The Amazing Spider-Man The Official Marc Webb Thread

[ultimatefan]

nice that someoen wrotte this.

the hypocrites on the spiderman boards always make me laugh.because i remember very good how much they complaind about Sandman becoming the killer.i also did.but now its all Sony's fault that they forced Venom.


i bow to you all .

I´ve never been on Raimi´s throat for Sandman. I felt like it ultimately was a tacked retcon yes, but I understand the story reasons why it was made, and its a gross misinterpretation some fanboys make that it removes Peter´s responsibility, the burglar was as responsible as Flint, if Peter had stopped him, he wouldn´t have arrived at the scene and made Flint shoot, Ben might even have convinced him to leave.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Just watched Spider-Man 1 and now the characterization of the Burglar is so off. In Spidey 1 he's a cold hearted bastard ready to kill Peter when he chases him down.

In part 3, he's a little ***** who can't bring himself to hurt Uncle Ben. Totally not the same guy.

 

[ultimatefan]

Just watched Spider-Man 1 and now the characterization of the Burglar is so off. In Spidey 1 he's a cold hearted bastard ready to kill Peter when he chases him down.

In part 3, he's a little ***** who can't bring himself to hurt Uncle Ben. Totally not the same guy.

Because it´s literally not the same guy, you barely even see the burglar in the scene, it´s Flint who faces Ben and has second thoughts about the robbery.

If you´re talking about the first scene of the robbery, THAT WAS NEVER REAL! It was Peter imagining what might have happened. Apparently some people never saw the rest of the movie and still think it´s how Ben´s death happened.

 

[dark_b]

Just watched Spider-Man 1 and now the characterization of the Burglar is so off. In Spidey 1 he's a cold hearted bastard ready to kill Peter when he chases him down.

In part 3, he's a little ***** who can't bring himself to hurt Uncle Ben. Totally not the same guy.

because Raimi always thinks that every villain needs to be connected to spiderman . so he changed everything.

but noooooooooooo. its all venom's fault. Sony is Hitler for forcing Raimi.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

because Raimi always thinks that every villain needs to be connected to spiderman . so he changed everything.

but noooooooooooo. its all venom's fault. Sony is Hitler for forcing Raimi.

Yep. Raimi wanted Sandman. He probably had trouble making him the main bad guy, so he added in that retcon. And now the flow of the movies is all messed up.

Sony was smart to want Venom in my opinion. Sandman could NEVER hold up a movie by himself.

Personally I think Spidey 3 should've been neither of them. It should have just been Harry. Part 3 practically wrote itself with the way 2 left it with such a good opening. Except Raimi just somehow failed to deliver.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Because it´s literally not the same guy, you barely even see the burglar in the scene, it´s Flint who faces Ben and has second thoughts about the robbery.

If you´re talking about the first scene of the robbery, THAT WAS NEVER REAL! It was Peter imagining what might have happened. Apparently some people never saw the rest of the movie and still think it´s how Ben´s death happened.

He's there. He's like ''What are you doing?! No!" or something. He looks utterly ****ing terrified. I can't see that guy being the same guy who would dead pan with a gun to Peter's face say ''See ya."

 

[ultimatefan]

because Raimi always thinks that every villain needs to be connected to spiderman . so he changed everything.

but noooooooooooo. its all venom's fault. Sony is Hitler for forcing Raimi.

In GG,s case, it was from the comics. in Spidey 2 it made the character far more human than he was usually portrayed, it was in SM3 that it felt more forced.with Sabdman. Even for Venom there were other versions where Eddie knew Peter before becoming Venom, like TAS and Ultimate.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

In Spider-Man 2 it wasn't really necessary. It felt like he just didn't know how to introduce Ock any other way, than making him an idol of Peter's. That's still Raimi's Spider-Man masterpiece, yet that movie could've been just as good/if not better if all the sympathy for Ock was cut out.

 

[ultimatefan]

He's there. He's like ''What are you doing?! No!" or something. He looks utterly ****ing terrified. I can't see that guy being the same guy who would dead pan with a gun to Peter's face say ''See ya."

He´s scared of being caught, and of things going out of plan, not because what Flint did was so terrible. In the first movie he´s scared of Peter and asks for a chance. He´s violent, but ultimately a coward, like a lot of thieves.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

I still hold the robber responsible for Ben's death, since he jarred Flint's arm, causing him to accidentally pull the trigger.

 

[dark_b]

In GG,s case, it was from the comics. in Spidey 2 it made the character far more human than he was usually portrayed, it was in SM3 that it felt more forced.with Sabdman. Even for Venom there were other versions where Eddie knew Peter before becoming Venom, like TAS and Ultimate.

the first two tiems it was not a problem. like it was not a problem that MJ needs to be rescued in the first two movies. the problem was that in the third movie i was the same s.... again. and again.

 

[ultimatefan]

In Spider-Man 2 it wasn't really necessary. It felt like he just didn't know how to introduce Ock any other way, than making him an idol of Peter's. That's still Raimi's Spider-Man masterpiece, yet that movie could've been just as good/if not better if all the sympathy for Ock was cut out.

In my view it wouldn´t. Doc Ock believes in what he´s doing, which makes it much more believable that he goes as such lengths for his invention to work. Even so, there were clear signs of what a massive ego he had, like stopping Spidey from interrupting the experiment when there was clear danger.

It also fits Peter´s arc in the story that, like Doc has to accept that his invention was too dangerous, Peter had to accept that he was destined to be Spidey, no matter what.

 

[ultimatefan]

the first two tiems it was not a problem. like it was not a problem that MJ needs to be rescued in the first two movies. the problem was that in the third movie i was the same s.... again. and again.

That I agree, but now you see fanboys b***ing that all Raimi´s stuff always sucked, those are every bit as hypocrites as the ones you mentioned.

 

[ultimatefan]

I still hold the robber responsible for Ben's death, since he jarred Flint's arm, causing him to accidentally pull the trigger.

Exactly, if Peter had stopped him, the most likely scenario was that Flint would leave, either for the burglar taking too long or because Ben convinced him.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Personally I think Spidey 3 should've been neither of them. It should have just been Harry. Part 3 practically wrote itself with the way 2 left it with such a good opening. Except Raimi just somehow failed to deliver.

I agree 100%.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

Exactly, if Peter had stopped him, the most likely scenario was that Flint would leave, either for the burglar taking too long or because Ben convinced him.

I agree. So all of those people that whine, saying it ruins Spider-Man's origin, it doesn't.

 

[dark_b]

That I agree, but now you see fanboys b***ing that all Raimi´s stuff always sucked, those are every bit as hypocrites as the ones you mentioned.

good point.

Spidey 2

 

[BillyZaned]

THIS IS JUST AWESOME

"The touchstone for the new movie will not be the 1960s comics, which were the inspiration behind the movies by Raimi, who grew on up on them, but rather this past decade's 'Ultimate Spider-Man' comics by Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley where the villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst."

LOL... TEEN ANGST!!! Yes...

[YT]xSLlZh9yelk[/YT]

 

[The Chris]

He's there. He's like ''What are you doing?! No!" or something. He looks utterly ****ing terrified. I can't see that guy being the same guy who would dead pan with a gun to Peter's face say ''See ya."

You do realize that the scene you mention is basically a dream sequence right? That's not how it happens. The last one is the real deal, he runs towards flint, scares him, gets Ben shot, and just drives off.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I still hold the robber responsible for Ben's death, since he jarred Flint's arm, causing him to accidentally pull the trigger.

Exactly! It's still the same type of origin.

 

[ultimatefan]

You do realize that the scene you mention is basically a dream sequence right? That's not how it happens. The last one is the real deal, he runs towards flint, scares him, gets Ben shot, and just drives off.

That´s how I remember it too. The only one where I remember him being scared was Peter´s dream. I thought I could be remembering it wrong, but I´m not the only one then.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'm going to watch 2 and 3 later. Gugh, not looking forward to 3, but you are right. I might be wrong. Case in point is the one holding the gun is the one responsible. The arc with Sandman is even terrible. The forgiveness scene is the worst scene in the entire trilogy.

''I forgive you man I've spent the entire movie up until this point hating for no reason what so ever, even though you were just trying to kill me and the girl I want to spend the rest of my life with."

 

[spider-neil]

personally I think the change for doc ock in the movie was for the better. even though doc ock is my favorite spidey villian I always thought he was a little 2 dimensional. sam did a good job with fleshing him out.

however, I don't like what sam did with sandman. at. all. sandman is a petty crook, has always been a petty crook and SHOULD always be a petty crook, and sam could fairly say the sandman in the comics is/had tried to redeem himself, well I don't that that either. some villians should just be crazy.

 

[ultimatefan]

I'm going to watch 2 and 3 later. Gugh, not looking forward to 3, but you are right. I might be wrong. Case in point is the one holding the gun is the one responsible. The arc with Sandman is even terrible. The forgiveness scene is the worst scene in the entire trilogy.

''I forgive you man I've spent the entire movie up until this point hating for no reason what so ever, even though you were just trying to kill me and the girl I want to spend the rest of my life with."

That´s a terrible, simplistic logic. If you lose control of your car, crash your car on someone else´s car and that car hits a person, you´re responsible too, the fact it wasn´t your car that hit the person doesn´t remove your responsibility. It´s even worse in this case cuz the burglar knew Flint had a person at gun point.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

That´s a terrible, simplistic logic. If you lose control of your car, crash your car on someone else´s car and that car hits a person, you´re responsible too, the fact it wasn´t your car that hit the person doesn´t remove your responsibility.

Okay. Say I have a simplistic logic, but in the end, there was no reason for Sandman to be involved with Uncle Ben in the first place. It reeked of Raimi and Maguire trying to make Sandman bigger than he is.

Just as Neil said, Sandman should be a petty crook nothing more. No signs of redemption.