The Amazing Spider-Man *Update* Your Rating for TASM

[antonydelfini]

I don't know how you see that depth, but more power to you I guess, lol.



PeterBenParker said it best:





Of course we see this differently, but I can't excuse him because he's human and we always make mistakes...he has yet to rightfully respect the whole "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" shtick and until he does, then I will continue to bring the ending of TAS-M up. Perhaps Sam Raimi did it too fast with his Peter and his learning curve on the subject, but at least you get a feeling that the hero learned something at the end of the film, imo.

Tobey's PP was definitely not Stan's PP. Stan's PP was a wisecracker, had great wit, a great sense of humor,talks back to bullies, and prone to moments of weaknesses, temptations, making mistakes, and breaking his promises just like Andrew's PP. tobey's PP had some of those, except the humor wit wisecracking talking back to bullies department.

And Andrew's PP did learn about something in the movie. When he first put on the costume, he was doing it to avenge his uncle and take the blame of his uncle's death off himself. But during the course of the film, he learned that saving lives is more important. That basically happened during his dinner scene with Captain Stacy followed by the "im spider-man" in the bridge scene.

If the lesson you want him to learn in the movie is to keep his promise to a dead person to stay away from the girl of his dreams who he loves and loves him back, well Im glad that we didnt get that because it makes Peter more relatable and human. The fact that he even tried to keep that promise is enough for me.

is Peter evil or wrong for wanting to be with the person he loves just because he's afraid his enemies could hurt gwen? maybe, and he does it anyway because hes human and humans do crazy things for love. it's what comic book Peter would have done. he was Gwen's boyfriend when she was killed, you would have thought that he would stay away now and learn that being in a relationship is dangerous but no, MJ became his wife. Now was comis Peter evil for doing that? No, he fell in love with Mj that's why he continued to be in a relationship even if it was dngerous. Very similar with Andrew and Gwen's predicament in TASM movie.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I want a Peter Parker to be smarter for realizing his loved ones can be hurt, something Captain Stacy understood before the damn hero himself.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Of course we see this differently, but I can't excuse him because he's human and we always make mistakes...he has yet to rightfully respect the whole "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" shtick and until he does, then I will continue to bring the ending of TAS-M up. Perhaps Sam Raimi did it too fast with his Peter and his learning curve on the subject, but at least you get a feeling that the hero learned something at the end of the film, imo.

I want a Peter Parker to be smarter for realizing his loved ones can be hurt, something Captain Stacy understood before the damn hero himself.

Acknowledging that Peter is human who makes mistakes and then holding him to a higher standard that requires him to be perfect and not make mistakes is a bit contradictory. Of course Peter 'respects' the 'GPwGR' mantra. He learns this over the course of the film...the entire movie is based around this principle. "That thing on the bridge...whatever it was, it could have killed them...I've got to go after it."
"That's not your job"
"Well maybe it is" "It's my responsibility"
Peter put his selfish needs aside to help those in need. And Peter was always making mistakes along the way in the comics, no matter which version you read. To not accept this is denying one of the true relatable parts of the character that has always been with him throughout his life in any iteration. Even Tobey's Peter gave up being Spider-man so he could be with MJ. Turned his back on a kid getting bullied/beaten/robbed. Hey, you're entitled to your own opinion of course, it's just odd that you're being so stubborn about this issue.

Tobey's PP was definitely not Stan's PP. Stan's PP was a wisecracker, had great wit, a great sense of humor,talks back to bullies, and prone to moments of weaknesses, temptations, making mistakes, and breaking his promises just like Andrew's PP. tobey's PP had some of those, except the humor wit wisecracking talking back to bullies department.

And Andrew's PP did learn about something in the movie. When he first put on the costume, he was doing it to avenge his uncle and take the blame of his uncle's death off himself. But during the course of the film, he learned that saving lives is more important. That basically happened during his dinner scene with Captain Stacy followed by the "im spider-man" in the bridge scene.

If the lesson you want him to learn in the movie is to keep his promise to a dead person to stay away from the girl of his dreams who he loves and loves him back, well Im glad that we didnt get that because it makes Peter more relatable and human. The fact that he even tried to keep that promise is enough for me.

is Peter evil or wrong for wanting to be with the person he loves just because he's afraid his enemies could hurt gwen? maybe, and he does it anyway because hes human and humans do crazy things for love. it's what comic book Peter would have done. he was Gwen's boyfriend when she was killed, you would have thought that he would stay away now and learn that being in a relationship is dangerous but no, MJ became his wife. Now was comis Peter evil for doing that? No, he fell in love with Mj that's why he continued to be in a relationship even if it was dngerous. Very similar with Andrew and Gwen's predicament in TASM movie.

 

[BlackFox]

It was fairly standard stuff, watchable but ultimately had no real reason to exist, not to say the sequals cant improve but it was forgettable in almost every way, the original did so much better but at least it was better than SM3. 5/10

 

[Anno_Domini]

Acknowledging that Peter is human who makes mistakes and then holding him to a higher standard that requires him to be perfect and not make mistakes is a bit contradictory. Of course Peter 'respects' the 'GPwGR' mantra. He learns this over the course of the film...the entire movie is based around this principle. "That thing on the bridge...whatever it was, it could have killed them...I've got to go after it."
"That's not your job"
"Well maybe it is" "It's my responsibility"
Peter put his selfish needs aside to help those in need. And Peter was always making mistakes along the way in the comics, no matter which version you read. To not accept this is denying one of the true relatable parts of the character that has always been with him throughout his life in any iteration. Even Tobey's Peter gave up being Spider-man so he could be with MJ. Turned his back on a kid getting bullied/beaten/robbed. Hey, you're entitled to your own opinion of course, it's just odd that you're being so stubborn about this issue.

Not contradictory at all when Peter is also Spider-Man...you know, a superhero. Peter Parker needs to be smarter than the natural mistake-making human being because of the fact that he goes by the motto of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". It's contradictory, actually, to say Peter should make make mistakes because he's only human because that's like saying he should toss out that motto of what he lives by.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Not contradictory at all when Peter is also Spider-Man...you know, a superhero. Peter Parker needs to be smarter than the natural mistake-making human being because of the fact that he goes by the motto of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". It's contradictory, actually, to say Peter should make make mistakes because he's only human because that's like saying he should toss out that motto of what he lives by.

He's a human blessed with supernatural powers but that still doesn't make him perfect. And to say he's human yet hold him to that standard of never making a mistake is a contradiction. Especially when in every other iteration, including Raimi's, Peter does indeed make mistakes. To deny this part of Peter is to deny one of the very things that defines him. To have these supernatural powers doesn't change or affect his emotions and cognitive abilities. Even you acknowledge that there is "learning curve" present...and no matter how smart he may be...wisdom isn't simply granted by a genetic/radioactive spider bite.

Peter lives by a code, not by absolutes. There will be and has been times, in the comics/movies, when the code is bent and there will be and has been times when the code is broken. That's where we relate to Peter. Is he smart? Of course. But even the smartest of people make misjudgements.

I'm a firefighter. My work involves following a certain standard or 'code' yet myself and others I work with make mistakes. We misjudge things and sometimes things go wrong. Should we deny the human aspect of ourselves simply because we live/work by a code? If we make a mistake, does that mean we must get rid of our code?

And what about Christians? They live by a code. The ten commandments. But even they acknowledge that they occasionally break the code..."we're all sinners in God's eyes." Isn't that why they have confessions and Lent...there's atonement, wash away the sins and start a new. If they break the code because of a mistake does that mean they should throw out their code or mantra they live by?

Point is...Peter's human element is a defining part of who he is...it's something he cannot just simply throw away. He holds his 'mantra' his 'code' and attempts to follow it the best that he can, but there are tons of variables and unfortunately he will make decisions that go against the code. He always has and he always will.

 

[Green Goblin]

Neither was Andrew's, lol.

smart,geeky,witty,shy with girls *cough* Ultimate Spider-Man...

 

[Green Goblin]

It was fairly standard stuff, watchable but ultimately had no real reason to exist, not to say the sequals cant improve but it was forgettable in almost every way, the original did so much better but at least it was better than SM3. 5/10

no reason to exist? Spider-Man 3... I thought the cast in this was better than in SM1 at least

 

[antonydelfini]

He's a human blessed with supernatural powers but that still doesn't make him perfect. And to say he's human yet hold him to that standard of never making a mistake is a contradiction. Especially when in every other iteration, including Raimi's, Peter does indeed make mistakes. To deny this part of Peter is to deny one of the very things that defines him. To have these supernatural powers doesn't change or affect his emotions and cognitive abilities. Even you acknowledge that there is "learning curve" present...and no matter how smart he may be...wisdom isn't simply granted by a genetic/radioactive spider bite.

Peter lives by a code, not by absolutes. There will be and has been times, in the comics/movies, when the code is bent and there will be and has been times when the code is broken. That's where we relate to Peter. Is he smart? Of course. But even the smartest of people make misjudgements.

I'm a firefighter. My work involves following a certain standard or 'code' yet myself and others I work with make mistakes. We misjudge things and sometimes things go wrong. Should we deny the human aspect of ourselves simply because we live/work by a code? If we make a mistake, does that mean we must get rid of our code?

And what about Christians? They live by a code. The ten commandments. But even they acknowledge that they occasionally break the code..."we're all sinners in God's eyes." Isn't that why they have confessions and Lent...there's atonement, wash away the sins and start a new. If they break the code because of a mistake does that mean they should throw out their code or mantra they live by?

Point is...Peter's human element is a defining part of who he is...it's something he cannot just simply throw away. He holds his 'mantra' his 'code' and attempts to follow it the best that he can, but there are tons of variables and unfortunately he will make decisions that go against the code. He always has and he always will.

Wow, you're a firefighter? We got a real superhero here.

Anways, I hope Webb continues to present Peter as human with a good heart but prone to making mistakes and selfishness. Turning him into a saint would go aginst everything Stan the man did in the comics.

 

[Green Goblin]

You do know that the CB peter parker did the same thing (616 anyway)

 

[Anno_Domini]

He's a human blessed with supernatural powers but that still doesn't make him perfect. And to say he's human yet hold him to that standard of never making a mistake is a contradiction. Especially when in every other iteration, including Raimi's, Peter does indeed make mistakes. To deny this part of Peter is to deny one of the very things that defines him. To have these supernatural powers doesn't change or affect his emotions and cognitive abilities. Even you acknowledge that there is "learning curve" present...and no matter how smart he may be...wisdom isn't simply granted by a genetic/radioactive spider bite.

Peter lives by a code, not by absolutes. There will be and has been times, in the comics/movies, when the code is bent and there will be and has been times when the code is broken. That's where we relate to Peter. Is he smart? Of course. But even the smartest of people make misjudgements.

I'm a firefighter. My work involves following a certain standard or 'code' yet myself and others I work with make mistakes. We misjudge things and sometimes things go wrong. Should we deny the human aspect of ourselves simply because we live/work by a code? If we make a mistake, does that mean we must get rid of our code?

And what about Christians? They live by a code. The ten commandments. But even they acknowledge that they occasionally break the code..."we're all sinners in God's eyes." Isn't that why they have confessions and Lent...there's atonement, wash away the sins and start a new. If they break the code because of a mistake does that mean they should throw out their code or mantra they live by?

Point is...Peter's human element is a defining part of who he is...it's something he cannot just simply throw away. He holds his 'mantra' his 'code' and attempts to follow it the best that he can, but there are tons of variables and unfortunately he will make decisions that go against the code. He always has and he always will.

It's to an absolute when he DOES have superpowers though. He should be better than the average person because of those powers he has. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why anyone would give Peter an excuse to make mistakes like a human, or better yet, a teenager when he has a "code" to stand by that he needs to stand by more than any one out there as a superhero needs to live by a code more than anyone, including someone in a position as a police officer, a religious person, etc.

smart,geeky,witty,shy with girls *cough* Ultimate Spider-Man...

Maybe that is my biggest problem, lol.

 

[Green Goblin]

Maybe that is my biggest problem, lol.

Read Ultimate Spider-Man or Spider-Man Season one. Garfield looks and acts like both of them. He is even like 616 though he is less of a stereotype. My point is that Garfield was close to the comics and has the general attributes to early days 616 Parker.

my god it's Garfield...
I would cut out bits from these to prove my point but I can't be bothered
Read any of these book, watch TASM again and you'll atleast appreciate it more...

 

[Anno_Domini]

What I mean with it being my biggest problem is I don't care for Ultimate Spider-Man, lol.

I always felt he had the Ultimate look for sure, but I never cared for the comics...although, I'd rather read the ultimate comics than watch the cartoon.

 

[sontin]

Tobey's PP was definitely not Stan's PP. Stan's PP was a wisecracker, had great wit, a great sense of humor,talks back to bullies, and prone to moments of weaknesses, temptations, making mistakes, and breaking his promises just like Andrew's PP. tobey's PP had some of those, except the humor wit wisecracking talking back to bullies department.

Stan Lee's pre-bitten Peter Parker did not stand up to bullies.

And Andrew's PP did learn about something in the movie. When he first put on the costume, he was doing it to avenge his uncle and take the blame of his uncle's death off himself. But during the course of the film, he learned that saving lives is more important. That basically happened during his dinner scene with Captain Stacy followed by the "im spider-man" in the bridge scene.

That is fine. But has nothing to do with Stan Lee's Peter Parker. And it's not even close to AF15.

If the lesson you want him to learn in the movie is to keep his promise to a dead person to stay away from the girl of his dreams who he loves and loves him back, well Im glad that we didnt get that because it makes Peter more relatable and human. The fact that he even tried to keep that promise is enough for me.

In the comics people learned that he is responsible for every person he has a relationship with. In the movie he does not care because he never learned "responsibility" from anything...

 

[Green Goblin]

Stan Lee's pre-bitten Peter Parker did not stand up to bullies.



That is fine. But has nothing to do with Stan Lee's Peter Parker. And it's not even close to AF15.



In the comics people learned that he is responsible for every person he has a relationship with. In the movie he does not care because he never learned "responsibility" from anything...

Modern versions have him standing up to bully's, he had the courage but not the power. You forget that 616 Parker broke the promise, like the comics it's so he has the guilt. He did learn responsibility, he became a hero and not a vigilante, not as responsible as maguire's but his was a Boy Scout... They can't have spidey catch gwen by a web as it was done similarly in sm1, they have to find another way to make him guilty...

 

[MrSpyder]

http://www.amctheatres.com/programs...organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
For anyone interested AMC Theatres will show ASM for three days July 8,9,10 2013. Proceeds goes to charity

 

[Picard Sisko]

http://www.amctheatres.com/programs...organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
For anyone interested AMC Theatres will show ASM for three days July 8,9,10 2013. Proceeds goes to charity

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[TheLastBlade]

First Viewing: 8.5
Now: 8

Looking at the Lizard/Conners, it brought down .5 points. Do I still like it? Hell yes. For it's shortcomings like some of the editing, a few awkward lines, and design choices, things like these redeem it in my eyes.

-Awesome actors
-Love interest isn't MJ
-Likable characters
-Ben plays a bigger role
-Gwen DOES something as opposed to that ***** MJ *cough* *cough*
-Peter is relatable
-Choreography is easy to follow and well executed
-The setting
-The web shooters
-The technology
-The police doing SOMETHING
-Support characters like Captain Stacy
-Well acted lines (even though a bit shaky)
-Gwen is REALLY likable

And so on.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Last night I went to see The Amazing Spider-Man at an AMC theater for its summer night's charity program. Even a year later, the audience was really loving the movie. They were laughing at all the funny parts as well (Peter on the subway, Peter in the bathroom breaking his sink, Uncle Ben at school, etc.) and were certainly enjoying it.

After the post credits scene with the man in the shadows, I heard a lot of people speculate about who they thought he really was. They seemed pumped for the sequel!

As for my own views:

I still really like this film, and will give it an 8/10. I love everything about this film except for the Lizard, who does drag the film down a bit. If he was just done right, I could have given it a 9/10.

 

[TheLastBlade]

Boston Globe called it the worst superhero film since the green lantern :P

 

[Picard Sisko]

Boston Globe called it the worst superhero film since the green lantern :P

Wow. That is really harsh. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I can't even imagine why someone would compare TASM to Green Lantern.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Last night I went to see The Amazing Spider-Man at an AMC theater for its summer night's charity program. Even a year later, the audience was really loving the movie. They were laughing at all the funny parts as well (Peter on the subway, Peter in the bathroom breaking his sink, Uncle Ben at school, etc.) and were certainly enjoying it.

After the post credits scene with the man in the shadows, I heard a lot of people speculate about who they thought he really was. They seemed pumped for the sequel!

As for my own views:

I still really like this film, and will give it an 8/10. I love everything about this film except for the Lizard, who does drag the film down a bit. If he was just done right, I could have given it a 9/10.

That's awesome. I saw the link that Mrpaul so graciously posted but unfortunately due to work and some other engagements I wasn't able to find the time to go to the showings.

It's great to hear that audiences are still loving the movie. Was it a packed house? I wonder out of the audience members who was there seeing ASM for the first time, who was there to support the charity or who was there in support of Spidey.

I agree with your sentiment on the review. I give the film an 8.5, for about the same reasons. I love the movie however I felt Connors was not developed enough and although I had no qualms about the Lizard's overall design and 'master plan' he was simply underused and rushed.

 

[BlueGreenBlur]

Used to be somewhere between 7-8, now it's a 9 something after rewatching with my sister. Bring on the sequel!

 

[Captain Croatia]

First rating: 8
Current rating: 7

It really has some serious plot holes, that's little annoying to me. And I think whose fault is that? Writers?

 

[BH/HHH]

9/10 - as damn near perfect as it gets and an actual wise cracking Spider-man who actually looks the part. I think it's one of the most underrated CBMs of all-time. In my top 5 for sure.