large part of that comes from him being a family man. Connors was totally unsympathic.

    They basically got way too much wrong about the characters in general for the movie. It wasn't lack of explosions and it being a character study, if that was the case Iron Man would've failed.
     
  14. DACrowe Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    30,766
    Likes Received:
    615
    Whew! That was a long, but thoughtful post.

    Even so, I disagree. I enjoy TASM and it has a lot going for it (namely performances and how the relationships of at least Peter and Gwen and Peter and Ben play out), but it is not a "different" kind of a superhero movie. It's in fact a very clearly made superhero movie that was designed in a committee room at Sony. That's why there are things that feel like Webb (the relationships) and things that feel like studio notes ("Peter Parker should have a skateboard!") and studio insistence of hitting familiar story beats from the previous successful Spidey franchise ("The citizens of New York should come to Spidey's aide in the third act! He should lose his mask in the third act so that we see his face when he's fighting the villain!"). If this was Webb's indie about Peter's journey, Sony wouldn't have done things like remove the importance of his parents on his origin in the editing room. Ultimately, the movie feels like Sony saw the success of Nolan's Batman films and said, "Let's do that," as both movies begin with the hero as a boy playing hide and seek and going on a journey of self-discovery after trying to find where they stand in their father's shadow. Plus the dark tone and everything taking place at night.

    None of this is bad. If you like it better than Raimi that's fine and I can understand that POV. But when we have had superhero movies like The Dark Knight, Kick-Ass, and Watchmen it is a bit silly to say everyone wants the MCU-template, when The Avengers itself was a bit of a break from that formula as it had such a focus on ensemble, dialogue and character interaction. In fact, I'd say that Whedon was more character focused than TASM which had to go through the messy plot mechanics of an origin story and a villain origin/third act threat.

    As for why some dislike TASM? I think it all boils down to the movie is deep in Raimi's shadow. So many of the film's decisions seem to stem directly from doing the opposite of what Raimi did (no wrestling, no "With great power...," no confrontation with Ben's killer, Peter reveals his identity to the love interest, etc.) which causes audiences to harken back still to the 2002 movie and note how different yet similar it is. TASM2 won't be covering the same ground (origin, father-figure villain), so it will hopefully avoid that hint of repetitiveness. I do think TASM would be much better regarded if the 2002 movie was never made. However, by the same token I don't think TASM would look remotely like it does without the 2002 film's existence. Hence, some of the reaction.
     
  15. Raiden Wakanda Forever

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    30,005
    Likes Received:
    497
    I don't think ASM's blunder is that they shown too much in the clips and/or trailers. Heck, The Avengers shown a great deal more, including that epic fighting scene between Iron Man and Thor in the forest, and Thor & Cap's teamup in the city, but audience still flocked to see it en masse anyway. I think the marketing did a good job selling the movie, and that's all you can ask for.
     
  16. Baneis8feettall Half face half amazing

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me, a great Spider-Man movie should have:

    1.Emotional moments : There are deaths like Uncle Ben, [BLACKOUT]Captain Stacy[/BLACKOUT] or tragic villains like Kurt Connors.We should able to relate from heroes to villains somehow. (Weakest point of ASM)

    2.Characterization: Kurt Connors & Captain Stacy were fillers. There were many 2 dimentional characters.They were like added there just to create a situation for the hero (Another weak point.)

    2.Things wouldn't happen to any other superhero: From bills to exams, Spider-Man still has to deal with lots of things we deal. (ASM was good at that point, the egg conservation etc)

    3. Smart : Spider-man should able to use his brain as much as super powers. I'm not talking about designing own dress or web shooters. In comics he use his brain to deal with enemies. (ASM was average at that.)

    2.Humour: Not slapstick like Raimi movies but like in Sherlock Holmes or even the Avengers. If Iron-Man can have fun with everybody , Spider-man must. (There was couple of lines and moments but not funny enough.)

    2.Voice Over: Spider-Man is non-stop thinker. Look at Guy Ritchie movies (S.Holmes,Snatch) voice over can be very entertaining in Spider-Man movie.

    3.Tention: We should feel the villains are terrifying and they can harm Spider-Man badly. (ASM lack of that. Lizard can be terrifying in sewer scene or Oscorp scene.Reading Todd McFarlene's comics were more exciting than the watching ASM)

    Every spider-man will be box office success but somehow Marc Webb & James Vanderbilt able to make a movie worse than original Spider-Man (which wasn't masterpiece or something) Except cheesy parts, original spider-man had better characterization(even if it's unlike comics),story telling and pacing.
     
  17. k1dn1nj4 Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa. Lots of discussion here.

    In response to your last point, I loved the first Iron Man film (hated the second one though). There are a few differences between that movie and TAS though. The first thing about Iron Man 1 is that it was the first time it was represented in film. There was nothing to compare it to. The second is that it didn't come after the torrent of relatively templated (not that that's a bad thing) superhero/MCU movies all culminating in The Expendables of superhero flicks, so with TAS the difference in tone for movieviewers was especially jarring I think. My point wasn't that audiences couldn't appreciate a movie where the crux was character exposition or lack of explosions, but that for *some audiences* it may have been such a left-turn juxtaposed with something like The Avengers.

    As for Peter being a dick, that's your interpretation. I think it was well acted. I'm 22, so highschool seems like almost just a dream to me now (or more like a nightmare), but I vividly remember that sort of angst and everyday peril and hormones and argumentativeness that was prominent at that age. In fact I think Andrew's interpretation of Peter was more believable. He wasn't some paragon of goodness, he was a kid. A good kid at that. You pointed out the dinner table argument. Why wouldn't he defend himself? Your crush's dad is insulting you to your face, albeit obliviously. The thing I think some people overlooked is that he apologized right afterwards (Actually, Peter apologizes extensively in the movie). But that outburst was completely in character. As for Gwen still liking him after he argues with her dad. I'm pretty sure 17 year old chicks dig it when guys argue with their dad lol.

    Quickly touching on Peter "having to seek fame and glory with his new powers" instead of "doing sciencey stuff with Connors" as another reason for the movie sucking, well... If you're saying the movie's interpretation didn't mix with your personal interpretation of Peter's character, than that's okay, but you can't say that a movie itself was bad or broken because its portrayal of a character was different to ANOTHER version of that character outside of the movie's continuity or reality. This is what happened in this version, not the other thing. And it works better with the new plot they charted. This played on Peter's abandonment issues and Connors was Peter's connection with his dad. The original "wrestling" origin would have been superfluous as hell. Why would the studio go down that road again? In both cases Peter dismissed his responsibility to choose to do what he wanted, which was what was important to Peter's development. He was being just as selfish in spending time with Connors as he was with wrestling.

    Also, I agree that I would've liked them to show Curt's family. However, I disagree with him being unsympathetic. From my second viewing of the film I noticed that a lot of this movie had gestural cues. There's a lot in there that's being said without being said. I found the scene where Curt is staring at his one armed reflection in the mirror intently to be especially poignant, and the fact that he refused to test the serum on the veterans' clinic and opted to test it on himself made him a bro.

    You know, I agree with a lot of what you said. I never really thought of The Avengers breaking the MCU-mold by being more ensemble and character driven but yeah I can see your point. It still felt very... stylized to me though, if that makes sense. From the S.H.I.E.L.D. hallicarrier to the very much Whedonspeak dialogue (which don't get me wrong, I love). It worked because it FELT like a comic. I mean that bit with the dude playing Galaga. That was amazing, but it was TOO comedically perfect to have any semblance of "oh that situation could happen to me." All of TAS's dialogue and even humor stemmed from a very real place in my opinion, which is where it differs tonally, among other areas. I may have worded it wrong before. I didn't mean to say that all the audience wanted was the MCU-template, but just that that may have been what they were expecting even unconsciously from another Marvel Comics character coming to the screen so soon just after The Avengers. As for the other movies mentioned, yeah I guess you could argue that they're of a different mold as well, each one being different and not boxed in (Watchmen being heavy and self-aware, TDK being an aggrandized crime drama), but they all still felt very big and very movie-like. My main point in the tonal difference of TAS as compared to other contemporary superhero movies before it, whether it was what Marc originally intended or whether it was some twisted melding of his vision with Sony's, was that it felt "small and natural." At least to me. And yes, I'm aware that those two words as subjective as hell lol.

    With the comment about the studio making changes. Yeah I agree. Totally. There were compromises. I do find the point you raised interesting that a lot of the changes in this would never have been made to the origin if the first set of movies never existed. I guess that's kind of it's double-edged sword. One opinion I want to add though about the changes is that I liked the skateboard thing because to me it sort of hearkened to John Romita Sr giving Pete a motorcycle. Except what lower middle class 17 year old could afford a motorcycle? So it gave him that edge/mobility while being realistic. Plus I think the montage with Peter discovering his new agility and powers while skateboarding was a really interesting way visually to showcase that. It was visually engaging, very kinetic, and... well new, and way better than doing the "OH I JUMPED OVER A CAR... OH I CAN STICK TO WALLS! OH I CRUSHED THE PIPE!" scene over again. But I can see why some purists would be ticked off at this and why it may have seemed tacked on.


    1. I guess emotional attachment is subjective, but Uncle Ben's death hit me harder in this than it did for Raimi's movie. I think it was because it was so sudden and they didn't draw it out. Also, the random nature of it made it seem very believable and sadly more senseless. It happened so fast and could have been more easily prevented.

    2. I don't know what you mean by this point. Each character in this had clear cut motivations and character arcs. Even Flash which I think was the most spot on characterization of him in film. Captain Stacy had a very good reason for wanting Spider-Man gone. It was a very simple idea of law vs. anarchy, but that was the point. Connors served his dramatic purpose as well. I kind of don't see the problem with characters added "to give a situation for the hero." To me that's good character use. Bad character use would be for characters to be added "absent of a situation for the hero." Which reminds me... Hey! Where was Bruce Campbell in this?

    2 again (lol). Yup, loved the eggs part.

    3. This movie showcased more of Peter's intelligence than any of Raimi films. In the Raimi films how was that portrayed? In superficial ways like wearing glasses, being a "nerd," and "hurr durr it's the acoustics." I mean remind me if I missed something and I love those movies but I can't remember any time they showcased Peter actually being smart besides saying "smart-sounding things." In TAS, aside from building his webshooters and suit, being very good technically (self-locking door), scientifically minded (I may be wrong but I think he had a wallpaper of Richard Feynman on his computer), Spidey actually used his webbing functionally, like well... a spider in combat. Using it to feel vibrations to sense the whereabouts of The Lizard in the sewer was a nice tough. And noticing and using the liquid nitrogen in the climax as well.

    2 again... again. Yeah the humor in this was way more subdued but again I liked it. There was humor, it just wasn't as obvious or stylized. I guess it's different for everyone. And you hit on one thing that kind of bugs me about the MCU. I love RDJ as Tony Stark but at the same time if you read the comics, that's not Tony Stark, that's Peter Parker.
     
    #17 k1dn1nj4, Jul 9, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  18. Jexx the Emerald Eagle

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    I felt like the skateboarding thing was actually something Andrew Garfield wanted to add in more than Sony.
     
  19. mayo23 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I think the skateboarding aspect was Andrew's idea. It was mentioned a few times either in the featurettes or interviews.
     
  20. Dragon No Way as Way

    Joined:
    May 4, 2000
    Messages:
    10,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Definitely not its biggest blunder- but you're getting the idea ;)
     
  21. Jexx the Emerald Eagle

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    haha, love that you take a joke that I made out of context
     
  22. Dragon No Way as Way

    Joined:
    May 4, 2000
    Messages:
    10,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know you were joking. Too bad you didn't get that I was too :woot:
     
  23. Jexx the Emerald Eagle

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meh, I personally think that the biggest fallback on the film was actually how Peter and Gwen's relationship started up pretty fast, I actually liked mostly everything else.
     
  24. GuestStar2004 Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    23,314
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    thats a normal teen relationship
     
  25. SpeterMan3 SpeterTV on YT

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    104
    If anyone wants a 17-year-old's opinion of 17-year-old Peter in the movie, I think he was great. I found everything to be very relatable in his character (and not just because I've alway thought I have super powers). Similar to Peter, I'm smart and socially awkward, though not such an outcast as he is. I have childhood issues that are at least somewhat unresolved. And everything in Garfield's Peter struck me. Sometimes you have more of an attitude than you really want to have and things may come out more angrily than you really want. When you're angry and not necessarily not used to expressing your anger, you may take it out on the wrong person because it all just builds up and you don't really know how to control it (i.e. "How dare you?!" to Uncle Ben).

    And yeah, I had some issues with the marketing. I completely spoiled myself with SM3 so I decided to hold myself to more general info for this one. But I still saw so much coming, just from the marketinga nd I was sitting there, wondering where one scene or another would fit in. I still enjoyed it a lot, but that sort of took me a little out of it.

    And if I have any typos, please excuse me. I've been typing too much on my phone and I'm not used to the computer anymore lol
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"