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

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?

 

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!

 

...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.

 

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.