Exactly - don't let one problem discourage you.
As for reboots, I wonder when it should be done - I mean, what conditions have to exist before a franchise has to be be rebooted.
Anyone seen Spiderman?
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Exactly - don't let one problem discourage you.
As for reboots, I wonder when it should be done - I mean, what conditions have to exist before a franchise has to be be rebooted.
i don't know what the conditions would be, but it seems like if you make a really bad movie, they pretend it didn't exist, as in with the first hulk.
But with this one, I think it was $50 million they would've had to pay Tobey Macguire to star in two more movies, Sam Raimi wanted more creative control over the next one (and everybody wanted to strangle him after he ruined Venom) So, with an inflated budget and a director that doesn't know a thing about spiderman, it was the logical choice. I personally think they made the right choice, and they actually followed the comics this time.
But with this one, I think it was $50 million they would've had to pay Tobey Macguire to star in two more movies, Sam Raimi wanted more creative control over the next one (and everybody wanted to strangle him after he ruined Venom) So, with an inflated budget and a director that doesn't know a thing about spiderman, it was the logical choice. I personally think they made the right choice, and they actually followed the comics this time.
Watched it today. Bit boring at times but I guess it's because it tried to tell more of a dramatic story.
I didn't like the soundtrack choices, I felt the music was mis-matched with the action at times.
I was happy to not see Mary Jane bloody Watson and instead Emma Stone...she's lovely.
It attempted to be more dark and dramatic sort of like what Nolan did with the Batman series and it worked.
Nicely done 75%
I didn't like the soundtrack choices, I felt the music was mis-matched with the action at times.
I was happy to not see Mary Jane bloody Watson and instead Emma Stone...she's lovely.
It attempted to be more dark and dramatic sort of like what Nolan did with the Batman series and it worked.
Nicely done 75%
I loved it. Saw it twice, thought it blew the first three out of the water in every aspect. Almost saw it a third time last night.
Reboots shouldn't bother you. If it's a story you don't want to watch again, don't watch it. They did a stellar job here IMO, and as long as his and other reboots make money they'll keep it up. Smart business.
Reboots shouldn't bother you. If it's a story you don't want to watch again, don't watch it. They did a stellar job here IMO, and as long as his and other reboots make money they'll keep it up. Smart business.
I liked it enough to watch the next one when it comes out. I will more than likely buy the dvd or bluray when the Amazing Spiderman comes out on dvd. It was a good movie but at the same time I miss what we had in that last movies with Toby.
Peter Parker seemed too cool to me. He should have been more dorky until he became spiderman. Like they did with Toby. Make him more of a fish out of water tell he gets bit by the spider. I just thought in Amazing Spiderman that Peter Parker was cool before he even got bit by the spider. He was all ready doing pretty good with that Gwen Stacey. He seemed like one of the cool kids to begin with rather than an outcast dork like I figured Parker should have been before he was bit with the spider.
The lizard scientist was a good actor but I did not feel the connection between him and Peter Parker like I did with Norman or Dr. Octopus. Those were both flawed people that were friends with Parker before going bad and trying to kill Spiderman. Anyways, I just felt that they showed more of the relationship between Peter and them before the fighting and that added to the films in some regard. The lizard guy looked like a Hulk with a tail.
If they were not going to have the webshooters be part of him getting bit by the spider then they should have had Peter invent them. That would have been much cooler to see in the movie. I would prefer him invent them versus breaking into a lab and stealing the technology. The way they have it now will the webslingers run out of juice sometimes and spiderman fall with a malfunction?
The costume did not look as good in this movie to me.
I think they should have showed Spiderman while learning to swing fly making mistakes and falling like they did in the other film. Anyways, that was a funny humor moment that was missing. Spiderman was too good too soon with the webslinging flying thing.
I wonder how spiderman can climb a wall with boots on? Seemed strang to me but I can over look it and enjoy the movie.
Peter Parker seemed too cool to me. He should have been more dorky until he became spiderman. Like they did with Toby. Make him more of a fish out of water tell he gets bit by the spider. I just thought in Amazing Spiderman that Peter Parker was cool before he even got bit by the spider. He was all ready doing pretty good with that Gwen Stacey. He seemed like one of the cool kids to begin with rather than an outcast dork like I figured Parker should have been before he was bit with the spider.
The lizard scientist was a good actor but I did not feel the connection between him and Peter Parker like I did with Norman or Dr. Octopus. Those were both flawed people that were friends with Parker before going bad and trying to kill Spiderman. Anyways, I just felt that they showed more of the relationship between Peter and them before the fighting and that added to the films in some regard. The lizard guy looked like a Hulk with a tail.
If they were not going to have the webshooters be part of him getting bit by the spider then they should have had Peter invent them. That would have been much cooler to see in the movie. I would prefer him invent them versus breaking into a lab and stealing the technology. The way they have it now will the webslingers run out of juice sometimes and spiderman fall with a malfunction?
The costume did not look as good in this movie to me.
I think they should have showed Spiderman while learning to swing fly making mistakes and falling like they did in the other film. Anyways, that was a funny humor moment that was missing. Spiderman was too good too soon with the webslinging flying thing.
I wonder how spiderman can climb a wall with boots on? Seemed strang to me but I can over look it and enjoy the movie.
Last edited:
Wait, what? In the comics, Peter built them. I remember a huge uproar when Raimi changed it to organic web shooters, but at least that made sense within the context of the character (he was already an outcast, but now he was physically a freak as well. See: adversity, overcoming, etc.) In the comics, him building the web shooters was a demonstration of his intelligence. What does this say about him? There are plenty of "ends justify the means" characters in the marvel universe, but Spidey isn't one of them.
I'm all for changes in different adaptations (that's half the fun), and tons of people have put different twists on spider-man over the years. But this one seems to really go against the core of the character. Spider-man is all about consequences and responsibility. Unless he pays a price for stealing them at some point, in which case, yeah, that could fit.
That said, the shooters running out of juice is a not-uncommon problem in the comics. And I'll agree that Venom completely got screwed over in the 3rd Raimi film (mostly because Raimi hates the character, and wanted to set up the Sinister Six instead...well, why bother doing the symbiote storyline then?) I'm still up in the air about this reboot, and probably will wait until it comes out on dvd. I will give it a chance though.
Eh? Were you watching the same movie?
He did invent the webshooters, just not the webbing. And in the comics he runs out of web fluid. It's a common occurence.
Also, they showed his mistakes.
When he's in the warehouse it's not perfect, then when he does a handstand off the building, that wasn't a perfect swing. And again when he gets chased by the police.
For that last bit, I don't know... I mean, it's about a guy who can climb walls. Even in the Raimi films he wore boots, and also in the comics.. so, it doesn't really bother me that much.
Note: I put spoiler tags up, but I don't see them as spoilers as such, but did it anyway.
Last edited:
I watched it. And wow. I'm torn, in so many ways this was incredibly superior to the 2002 version, but in other ways inferior.
The action of this one was terrible, in my opinion. Webb's way of portraying fights is awful, shaky and dizzying. Raimi's, while stylized, was rhythmic and well-shot.
Everything about the Lizard was stupid and corny. He, out of an inconsistent and sudden reason, decides to turn all of the city into lizards? Not to mention his CGI was terrible and unfinished almost.
Now, if the whole film was as good as its first half hour, then it would have been great. I loved Andrew Garfield as Peter so much, he was fantastic, believable and likable. He felt like a real teenager, unlike Maguire, who felt like some weird, overly earnest Boy Scout. The angst showed, and his moments with Stone were amazing and had incredible chemistry, and his performance was pretty unpredictable, full of funny and sad moments.
Overall, this Spider-Man had a better: Peter Parker, screenplay, love interest, atmosphere.
The original had better: Villain, tension, story, ending.
Say what.
The action of this one was terrible, in my opinion. Webb's way of portraying fights is awful, shaky and dizzying. Raimi's, while stylized, was rhythmic and well-shot.
Everything about the Lizard was stupid and corny. He, out of an inconsistent and sudden reason, decides to turn all of the city into lizards? Not to mention his CGI was terrible and unfinished almost.
Now, if the whole film was as good as its first half hour, then it would have been great. I loved Andrew Garfield as Peter so much, he was fantastic, believable and likable. He felt like a real teenager, unlike Maguire, who felt like some weird, overly earnest Boy Scout. The angst showed, and his moments with Stone were amazing and had incredible chemistry, and his performance was pretty unpredictable, full of funny and sad moments.
Overall, this Spider-Man had a better: Peter Parker, screenplay, love interest, atmosphere.
The original had better: Villain, tension, story, ending.
I won't watch the new one, as I don't like Andrew Garfield as an actor.
But I'm sure it's a good film if I ignore the fact he is in it.
Say what.
I've heard that, but personally I'd rather see a sequel than reboot/remake. I mean, c'mon, Spiderman 3 wasn't that bad. It had problems, and was far inferior to the other two films, but it was fun to watch and had great action. I felt like they were planning to drop MJ soon after, too, which I was all for. (I've never liked Dunst.)
This movie just doesn't work as a reboot. I would say that Rob Zombie's Halloween films were a better idea than this.
Out of all four of the films, I put this one at the bottom of the bag.
I would prefer organic webshooters - if Peter Parker was always broke, how did he get the money to buy equipment for his liquid web? That never made sense.
I guess I did not pay close enough attention. I was thinking it would have been cooler if he invented the webbing using science to show his smartness. I think I remember him developing the webshooters to use the webbing he found now. They showed it very briefly. I was not certain if he adapted the technology or was just learning how to use it.
Good point on Peter always being broke. He takes pictures of spiderman to make money in the other films. He delivers pizza tell he get fired in spiderman 2. Not sure how accurate that is to the comic since I did not read them. I only watched the movies.
Last edited:
Here are some behind the scenes videos I found for this film. For those interested.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSoBuVZhP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg7iJPVkQf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gtswwVGFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_SKIwuyd_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97zv3M28su4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZe2tmOzHDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTFGSX-Av3c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY64CVZpzBc
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSoBuVZhP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg7iJPVkQf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gtswwVGFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_SKIwuyd_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97zv3M28su4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZe2tmOzHDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTFGSX-Av3c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY64CVZpzBc
Last edited:
I remember that Raimi wanted a different villian than the studio did. He wanted John Malkovich as the Vulture for spiderman 4.
Raimi wanted more control after the Spiderman 3. Raimi was forced to use venom for spiderman 3 by the studio. I did like parts of Spiderman 3 but other parts were a let down. I am sure cost may have been part of the problem. The script was being replaced because Raimi was not happy with it. Making the timing for the film release was part of the problem see below.
Here is a very interesting article that goes into some great detail on why Raimi and the Studio could not get along for Spiderman 4.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=62722
Raimi wanted more control after the Spiderman 3. Raimi was forced to use venom for spiderman 3 by the studio. I did like parts of Spiderman 3 but other parts were a let down. I am sure cost may have been part of the problem. The script was being replaced because Raimi was not happy with it. Making the timing for the film release was part of the problem see below.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/01/urg...-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/
Here is a very interesting article that goes into some great detail on why Raimi and the Studio could not get along for Spiderman 4.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=62722
Last edited:
Saw it today.
Really liked it. Andrew Garfield is great and the whole thing was well made and really nicely done.
Yes, the villain was a bit crap and that's definitely a problem they'll need to address in the sequel but I thought it was a good start.
Really liked it. Andrew Garfield is great and the whole thing was well made and really nicely done.
Yes, the villain was a bit crap and that's definitely a problem they'll need to address in the sequel but I thought it was a good start.
Confession: I am in the midst of a rather huge family drama. Every one of us deals with family drama, that's just part of life; I'm only explaining that the timing of this particular family drama coincided with my first viewing of "Amazing Spiderman".
It's possible that I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to appreciate the movie. I'm a couple weeks detached from said drama, so I've decided to give ol' Spidey a second chance. He is my favorite superhero, after all. On my way to the cinema, right now.
It's possible that I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to appreciate the movie. I'm a couple weeks detached from said drama, so I've decided to give ol' Spidey a second chance. He is my favorite superhero, after all. On my way to the cinema, right now.
Thanks, Ray.
On second viewing, I enjoyed it the same. Not great. Not bad. B- in my book.
On second viewing, I enjoyed it the same. Not great. Not bad. B- in my book.
I appreciate it more after watching the behind scenes stuff. The spiderman stuntman was amazing. I think in the older films they did most of the spiderman swing scenes with CGI but with this new film it is all mostly real from what I have seen in those behind scenes. That stuntman guy is very talented.
This Amazing Spiderman was not as good as my favorites spiderman 1 or 2 but it was good enough to make me hopeful that the next films could be good. I enjoyed the film and that is all that really matters.
I think Andrew Garfield did a good job. He put a lot of effort into it and it shows on the screen. I am a fan of Tobey but like what Andrew did in Amazing Spiderman he did a good job to. It was different but still good. I prefer Tobey of course. I look forward to the next Spiderman films hope they will get better.
This Amazing Spiderman was not as good as my favorites spiderman 1 or 2 but it was good enough to make me hopeful that the next films could be good. I enjoyed the film and that is all that really matters.
I think Andrew Garfield did a good job. He put a lot of effort into it and it shows on the screen. I am a fan of Tobey but like what Andrew did in Amazing Spiderman he did a good job to. It was different but still good. I prefer Tobey of course. I look forward to the next Spiderman films hope they will get better.
Last edited: