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

[Jexx]

I wouldn't know, I've never been in a relationship.

:/

 

[GuestStar2004]

they say teenagers are mostly driven by hormones

crushes,puppy love ect

 

[Jexx]

I am a teenager, I know that. (17, to be exact)

 

[SpeterMan3]

I wouldn't know, I've never been in a relationship.

:/

Haha, same. But from my observations, Gwen and Peter's relationship wasn't extremely rushed. Gwen is just more bold (and formal) than most girls would be, inviting Peter to dinner pretty quickly. I wouldn't even say they were "official" until after the dinner, anyway.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I am a teenager, I know that. (17, to be exact)

oh my apologies t:

 

[Jexx]

That's true. I think that my initial observations of that were because I think I missed part of the scene where Peter attempts to ask Gwen out because I was talking to my father (I'm the kind of person who comments on movies >.<)

 

[SpeterMan3]

The awesomely awkward back-and-forth? I wish I could be that awkward and still have somebody understand me.. my friends make me complete sentences.

 

[GuestStar2004]

The awesomely awkward back-and-forth? I wish I could be that awkward and still have somebody understand me.. my friends make me complete sentences.

Agreed it was really sweet and id like to meet a girl who i could have that kinda of chemistry with

that and its better then tobys peter just perving mary jane through window t:

 

[Jexx]

Some would say that Peter showing up on the staircase and coming in through Gwen's window was worse than Peter looking at MJ get ready in the morning :P

Also! Marty McFly's father perved on his mom in the 50's! And they turned out fine! :P

 

[Dragon]

The awesomely awkward back-and-forth? I wish I could be that awkward and still have somebody understand me.. my friends make me complete sentences.

But that's what makes their relationship so unrealistic. Most girls would've been turned off at Peter's awkwardness- especially when Gwen makes it so obvious that she's interested in him.

I think the enjoyment that people are experiencing with the Peter/Gwen thing is more wish fulfillment than it being in anyway realistic.

 

[Jexx]

...Why..why...

Why must you directly confront people about their opinions..

It's like you want other people to change their opinions on things as simple as a movie.

 

[Dragon]

Agreed it was really sweet and id like to meet a girl who i could have that kinda of chemistry with

that and its better then tobys peter just perving mary jane through window t:

He just glances at her. And why is MJ dressing in front of an open window? She's an exhibitionist.

Although in James Cameron's scriptment, Peter actually climbs up to MJ's window and watches her.

Some would say that Peter showing up on the staircase and coming in through Gwen's window was worse than Peter looking at MJ get ready in the morning :P

Yeah. Stalker.

Also! Marty McFly's father perved on his mom in the 50's! And they turned out fine! :P

He isn't peeping on Lorraine. It's someone else. Doesn't make it okay, but...

 

[Dragon]

...Why..why...

Why must you directly confront people about their opinions..

It's like you want other people to change their opinions on things as simple as a movie.

Everyone here does that. It's called a discussion. I'm not expecting anyone to surrender their opinion to mine. Stop being so sensitive. It is only a movie.

 

[SpeterMan3]

But that's what makes their relationship so unrealistic. Most girls would've been turned off at Peter's awkwardness- especially when Gwen makes it so obvious that she's interested in him.

I think the enjoyment that people are experiencing with the Peter/Gwen thing is more wish fulfillment than it being in anyway realistic.

I can agree with that. it is somewhat unrealistic, but it's by no means impossible, which makes it more fascinating, at least IMO.

 

[The Guard]

But that's what makes their relationship so unrealistic. Most girls would've been turned off at Peter's awkwardness- especially when Gwen makes it so obvious that she's interested in him.

Gwen isn't most girls. They made her behavior compatible with his.

 

[Dragon]

Gwen isn't most girls. They made her behavior compatible with his.

Exactly. Her character isn't realistic. She's a fantasy girl.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Exactly. Her character isn't realistic. She's a fantasy girl.

Thats a very Small minded view on teenage girls.

not all girls are the same and some even like shy guys or guys that are different (yes even the pretty ones)

Mary jane in SM1 was the stereotypical teenage girl wanting guys with cars and whatever

 

[Dragon]

Thats a very Small minded view on teenage girls.

not all girls are the same and some like shy guys or guys that are different (yes even the pretty ones)

Mary jane in SM1 was the stereotypical teenage girl wanting guys with cars and whatever

No, actually the film had a small-minded view of teenage girls. Gwen was flawless- but only from Peter's perspective. She was there to give him everything he needed, even if he wasn't there for her. When he stumbles through asking her out, she's patient and understanding. But then he brushes her off- putting their date off until she has to directly invite him to dinner. At the dinner Peter is rude to her father.

Yes, Stacy was a bit of a jerk, and a hypocrite, accusing Spidey of following his own vendetta, even though Stacy himself is following a vendetta against Spidey- rather than pursuing the Lizard, which is a true danger to the public. But- Peter should have been more respectful if for no other reason than making Gwen's life easier.

Peter rejects Gwen's very sweet attempt to comfort him when Ben dies. And when Gwen's dad dies he doesn't go to comfort her. Yes- he made a half-hearted promise to leave her alone- but he could have gone to Gwen, supported her in her time of need and explained that he made the promise to her dad (Stacy didn't swear him to secrecy). And since it was obvious that he'd break the promise anyway, it was a total waste of screentime.

Gwen didn't have any quirks that geniuses tend to have (Peter certainly did). She was always pleasent and loving. Again, a fantasy girl, not a real person.

 

[GuestStar2004]

No, actually the film had a small-minded view of teenage girls. Gwen was flawless- but only from Peter's perspective. She was there to give him everything he needed, even if he wasn't there for her.
When he stumbles through asking her out, she's patient and understanding. But then he brushes her off- putting their date off until she has to directly invite him to dinner.

i dont know if your going by girls you have met but she liked peter and she was willing to put more effort in, you can say thats unlikely but like is said already not all girls are the same

Peter rejects Gwen's very sweet attempt to comfort him when Ben dies. And when Gwen's dad dies he doesn't go to comfort her. Yes- he made a half-hearted promise to leave her alone- but he could have gone to Gwen, supported her in her time of need and explained that he made the promise to her dad (Stacy didn't swear him to secrecy). And since it was obvious that he'd break the promise anyway, it was a total waste of screentime..

peter obviously felt guilty about what happened to her dad, probably didnt know what to say to her, its not at all strange and as for the promise well that may have circumstances later on

Gwen didn't have any quirks that geniuses tend to have (Peter certainly did). She was always pleasent and loving. Again, a fantasy girl, not a real person.

so you expected the glasses wearing geek girl? aint that abit stereotypical?

and judging by her talk with her dad about wanting to live in a chocolate house which she was abit embarrassed about you could tell she does what everyone does with someone they like and thats be flawless in there eyes

 

[Oscorp]

Agreed it was really sweet and id like to meet a girl who i could have that kinda of chemistry with

Me too!

 

[The Guard]

Exactly. Her character isn't realistic. She's a fantasy girl.

Yup.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

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.

A torrent of relatively templated movies? Really? Thor was more Shakesperian drama and Captain America was a period piece. Amazing Spider-man was more mainstream than either of those two movies. The Avengers was also much more of a character piece than Amazing Spider-man tried to be.

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.

It may have been believable for a normal teenager would act, but not how Peter Parker would act. Aside from Superman, I'd consider him the ultimate goody two shoes. The only time he should act cocky and the way he did in the movie is between discovering his powers and Ben's death or under the influence of the symbiote. It's called knowing the character, Andrew's portrayal was about as faithful as George Clooney's Batman.

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.

Why would the movie go down the road of having Peter seek fame and fortune, well, hmmmm, because that's his f'ing origin! Peter dismissed responsiblity for a noble cause this time, not a selfish cause. Ben (and May) would probably have understood what happened if he told them the truth about what happened. It's a huge part of his origin. It's part of his guilt and something he's constantly making up for.

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.

The point about the veteran's clinic is a good point. However, the rest is pretty weak. He wants a new arm, it's the main goal of the research from the get go of course. However, you put the family in there and it mirrors Peter's situation, he's gotta cure Connors, not just because he's menacing the city, but also he doesn't want another family to lose their father.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

But that's what makes their relationship so unrealistic. Most girls would've been turned off at Peter's awkwardness- especially when Gwen makes it so obvious that she's interested in him.

I think the enjoyment that people are experiencing with the Peter/Gwen thing is more wish fulfillment than it being in anyway realistic.

That's not unrealistic. I know a lot of girls that think when a guy stutters or acts shy it's cute. Just look at his reactions. Don't pay attention to the words. Look at his facial expressions. You can clearly tell that he wants to say something, but it doesn't come out as "smooth" as it does in his head. And he managed to accomplish the best ways to a girl's heart. Ask any girl. The best ways to get a girl interested are to make her laugh (which he did when he was talking to her) and to impress her (when Peter defended that guy against Flash).

 

[Gwendolyn Stacy]

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?

Personally, the trailers I had seen beforehand didn't ruin anything for me.
Gwen's "I'm in trouble" line got a lot of laughs at the theater I was at, even though it was used in tv spots. But yeah. I agree that trailers and tv spots shouldn't show too much.