Discussion in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' started by Human Torch, Oct 28, 2013.
Oop, someone's pissy. Gotta work on that tolerance, hoss.
I already said why in my original comment. If we don't agree, we don't agree.
Yeah, when did I say that? My praise of SM1 is limited to what was stated in that post. It was not a beat-for-beat glorification of one movie over the other. If it came off that way, here's clarification.
But why would she follow up this disgusting, outrageous display of aggression with a thinly-veiled insult? It feels so tame, and yes, BLAND. It doesn't click and I don't buy it, sorry.
The SM1 equivalent was lame too, but TASM's feels so damned forced to me. Why would the Dad assume he could use the cranes if he can't make use of the billion tall buildings that are lining up the avenue? And I'm supposed to get all emotional when I'm aware that Spider-Man has never before needed cranes to swing, and he won't ever need them again? No way, Jose. The scene just falls flat to me.
Are you really asking me to list them one by one? I've seen that brought up as a low point of the movie countless times. If you haven't too, then you haven't. I find that hard to believe, though.
Let's keep the resentment to a minimum, shall we, guys? This is just a silly movie we're discussing here.
I always hated how Peter casually took advantage of his powers at school (chucking a football at the crossbar and breaking the basketball net, which are both impossible, not to mention he did it in-front of the whole school, not a very bright choice for a supposed bright kid who makes his own Spidey suit and web-shooters).
I'm not pissy, I'm just admitting that there is no point in arguing. We're literally going in circles, man.
I don't understand why you are using the basketball net as an example considering that was before he actually become a vigilante. The football scene however is pretty bad and could have been cut from the film, so that just shows you how important editing is when it comes to film.
Because it's filler comedy, not comedy that progresses further a coherent story. This is not Two and a Half Men, this is Spider-Man for Pete's sake.
The basketball scene wasn't filler comedy. It was showing Peter using his powers irresponsibly and setting off the events that would later lead to his Uncle Ben's death.
The football/goal post scene? Yes, THAT was filler comedy.
I don't get it, am I supposed to not reply to replies? Should I not talk about my problems with the film in a thread specifically dedicated to that? As if my opinion should do a 180 the second you retort to it? You are making very little sense here.
On the other hand, it is pretty unfair and ungracious to dismiss my opinion entirely to someone who doesn't know me just because I'm criticizing something you like. Discussion is what I come here for. If you don't like it, you should either not engage in reading it, or do, but try to take it like a champ.
No you didn't explain it. You just said that Peter's father research was the reason why he got bit by a spider and that it had interfered "with the character's essence." I was interested in the reasoning behind this.
Peter's contact with the spider is always motivated by his scientific curiosity. In the comics, it's because he is interested in radiation and now it's because he is interested in that specific experiment as it's part of his father's research. Only the origin of his motivation changes but not his natural scientific curiosity, nor the extraordinary nature of the accident. In neither case, Peter is aware that he's going to be bit by a radioactive spider (the event is equally unexpected). And in both cases, he's a good-hearted kid, shy, curious and nerdy; the essence never changes.
When you said: "The Raimi movie was wise enough to leave the parents well enough alone'" "that's what Spider-Man is about. SM1 knew that. TASM didn't" and "I still think that SM1 stands head and shoulders over TASM."
That sounds like putting one movie above the other (no matter if you said it in one or more posts, but they were two). Now, there's no problem whatsoever if you prefer SM1 over TASM. The problem is when you state something without backing your statement up (Peter's parents storyline "interferes with the character's essence") or when you criticize in one movie the very same things you don't in the one you think is much better.
You wanted "something to make [Flash] feel emasculated and foolish and humiliated." She did that. She nullified him in such a way he had to leave. He had no comeback, he knows he's not a bright kid when it's about his studies and thus he was humiliated. She treated him as what he is, a child.
Just what exactly did you have in mind?
So, you missed the part where he was shot in the leg and had problems swinging as he usually does? Check the movie, it's there.
Again, the scene is not about how the father knew that his plan was going to work, but that he had to do something to help the man who saved his son. Normally, Spider-man has to "fall" on building walls. With his leg hurt that becomes a problem.
And people appearing from nowhere just because Spider-man needed to be saved in that exact moment, that's the definition of forced.
You don't have to name them one by one. But since you stated that the scene "falls (for way too many people to ignore) completely flat," I thought that you had at least an idea of how many people they were. Because, according to you, that's why we can't ignore it.
Then keep your accuracy to the maximum.
That said, the kind of intelligence to build a machine and the one to make good decisions in everyday life are different.
That said, taking advantage of his powers is what he does, it's part of the story. It's like when Peter fought Flash in Raimi's movies.
Now, what he did with the football went unnoticed. And the basketball thing was like Peter beating Flash Thompson (the strongest bully around) in front of the whole school, moving and jumping like he did, even punching the bully good 20 meters and after the school saw spider-webs coming from his wrists!
Well, coming from a Raimi trilogy where that kind of humor was the star time and time again, I'd say we're improving.
I see where you're coming from. It shows that Peter's human, but I thought those two scenes were incredibly cheesy and poorly-written all the same.
I enjoyed the Flash fight in Spider-Man because it was during Peter's final days in high-school, which gave the kids something to remember Peter by (similar to Spider-Man 2, I imagine that it's a secret they pass amongst themselves that they know who Spider-Man really is because of that incident). Flash himself pays his respects to Harry, who he bullied too, at the end of Spider-Man 3, which I thought was a nice inclusion.
The football didn't go unnoticed. Remember the coach looks at him up on the rafters and Peter acknowledges him? Even the trailers have the coach asking Peter "Wanna play football?" after he does it or something along those lines.
I thought the Raimi trilogy had a much better sense of humour about it. It didn't take itself too seriously, at least, like this recent update has. While I'm excited for the sequel, nothing will ever change my mind about this film. I still think The Lizard is a poorly-written villain, I'm still disappointed at the lack of great action scenes (besides the excellent school fight scene) and it tries too hard to cram in too much into one film, which makes it feel pretentious at times (especially when Gwen reveals to Peter that she basically knew exactly what Capt. Stacy told him on the roof, just seemed very odd and out-of-character). A lot of this film makes no sense to me, like when Capt. Stacy finally finds out about The Lizard after the school attack and yet still insists on going after Spider-Man instead (even after The Lizard turns a couple of officers into lizard-people).
"This could happen to any kid" is an essential mandate for the Spider-Man origin, in my opinion. Peter is uniquely brilliant, sure, but he represents the plentiful geeky kid with an ordinary, mundane life who dreams of one day acquiring the power to stand out... and then does. That's a pillar of the fantasy behind the character. Once you buy into that fantasy, feasibility is irrelevant.
In TASM, this goes out the window. There's now an element of predestination around him that, like I said earlier, is not only foreign to the character's appeal to begin with (did someone give two ****s about his parents during those first Lee/Ditko issues?), but is very evidently an attempt to cultivate sequels. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but a) Not only does it not develop satisfactorily, and it keeps the movie from standing on its own; and b) Like I explained above, it interferes with the "essence" of the character... or my take on what that is, you can take it or leave it. I brought up SM1 as an example of how needless it can be to reach for such foreign -shoehorned, I would call them- elements. That movie told a story about the character by the end of which you didn't care about his freaking parents or why they died, but you did know who Spider-Man was and what he was about. TASM didn't have to go for the exact same, but what it did choose to go for was the wrong choice IMO.
Discussing it so extensively makes it sound like I have a bigger problem with it than I actually do... but if we're comparing the two, when it comes to a purer, more distilled portrayal of the character and the themes that surround him... SM 1 wins hands down. I can smell your disagreement from here, but that is my argument. I hope it's clearer now.
Yes, while talking about the "faithfulness" the movies have to the character, and also in the overall sense... but not in every single specific aspect. You took it to mean that. I never mentioned the bullying scenes, never mentioned the "NYers come to help" thing either.
I just don't think she did. It's an introductory scene, where clarity is key in regards to conveying just what kind of person she is. What you say about it may be true, but it's far too mellow, inappropriately mellow. The way it plays, it feels like she soothes him with a random reminder of their tutoring session from later that day... something that has nothing to do with the events at hand. Why, out of all the possible ways to face him, would she choose that one? It just feels like they went for something, and that 'something' wasn't attained.
I gave the example of the "There's something about Mary" scene, where Cameron Diaz grills the guy that beats up her mentally challenged brother.
The scene may not be about that, but it is a question one has the right to ask. And once I do -I stated my logic issues earlier- the emotionality of the moment just falls apart, because it feels hokey and artificial and forced. It's almost like math: things just don't add up for that moment to work as an emotional beat to me. The leg thing is just not true, because I have seen him swing plenty of times without touching surfaces. See? Things don't add up. The intention was good, I don't deny that. If only they'd come up with something better that actually worked.
They can both be forced. Both, in fact, are.
Okay, a roundabout number... no, I don't have one. I don't know all the people who have seen the film or expressed an opinion online. But I have, most certainly, heard the criticism many times, and from many sources. That gave me the confidence to use the words "many people".
Whether I do or don't, I don't think people should get testy on a personal level over the discussion of a film. It's a fair point.
Relax. I'm pointing out that these arguments are going nowhere, because at the end of the day everyone here is going to feel exactly the same before the discussion. I'm not "dismissing" your opinion, but I'm saying it like it is, and that its pointless to argue with someone over and over about a movie when it won't change anything.
Then go tell the same to every single poster here who has partaken in discussion. Silly me, I thought you were singling me out.
I'm pretty sure the whole school knows he's Spider-Man by now.
They were on a bridge so they didn't come from nowhere. Why would Norman attack them? It's Spider-Man he's obsessed over and he probably doesn't think they're worth the effort. That scene was much less nonsensical than the cranes scene.
Of course the quality of the cranes scene doesn't depend on what it ripped off of, but being so much stupider just makes it seem worse.
I think the better question is, why WOULDN'T Norman attack the people on the bridge?
Should have added "Constantly removing his mask all the freakin time."
The only time that bothered me was when he took off his mask after the high school battle. That was just totally unnecessary.
yeah 2 times another person(Lizard or Captain Stacy) took off his mask, Peter only took him off his mask either to calm down a panicking boy in order to save him,and when he was waiting for a signal/vibration that could lead him to the Lizard in the sewers but until then was just playing games on his phone.I agree the only really unnecessary time was after the high school fight, because although there was no one there with him but what if the police was coming when he was in the costume with the mask off?
Wasn't their more times Tobey had his mask off and some of them were more unnecessary as well. I understand they want to give the actors facetime since it's harder to get emotions under a mask like the Raimi and the first Webb Spidey costume but still.
I think the studio is afraid of the audience not being able to connect with him under the mask, but I don't know.
There was a lot of stuff cut I feel should have Ben left in but I would have. Hanged the following...
Peter dunking on Flash was good. But I would have pulled back on his jump so it wasn't so huge. After that in real life, the team would hound him for their team at the least, his secret blown at the worst.
Peter denting the goal post in front of everyone with a football.
Connors would be more sympathetic so when Spidey was fighting the Lizard, you as a viewer would still be concerned for Connors the man.
Uncle Ben's killer should have been CAUGHT. I hate after 2 movies he's still out there.
Harry would have been introduced here as well.", or at least mentioned.
JJJ should have made an appearance.
I probably should've put Dennis Leary's Capt. Stacy,who bore no resemblance to the original comic incarnation whatsoever,in the poll.Just seeing[BLACKOUT] his "ghost" in TASM2[/BLACKOUT] reminded me how obnoxious his character was.Frankly,alot of the characters in this film came across as obnoxious to me.
I think that's because he's pretty much TASM's version of J. Jonah, although they're expecting us to take him seriously. I think he got some character development near the end, but since they killed him off so we won't see more of that.
How do you figure that? He's got a totally different dynamic in his relationship with Peter, and Spider-Man, compared to JJJ.
They both have a foaming hatred of Spider-man and want to turn society against him. Both him and JJ argued with Peter about whether Spider-man is a menace.
I didn't get any impression that Captain Stacy hates Spider-Man or wanted to turn the city against him. He is a police officer and Spider-Man was taking the law into his own hands. He wanted to have Spider-Man arrested. That is similar to JJ sure, but he has totally different reasons. JJJ has irrational, actual hatred for Spider-Man. He doesn't trust him, because of the mask. And he's trying to sell papers. Captain Stacy was not actively trying to turn the public against Spider-Man like Jonah.
Plus once Captain Stacy learns who Spider-Man is, and that he is the only one capable of stopping the threat they are dealing with, he changes his mind.
I guess they both serve a similar purpose in their respective movies; to convey the ambiguous nature of Spider-Mans actions and how differently the citizens of the city react.
Capt. Stacy was by far the best character in this movie. The one I find incredibly obnoxious is Uncle Ben, he's yelling all the time and fighting with a guy who has a gun was stupid.