Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Amazing Spider-Man Movies' started by TheIrishAvenger, Jul 5, 2012.
Photo by RIM!
Do I believe Devin Faraci or Marc Webb? Well, I'm going Marc Webb 10 times out of 10 there. I do think they left a lot on the cutting room floor, but it doesn't have to do with genetic tampering on Peter.
I think the Genetic tampering stuff was in there and the Amazing Spider-Man game shows evidence of that as well, but seriously don't care that it wasn't in there in the final product. Maybe they left some things unresolved to use it in a sequel. Maybe we will find out more about Peter when he was a kid and Peters parents in the next one. No need to throw everything out there in the first film.
problem is Mark Webb is trying to sell his movie, so would he say oh yeah there was a scene that explained more about his origin but sony were worried the general public wouldnt like it so was told to edit it out
I wouldn't be surprised if there still was the possibility of genetic tampering...
but saved for the next movie.
I heard several rumors that the parents played a bigger role and that Peter's powers were somehow left to him by his father.
The second half of the movie is really awkwardly edited and now these pictures show a deleted scene that featured Lizard Dr. Ratha and Spidey (with the labcoat he should have had the whole movie! ) all confronting each other. We know from the trailer Ratha says to Peter, "Do you really think what happened to you was an accident, Peter?" In the final film, we see Lizard suddenly newly transformed (hence the labcoat! ), being randomly spotted by the cops and shot at. Obviously, the deleted scene of Peter confronting Connors and Ratha confronting Peter is here.
This at the very least indicates that they deleted a scene with some revelation for Peter from Ratha. And the labcoat.
Your logic doesn't make sense, though. If Sony hated the genetic tampering angle, why did they direct so much of the marketing towards it?
...I get that the Lizard in the comics always has his labcoat on, but can people stop obsessing over it?
It's a fairly minor detail and seriously, it gets annoying when people use it over and over and over as a negative point.
I don't know if Sony hated it. I think it probably tested poorly (there were a lot of rumors of mixed test results) and fans threw a tantrum on the Internet when Webb semi-eluded to it back in May. Sony saw that it may not play well to all audiences and just said, "cut it," so as to not piss any potential fans/repeat customers off.
Just a thought.
Taken out late because of fan backlash? I don't know. All I know is that people will never be happy, they *****ed the origin story was changing then they allegedly changed things and people are *****ing about that now. No one will ever be happy, it is a fact of life, someone will always find something to complain about. I feel sorry for those people that nitpick at every little thing in life, I feel like they are never able to enjoy anything.
Most seem to agree he looks better in the movie when he wears it (all 30 seconds of it). It just comes down to the character looks cooler with it on and looks less impressive with it off.
Still doesn't make sense. If Sony were worried that this new angle would turn off fans, they wouldn't base all their marketing around it. And when Marc Webb tells me that it's completely false and never happened, I'm going to believe him over someone like Devin Faraci, who's been rooting against this film since Day 1. Something important got left on the cutting floor, but it wasn't that.
I know that not all deleted scenes make it to the DVD, but does anyone this that this one will?
id guess sony added the mystery vibe to the trailers to bring in the audiance, so it didnt end up being just an origin trailer similar to SM1
they probably had no intention of showing that scene, its all about getting a wide audiance to see the film and then take it from there
They didn't know there'd be a backlash when the marketing began in like November 2011. Also, we do know that something about his origin is revealed in this cut scene.
PrettyMuchIt have a great video on the whole thing.
Honestly I agree this needed to stay untold. It ruins a lot of his charm.
Yes, and there's a better alternative than this Ang Lee Hulk ripoff theory: namely, that Dr. Ratha left the spider room unlocked when he saw Peter following him. Explains Ratha's line just as well as genetic tampering.
Marc Webb says that there will be maybe 4 deleted scenes in the entire film, but I doubt it will have anything to do with that "untold" story. Man, why does Sony keep doing this? Memories of Spider-Man 3 keep flashing before my eyes.
The above-embedded video analysis/discussion offers an excellent summation of things re: what was cut, but I do think that the creator of said video is making a bit more of a bigger issue of things than is actually warranted.
I said this elsewhere, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal that Peter never tracked down his uncle's killer because the film clearly demonstrates a shift in Peter's focus and priorities, first through the argument/discussion he has with Captain Stacy and later through the crisis on the bridge where he has to rescue that trapped kid (Jack).
Marc Webb said that the deleted scenes on the blu ray won't be necessary ones. Sigh.
Regardless what you think of Devin, there is obvious post-production problems with the movie. Denying it doesn't help, even if you liked the film.
I remember when the cast of Spider-Man 3 were doing promotion stuff, and never once did I get the vibe that they had issues with the production.
Then years later, the truth came out.
I'm not denying that something was left out, but I don't think it had to do with Richard experimenting on Peter. I think the sewer scene between Ratha, Connors, and Peter reveals that Ratha left the door unlocked on purpose, knowing that Peter was Richard Parker's son.
Because Studios are weird. They never learn for some odd reason.
As a Spidey fan myself, I never liked the backstory of his parents.