The Amazing Spider-Man Worst part of TASM

[Picard Sisko]

The relationship wasn't forced. But now that people are even comparing it to Twilight AGAIN, I'm not going to even bother.

 

[OcStat]

Hey, you should know by now any movie with two teenage characters and any amount of romance is clearly ripping off or trying to cash in on Twilight.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Hey, you should know by now any movie with two teenage characters and any amount of romance is clearly ripping off or trying to cash in on Twilight.

Twilight had been pre-ripped off for years before its release!!!!!!!

 

[Zaron]

The unmasking in ASM didn't bother me nearly as much as it did in Raimi's films. Raimi hates obscuring the actor's faces, so he would deliberately build the scenes around unmasking characters. In ASM, unmasking in front the little kid wasn't completely necessary, but it made a fair amount of sense and if I hadn't already become annoyed with Raimi's films' inability to keep Spidey masked, I'd have no problem with it at all. And being unmasked by Captain Stacey didn't bother me at all because it actually advanced the plot quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I love the Raimi films to death, but the mask issue was one where I kind of wanted to shake the man by the shoulders and say "You're making a superhero movie! There's going to be masks! Get over it!"

 

[Human Torch]

Raimi went so far he had Peter fully costumed as Spider-man, but somehow only forgetting to put his mask on - because he apparently didn't have 1.5 seconds to put on the one item that would keep his identity secret - in that alley scene with Mary Jane being assaulted.

That was supposedly to give MJ a clue as to Spidey's identity,and give the audience a "did she see him?" moment.It wasn't a stroke of genius,but that was a heat of the moment thing.It pales to wearing a costume that covers you from head to toe and carrying a camera with big honking letters spelling PROPERTY OF PETER PARKER.

 

[Human Torch]

The relationship wasn't forced. But now that people are even comparing it to Twilight AGAIN, I'm not going to even bother.

There was no real reason for them to let Gwen know his identity other than the "teen romance" angle.........most recently popularized by Twilight.

They also let her find out in the worst most unimaginative way possible.

 

[thejon93]

Yeah, Raimi was the worst for removing the masks. Especially for Venom, which was a real shame (because his dialogue would have been so much cooler if Venom's face was left intact, instead of constant Topher time).

 

[Human Torch]

I don't think it's as much the director's fault as the studio wanting to show off their precious actors kissers.I think only Nolan's clout is what kept Batman's mask on during those films.



I remember in the GI Joe ROC commentary,Sommers was saying the suits wanted to remove Snake Eyes mask half way through filming,because they couldn't "relate" to him or some such rot.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Hey, you should know by now any movie with two teenage characters and any amount of romance is clearly ripping off or trying to cash in on Twilight.

lol. Ah, yes, the good 'ol Twilight comparisons.

The unmasking in ASM didn't bother me nearly as much as it did in Raimi's films. Raimi hates obscuring the actor's faces, so he would deliberately build the scenes around unmasking characters. In ASM, unmasking in front the little kid wasn't completely necessary, but it made a fair amount of sense and if I hadn't already become annoyed with Raimi's films' inability to keep Spidey masked, I'd have no problem with it at all. And being unmasked by Captain Stacey didn't bother me at all because it actually advanced the plot quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I love the Raimi films to death, but the mask issue was one where I kind of wanted to shake the man by the shoulders and say "You're making a superhero movie! There's going to be masks! Get over it!"

Yes to all of this. The only mask removal in ASM that was out of place was the scene with Peter running down the high school hallway with mask in hand just after the fight with the Lizard. It would have made more sense had they included the remainder of that fight scene, but whatever. Otherwise, all the other unmasked sequences fit well within the context of the movie and unlike Raimi, wasn't just an excuse to expose the actor's face for emotion.

 

[Visualiza]

Yes to all of this. The only mask removal in ASM that was out of place was the scene with Peter running down the high school hallway with mask in hand just after the fight with the Lizard. It would have made more sense had they included the remainder of that fight scene, but whatever. Otherwise, all the other unmasked sequences fit well within the context of the movie and unlike Raimi, wasn't just an excuse to expose the actor's face for emotion.

Pure spin. Seems that fans of TASM will unconditionally defend the movie's flaws, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, not unlike MoS fans and John Kent's death...or the myriad of other issues that movie had. I didn't like TASM myself, but I'll be the first to say that this whole unmasking controversy didn't bother me in the least, nor did it in the previous series, as the movie has way bigger problems than that. Talk about blowing things out of proportion; it's time we started calling a spade a spade, folks. Both movies did it, and arguing over whether one was more sensible than the other is just splitting hairs by now.

 

[Human Torch]

Pure spin. Seems that fans of TASM will unconditionally defend the movie's flaws, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, not unlike MoS fans and John Kent's death...or the myriad of other issues that movie had. I didn't like TASM myself, but I'll be the first to say that this whole unmasking controversy didn't bother me in the least, nor did it in the previous series, as the movie has way bigger problems than that. Talk about blowing things out of proportion; it's time we started calling a spade a spade, folks. Both movies did it, and arguing over whether one was more sensible than the other is just splitting hairs by now.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Pure spin. Seems that fans of TASM will unconditionally defend the movie's flaws, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, not unlike MoS fans and John Kent's death...or the myriad of other issues that movie had.

Well considering that the unmasking in ASM is not a flaw, there's nothing to defend. And please don't lump me into the 'over obsessive fanboy group' that you seem to be placing everyone--I make rational decisions about the things I see and will only defend something if I feel it's worthy of a defense. I recognize flaws in ASM. As a point of interest, I have been defending certain aspects of the Raimi films for years.

I didn't like TASM myself, but I'll be the first to say that this whole unmasking controversy didn't bother me in the least, nor did it in the previous series, as the movie has way bigger problems than that.

It certainly does. There are aspects of ASM that I found to be flawed.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion; it's time we started calling a spade a spade, folks. Both movies did it, and arguing over whether one was more sensible than the other is just splitting hairs by now.

imo the unmaskings were more sensibly done in ASM. They fit better within the story. Just because both movies have done it doesn't mean they are equal.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That was supposedly to give MJ a clue as to Spidey's identity,and give the audience a "did she see him?" moment.

Funny, that gave me a "what is he, an idiot? It'd have been better even if he had put only the mask on than everything BUT the mask!" moment.

Because it wasn't a matter of not having enough time; a couple o scenes later we see Peter changing into Spider-man at the Bugle in a matter of seconds with no problem.

It wasn't a stroke of genius,but that was a heat of the moment thing.

Really? What stopped him from protecting the one part of his body that could reveal his identity?

What's funnier; for all the (often unreasonable) unmasking Raimi had in this movie, the one moment Spider-man should have been unmasked, he wasn't. When Green Goblin sedated him and had him for hours on top of that building. Goblin had every reason to unmask him. Later in the movie, he used Spider-man's identity against him. But somehow he waited hours for Spider-man to wake up and have that little chat with him but no, he didn't even think of seeing who was under the mask.

It pales to wearing a costume that covers you from head to toe and carrying a camera with big honking letters spelling PROPERTY OF PETER PARKER.

No. Peter had that camera with him before he became a superhero. He certainly should have removed the label, but I can get that he just forgot to do it as a rookie mistake over not putting your mask on. You don't learn that your mask is important, it is really that very obvious.


*************************************

There was no real reason for them to let Gwen know his identity other than the "teen romance" angle.........most recently popularized by Twilight.

Did someone wear masks in Twilight? If not, then dozens of other movies had teenage romances just as in TASM, something that was invented and popularized decades before Twilight.

They also let her find out in the worst most unimaginative way possible.

Like because he was for no reason revealing his identity to his enemy and she just happened to see?

In TASM case, he had a reason as it was clear Spider-man was going to be an issue with Gwen's father.


**************************************

I don't think it's as much the director's fault as the studio wanting to show off their precious actors kissers.I think only Nolan's clout is what kept Batman's mask on during those films.

Do you have any link where those malign studio executives were forcing Raimi to unmask Spider-man and Venom as much as possible?



**************************************

Pure spin. Seems that fans of TASM will unconditionally defend the movie's flaws, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, not unlike MoS fans and John Kent's death...or the myriad of other issues that movie had. I didn't like TASM myself, but I'll be the first to say that this whole unmasking controversy didn't bother me in the least, nor did it in the previous series, as the movie has way bigger problems than that. Talk about blowing things out of proportion; it's time we started calling a spade a spade, folks. Both movies did it, and arguing over whether one was more sensible than the other is just splitting hairs by now.

So far everyone has called the unmasking, unmasking. But Raimi had the unmasking happening before Mary Jane for no reason whatsoever, and before a whole train for no reason whatsoever.

Unmasking in itself is not a flaw.

 

[Visualiza]

Well considering that the unmasking in ASM is not a flaw, there's nothing to defend. And please don't lump me into the 'over obsessive fanboy group' that you seem to be placing everyone--I make rational decisions about the things I see and will only defend something if I feel it's worthy of a defense. I recognize flaws in ASM. As a point of interest, I have been defending certain aspects of the Raimi films for years.

Semantics. Flaw, issue, nitpick, whatever you want to call it, the manner in which people are discussing it fit that context. When you default to "Well, Raimi did it worse, this movie was more sensible, etc." then that is indeed defending it, but whatever, we're getting off track.

imo the unmaskings were more sensibly done in ASM. They fit better within the story. Just because both movies have done it doesn't mean they are equal.

But they are equal. I think the occurences of it across both franchises are equally contrived. This isn't my bag, but since we've already gone there...and more times than anyone could hope to count, lets examine them.

Raimi

1. Warehouse with Ben's killer - He was pissed off. I get it, but stupid. Would have only made a modicum of sense if Peter was intent on killing the guy, and for as angry as he was, I don't think that's was the intent. However you spin it, largely inconsequential.
2. Alleyway in the rain - Silly plot contrivance. Rain or shine, this protects his identity, and should have been the first thing he put on. But again, big deal.
3. Final confrontation - Another contrivance. His mask, of all things, was blown to pieces. Yawn.

Webb

1. Car at the bridge - Unnecessary. Again, I get it, but equally stupid. Also inconsequential, but keep in mind that he was also swinging through the city in his regular attire.
2. School Fight - Didn't seem a contrivance, just played out like an oversight with the writing/editing. One minute, he's fighting with it on, while the next, its in his hand. In the end, didn't matter much.
3. Final confrontation - Contrivance. Connors already knew who he was, so why even bother? Because it was more sensible to taunt him with it off? Please.

I have never heard a reasonable excuse as to why either movie did it more sensibly than the other; I just can't see how even the most ardent defender of either film can take up for any of these. But my point is...who cares, and why waste the effort? Does anyone believe that someone else actually stands to be convinced?

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, although what's interesting to me is that people used to talk a good game about how it was so tiresome and eye-roll inducing before TASM dropped, yet here we have this newer movie, with just as many equally contrived instances of it as with its predecessor. Imagine that.

Notice how whenever there's a war of words over whether a Spider-Man movie is itself bad or comparatively worse than its counterpart, this always gets brought up. It's just petty by now.

 

[Human Torch]

Funny, that gave me a "what is he, an idiot? It'd have been better even if he had put only the mask on than everything BUT the mask!" moment.

But you're willing to let his name on a camera that could trace him back to dear Aunt May,go by as an understandable mistake?

Because it wasn't a matter of not having enough time; a couple o scenes later we see Peter changing into Spider-man at the Bugle in a matter of seconds with no problem.

Well,lets be honest.MJ was seconds away from being the victim of a would-be gang rape.You think he was maybe thinking just a bit impulsively?

Really? What stopped him from protecting the one part of his body that could reveal his identity?

What's funnier; for all the (often unreasonable) unmasking Raimi had in this movie, the one moment Spider-man should have been unmasked, he wasn't. When Green Goblin sedated him and had him for hours on top of that building. Goblin had every reason to unmask him. Later in the movie, he used Spider-man's identity against him. But somehow he waited hours for Spider-man to wake up and have that little chat with him but no, he didn't even think of seeing who was under the mask.

The Goblin was psycho.It's not unlike the Joker (eventually) not wanting to know who Batman is in TDK.

No. Peter had that camera with him before he became a superhero. He certainly should have removed the label, but I can get that he just forgot to do it as a rookie mistake over not putting your mask on. You don't learn that your mask is important, it is really that very obvious.

Given that Peter has almost the self same "late mask application" vs the Lizard in the school,it's really a moot point.
*************************************

Did someone wear masks in Twilight? If not, then dozens of other movies had teenage romances just as in TASM, something that was invented and popularized decades before Twilight.

Then why not have Gwen not know of his secret I.D?Simple answer: 'Cause that's what sells for teen romance in this angst ridden post Twilight age.

Like because he was for no reason revealing his identity to his enemy and she just happened to see?

Don't critizize SM 2!It's a masterpiece!

In TASM case, he had a reason as it was clear Spider-man was going to be an issue with Gwen's father.

Which goes completely against the character in the original.Stacy bared no resemblance to his comic counter-part.
**************************************

Do you have any link where those malign studio executives were forcing Raimi to unmask Spider-man and Venom as much as possible?

I already pointed out how they approached Sommers for GI Joe.Even Cap had to lose his mask at the end of Avengers.Let's not be naive here in thinking this was something invented and carried out solely by Raimi.

**************************************

 

[Human Torch]

Semantics. Flaw, issue, nitpick, whatever you want to call it, the manner in which people are discussing it fit that context. When you default to "Well, Raimi did it worse, this movie was more sensible, etc." then that is indeed defending it, but whatever, we're getting off track.



But they are equal. I think the occurences of it across both franchises are equally contrived. This isn't my bag, but since we've already gone there...and more times than anyone could hope to count, lets examine them.

Raimi

1. Warehouse with Ben's killer - He was pissed off. I get it, but stupid. Would have only made a modicum of sense if Peter was intent on killing the guy, and for as angry as he was, I don't think that's was the intent. However you spin it, largely inconsequential.
2. Alleyway in the rain - Silly plot contrivance. Rain or shine, this protects his identity, and should have been the first thing he put on. But again, big deal.
3. Final confrontation - Another contrivance. His mask, of all things, was blown to pieces. Yawn.

Webb

1. Car at the bridge - Unnecessary. Again, I get it, but equally stupid. Also inconsequential, but keep in mind that he was also swinging through the city in his regular attire.
2. School Fight - Didn't seem a contrivance, just played out like an oversight with the writing/editing. One minute, he's fighting with it on, while the next, its in his hand. In the end, didn't matter much.
3. Final confrontation - Contrivance. Connors already knew who he was, so why even bother? Because it was more sensible to taunt him with it off? Please.

I have never heard a reasonable excuse as to why either movie did it more sensibly than the other; I just can't see how even the most ardent defender of either film can take up for any of these. But my point is...who cares, and why waste the effort? Does anyone believe that someone else actually stands to be convinced?

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, although what's interesting to me is that people used to talk a good game about how it was so tiresome and eye-roll inducing before TASM dropped, yet here we have this newer movie, with just as many equally contrived instances of it as with its predecessor. Imagine that.

Notice how whenever there's a war of words over whether a Spider-Man movie is itself bad or comparatively worse than its counterpart, this always gets brought up. It's just petty by now.

Again,

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Semantics. Flaw, issue, nitpick, whatever you want to call it, the manner in which people are discussing it fit that context. When you default to "Well, Raimi did it worse, this movie was more sensible, etc." then that is indeed defending it, but whatever, we're getting off track.

I'd agree that it's a nitpick. But imo people getting upset over Peter taking off the mask is a silly one. Going by the source material, he's taken off his mask many times in various situations throughout his many iterations and even in the animated shows it happens. You can apply any reasoning you want to how or why he does it but in the end it's all contrived. And especially in the movie-verse the unmaskings will continue to happen. It comes with the territory. IMO there is a difference in which the two franchises have gone about doing the unmasking. For the most part, with the exception of one scene, the unmaskings in ASM were done with greater care.

But they are equal. I think the occurences of it across both franchises are equally contrived.

Equally contrived? Yes. Equally executed? No.

This isn't my bag, but since we've already gone there...and more times than anyone could hope to count, lets examine them.

Raimi

1. Warehouse with Ben's killer - He was pissed off. I get it, but stupid. Would have only made a modicum of sense if Peter was intent on killing the guy, and for as angry as he was, I don't think that's was the intent. However you spin it, largely inconsequential.
2. Alleyway in the rain - Silly plot contrivance. Rain or shine, this protects his identity, and should have been the first thing he put on. But again, big deal.
3. Final confrontation - Another contrivance. His mask, of all things, was blown to pieces. Yawn.

1. I dunno. He looked incredibly pissed and imo looked like he was about to throw that guy out the window just prior to having that deer-in-the-headlights moment when realizing it was his Uncle's killer, er, I mean the driver of Uncle Ben's killer. Gotta love that retcon. Kidding aside, if he didn't mean to kill the guy, why not shoot some webbing to stop the guy's fall or create a net for him to fall into? Hmmm. I actually don't have a problem with this unmasking. It worked.

2. Really, I mean, how difficult is it to put on your mask before taking on those thugs attacking MJ? He couldn't have spared the 2 seconds it would have taken? Yeah sure. Pretty dumb.

3. Didn't have an issue with this one either.

Webb

1. Car at the bridge - Unnecessary. Again, I get it, but equally stupid. Also inconsequential, but keep in mind that he was also swinging through the city in his regular attire.
2. School Fight - Didn't seem a contrivance, just played out like an oversight with the writing/editing. One minute, he's fighting with it on, while the next, its in his hand. In the end, didn't matter much.
3. Final confrontation - Contrivance. Connors already knew who he was, so why even bother? Because it was more sensible to taunt him with it off? Please.

1. Probably the best out of all the unmasking scenes in any of the Spider-man movies. He takes it off to calm a kid who's life is in danger. It was a touching moment and the mask coming off was a key point of that scene.

2. Editing issue is all it really was. But still a real wtf moment.

3. Made sense. Lizard wanted to look into Peter's eyes and see his pain.

4. You forgot when Peter has his mask taken off by Capt Stacy. That lead to a really neat action sequence where Peter had to dispatch of the officers without them seeing his face. Good tension there. Also, it lead to a plot development when Stacy learns that the masked vigilante was actually Peter. Really good scene imo and one that benefitted from the mask removal.

I have never heard a reasonable excuse as to why either movie did it more sensibly than the other; I just can't see how even the most ardent defender of either film can take up for any of these. But my point is...who cares, and why waste the effort?

For someone that doesn't want to waste any effort, you sure have put in quite a bit of effort to type out all those examples. If it's not something that you particulary care about or it isn't 'your bag' why continue to attempt to debate it?

Does anyone believe that someone else actually stands to be convinced?

Nope. Here's my take...I really don't care what someone else thinks about any of these movies cause the only opinion that really matters to me, is mine. You aren't sitting in my living room with me when I watch them so honestly, why should I care what you think. I certainly don't expect you or anyone else for that matter, to refute their beliefs or opinions just because I decided to post mine. I come on these boards because I love Spidey. I rarely venture elsewhere on SHH. Here's the thing...it does interest me to find what other Spidey fans do and do not like and their reasons for it.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, although what's interesting to me is that people used to talk a good game about how it was so tiresome and eye-roll inducing before TASM dropped, yet here we have this newer movie, with just as many equally contrived instances of it as with its predecessor. Imagine that.

So what's wrong with saying one does it better than the other? I prefer the way ASM handled the inevitable unmaskings.

 

[Visualiza]

I'd agree that it's a nitpick. But imo people getting upset over Peter taking off the mask is a silly one. Going by the source material, he's taken off his mask many times in various situations throughout his many iterations and even in the animated shows it happens. You can apply any reasoning you want to how or why he does it but in the end it's all contrived. And especially in the movie-verse the unmaskings will continue to happen. It comes with the territory. IMO there is a difference in which the two franchises have gone about doing the unmasking. For the most part, with the exception of one scene, the unmaskings in ASM were done with greater care.

I was with you until the emboldened.

Equally contrived? Yes. Equally executed? No.

I don't see a difference. If something is contrived, then by definition it isn't done with earnest intentions; it directly speaks to the integrity of the writing. I guess we're arguing semantics again, but my point is that I don't see much a difference in execution when, at its heart, it's little more than just another genre trope.

1. I dunno. He looked incredibly pissed and imo looked like he was about to throw that guy out the window just prior to having that deer-in-the-headlights moment when realizing it was his Uncle's killer, er, I mean the driver of Uncle Ben's killer. Gotta love that retcon. Kidding aside, if he didn't mean to kill the guy, why not shoot some webbing to stop the guy's fall or create a net for him to fall into? Hmmm. I actually don't have a problem with this unmasking. It worked.

2. Really, I mean, how difficult is it to put on your mask before taking on those thugs attacking MJ? He couldn't have spared the 2 seconds it would have taken? Yeah sure. Pretty dumb.

3. Didn't have an issue with this one either.


1. Probably the best out of all the unmasking scenes in any of the Spider-man movies. He takes it off to calm a kid who's life is in danger. It was a touching moment and the mask coming off was a key point of that scene.

2. Editing issue is all it really was. But still a real wtf moment.

3. Made sense. Lizard wanted to look into Peter's eyes and see his pain.

4. You forgot when Peter has his mask taken off by Capt Stacy. That lead to a really neat action sequence where Peter had to dispatch of the officers without them seeing his face. Good tension there. Also, it lead to a plot development when Stacy learns that the masked vigilante was actually Peter. Really good scene imo and one that benefitted from the mask removal.

This whole spiel misses the point. I didn't list those for the sake of having them disputed, but for comparative purposes to illustrate how trivial and similar they are.

For someone that doesn't want to waste any effort, you sure have put in quite a bit of effort to type out all those examples. If it's not something that you particulary care about or it isn't 'your bag' why continue to attempt to debate it?

Again, that isn't the point; I'm not debating which is better, but pointing out that they're similarly contrived, and trivial. See above.

Nope. Here's my take...I really don't care what someone else thinks about any of these movies cause the only opinion that really matters to me, is mine. You aren't sitting in my living room with me when I watch them so honestly, why should I care what you think. I certainly don't expect you or anyone else for that matter, to refute their beliefs or opinions just because I decided to post mine. I come on these boards because I love Spidey. I rarely venture elsewhere on SHH. Here's the thing...it does interest me to find what other Spidey fans do and do not like and their reasons for it.

These two statements contradict one another, but whatever the case, it's not a matter of refuting likes or dislikes, but debating logic and reason. There's a difference between convincing someone whether or not to like something, and whether or not their reasoning(or in this case, a movie's internal logic) is sound. I don't think anyone here has ever tried to do the former, but the latter is just a part of debate. This particular issue, 'which movie did the unmasking better/worse than the other' is fair game for that, however, the point I'm trying to make here is that it's petty to debate such a thing in the first place, especially considering how similar, common, and trivial they are.

So what's wrong with saying one does it better than the other? I prefer the way ASM handled the inevitable unmaskings.

Well, if it's just that, then nothing, but suggesting that it has only been that ignores the context of the furious debate people have over the topic...all the time. In that case, it's as I said...blowing things out of proportion. When people use it as ammo in their "my movie is better than your movie!" cockfights, that's when I think it has gone too far. To me, this is akin to fighting over the print pattern on the TASM costume vs. the Raimi costume. For that matter, I'm sure that's happened here enough times already.

I could be wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that some people are only clinging to this idea that 'ASM did the unmasking sensibly' as a means of saving face for so vehemently defaming the issue in the Raimi series(Understand that I'm not saying you specifically). When all is said and done, it's largely inconsequential. I don't think I've ever watched a superhero movie and said to myself "Gee, all this unmasking is just grating!" I have, on the other hand, seen countless people use that as a way to attack the Raimi films, and although it's ever present in TASM, that bandwagon apparently hasn't lost any steam.

Anyway, I think I've said all I can say on the matter. Cheers.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I was with you until the emboldened.

Well you can't win 'em all. Hey, at least we agreed on the first 3/4 of my paragraph. t:

I don't see a difference. If something is contrived, then by definition it isn't done with earnest intentions; it directly speaks to the integrity of the writing. I guess we're arguing semantics again, but my point is that I don't see much a difference in execution when, at its heart, it's little more than just another genre trope.

The difference for me lies in the execution, so I guess we won't be seeing eye to eye on this one either. Raimi was quoted as saying that he wants to be able to see his actor's faces and see them emoting. That was his reasoning for having Peter remove his mask and imo it showed in the films. Because the scenes in which the mask came off it was purely so the actor could act and didn't really contribute to the story or wasn't a part of it. That's really all just opinion and I'm not gonna knock you if you disagree. In Webb's movie, the de-masking occured at times that made more sense within the scenes and wasn't just so we could see his face. Or so it didn't seem that way, at least not to me. The unmasking as I said before is inevitable in these movies and I don't find it to be a distraction nor like they broke some kind of sacred rule. Maybe it's because in those particular scenes I found greater connection.

If something appears contrived, does that mean it was done without earnest intentions? Maybe the intentions were good but it just came off poorly. The bridge scene and the Spidey vs police scene from ASM were two very well written scenes that provided a good amount of tension, resolution and emotion. I can't comment on their original intentions of those scenes with the unmasking, but the final outcome was very satisfactory. The unmasking helped both those scenes in ways that I found lacking in Raimi's. Not sure what else to say.

This whole spiel misses the point. I didn't list those for the sake of having them disputed, but for comparative purposes to illustrate how trivial and similar they are.

I think we're somewhere on the same page but just reading it differently. The unmasking doesn't bother me. Even in Raimi's movies, it was never an issue for me. But when I compare Webb vs Raimi on this standpoint alone, I find Webb did a better job at having those moments be more meaningful.

Again, that isn't the point; I'm not debating which is better, but pointing out that they're similarly contrived, and trivial. See above.

Ok. Noted.

These two statements contradict one another, but whatever the case, it's not a matter of refuting likes or dislikes, but debating logic and reason. There's a difference between convincing someone whether or not to like something, and whether or not their reasoning(or in this case, a movie's internal logic) is sound. I don't think anyone here has ever tried to do the former, but the latter is just a part of debate. This particular issue, 'which movie did the unmasking better/worse than the other' is fair game for that, however, the point I'm trying to make here is that it's petty to debate such a thing in the first place, especially considering how similar, common, and trivial they are.

Having my own heartfelt opinion and not letting other people's opinions change my own, but still being interested to hear people's thoughts about what and why they like/dislike something, is not contradictory.

And yeah, I get what you're saying about the debate but imo the unmaskings although common are not similar. We should just chalk it up to 'agree to disagree.'

Well, if it's just that, then nothing, but suggesting that it has only been that ignores the context of the furious debate people have over the topic...all the time. In that case, it's as I said...blowing things out of proportion. When people use it as ammo in their "my movie is better than your movie!" cockfights, that's when I think it has gone too far. To me, this is akin to fighting over the print pattern on the TASM costume vs. the Raimi costume. For that matter, I'm sure that's happened here enough times already.

I'm not ignoring the fact that on these boards there are indeed extremely petty arguments and unfortunately posters seem to get into these very immature pissing matches about 'my movie is better than yours.' I find that type of behavior to be, well, quite ridiculous.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. Cause I'm not one of those types of posters. Honestly, I wonder sometimes why I'm on this board...I'm not very good at debate and I'm not an over-hyped fanboy that can't take negative criticism about things I enjoy. If it weren't for my love of Spider-man and my hopeless addiction to him, I wouldn't be here. With that said, my comment about Webb doing something better than Raimi was in no way "ammo in a cockfight." It was just my honest interpretation of how the particular topic of unmasking was handled. I give praise when it's needed or due and I do the same with criticisms.

I could be wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that some people are only clinging to this idea that 'ASM did the unmasking sensibly' as a means of saving face for so vehemently defaming the issue in the Raimi series(Understand that I'm not saying you specifically). When all is said and done, it's largely inconsequential. I don't think I've ever watched a superhero movie and said to myself "Gee, all this unmasking is just grating!" I have, on the other hand, seen countless people use that as a way to attack the Raimi films, and although it's ever present in TASM, that bandwagon apparently hasn't lost any steam.

And this is exactly what I despise about these boards sometimes. (I understand you're not talking to me directly with your comment) If I make some statement about having praise for one thing over another, I'm immediately seen as an "insert whatever" fanboy or just a hater of whatever I'm saying isn't as good. I really can't stand that crap; that kind of mentality from people on here. It's like my opinion has zero integrity and I'm just making a comment so I can put something else down. I've never done that. That isn't my style.

But I do recognize that there are individuals on these boards that do attempt to save face or trash another film in the wake of praising another. It's such a waste if you ask me. I mean, what's the point of that? Stupid. Just stupid. I'm sure it's just a very small number that have that kind of thought process but maybe I'm just being optimistic. At any rate, my comment about Webb doing the unmasking better than Raimi was in all honesty just a simple observation on my part and not an attempt to bash Raimi. I have positives and negatives for all the Spider-man movies.

Anyway, I think I've said all I can say on the matter. Cheers.

Alrighty. Cheers. If you need anything else, you know where to reach me. t:

 

[Picard Sisko]

There was no real reason for them to let Gwen know his identity other than the "teen romance" angle.........most recently popularized by Twilight.

They also let her find out in the worst most unimaginative way possible.

Or perhaps they didn't want a repeat of Peter hiding his identity from the love interest for two movies. The "teen romance" was going to be there whether or not Peter told her, so your argument isn't really all that strong. And the more you mention Twilight, the more I think you are in fact one of those Twilight fangirls.

I don't think it's as much the director's fault as the studio wanting to show off their precious actors kissers.I think only Nolan's clout is what kept Batman's mask on during those films.

Well its not like Batman was barely in those movies. Didn't he have just about 15 minutes of screen time in TDKR, which was 2 hours and 40 minutes long?

No. Peter had that camera with him before he became a superhero. He certainly should have removed the label, but I can get that he just forgot to do it as a rookie mistake over not putting your mask on. You don't learn that your mask is important, it is really that very obvious.

Did someone wear masks in Twilight? If not, then dozens of other movies had teenage romances just as in TASM, something that was invented and popularized decades before Twilight.

Thank you, and THANK YOU.

 

[thejon93]

The fight scenes were terrible in this, most of them looking like they were CGI the whole time because of how clean everything looked, compared to the dirty-looking shots of the live actors, courtesy of all the bad lighting done on this picture. I saw the film on TV last night again, and I swear that every action scene must be under 30 seconds with The Lizard and Spider-Man.

 

[Morbius]

It seemed forced to me like how she got smitten by his behavior instead of getting suspicious of his actions .
and, Flash was a bully he made someone eat the lunch while holding him down so that sorry scene looked forced on a school bully .

Well, that scene resonated with me. Flash said "I just wanna talk" *SLAM "It feels better right? I get it. I'm sorry." To me that got across the sense that Flash has his own personal issues at home (in the comics, he had a physically abusive, alcoholic father), and lashes out at everyone to make himself feel better. He's aware that Peter has lost his only father parental figure now, while he himself has none worthy of the title. Not exactly an abstract concept.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

But you're willing to let his name on a camera that could trace him back to dear Aunt May,go by as an understandable mistake?

Yes. That camera was Peter's and so he labeled it in case he lost it. Then circumstances changed and he never thought the camera could be dangerous.

Similar to when you change your address and keep writing the old one.

But you don't take the time to get rid of your clothes and NOT putting your mask on when all that's important is that no one should see your face.

Well,lets be honest.MJ was seconds away from being the victim of a would-be gang rape.You think he was maybe thinking just a bit impulsively?

Then why did he take the time to change all his clothes - removed shirt, pants and shoes - if she was in such an imminent danger? Impulsive would have been wearing his mask only because she could die soon.

The Goblin was psycho.It's not unlike the Joker (eventually) not wanting to know who Batman is in TDK.

Psycho doesn't mean idiot.

Green Goblin had every reason to use Spider-man's identity against him. The movie itself tells us so. But when he had the chance to find it out, he just forgot to do it. For hours.

Given that Peter has almost the self same "late mask application" vs the Lizard in the school,it's really a moot point.

No, it's not. The scene in SM1 is equally bad.

In TASM Peter removed his mask AFTER the fight, after he knew everybody had run away.



*************************************

Then why not have Gwen not know of his secret I.D?Simple answer: 'Cause that's what sells for teen romance in this angst ridden post Twilight age.

Or because it was fair that she should know what game she was in for. If they're going to be together it's only fair that she knows the risks.

Don't critizize SM 2!It's a masterpiece!

Well, Raimi handled very well the scene in the end. It was a scene similar to that of TDK and the ferries to me: I couldn't buy that all those people were that good and clean, but Raimi made it believable this time.

Which goes completely against the character in the original.Stacy bared no resemblance to his comic counter-part.

That's not the point at all.

The point is why would Peter tell Gwen his identity. Part of it was that Gwen's father was against Spider-man. How close this version is to the original has nothing to do.



**************************************

I already pointed out how they approached Sommers for GI Joe.Even Cap had to lose his mask at the end of Avengers.Let's not be naive here in thinking this was something invented and carried out solely by Raimi.

What Raimi did different is that he would have Peter losing his mask in every single one of his appearances.


*************************************
*************************************

Well, that scene resonated with me. Flash said "I just wanna talk" *SLAM "It feels better right? I get it. I'm sorry." To me that got across the sense that Flash has his own personal issues at home (in the comics, he had a physically abusive, alcoholic father), and lashes out at everyone to make himself feel better. He's aware that Peter has lost his only father parental figure now, while he himself has none worthy of the title. Not exactly an abstract concept.

Exactly. There's a story there that shows its face. Flash obviously gets related to Peter's loss and we can see why he does what he does to feel superior to others.


*************************************
*************************************

Thank you, and THANK YOU.

 

[ironman29758]

Watching the movie again last night I still think the main problem with the movie is the editing (like how the scene of Spider-Man running through New York City for the first time that was used in the teaser trailer was cut) and how they cut out good/important scenes that could have helped the movie (like the other take on Uncle Ben's death, the scene between Peter and the Doorman, Curt came over to Peter's house to give his condolences after Uncle Ben's death, Curt going to tell his son he's going away, Curt debating with Lizard identity in the sewers, the scenes with Dr. Rajit Ratha, etc) But it was otherwise a pretty good movie that developed most characters compared to how Raimi's developed some of the characters (Flash being treated as more than a one dimensional bully like he was in SM1, Gwen and Captain Stacy, Peter's development from vigilante to hero, etc.) Honestly both of their movies had their flaws but both of the movies hold up well to me to at the end of the day.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I will forever say that the worst part of asm was not having a direct reference to mcu