Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Your psychic powers amaze and terrify me.
 

We get it.  You don't like it.   Annoying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

And like Batman Begins it's going to find a bigger audience on video.

BATMAN BEGINS was an across-the-board critical success. This is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

BATMAN BEGINS was an across-the-board critical success. This is not.

And the glowing word of mouth and it staying in the Top 10 for the remainder of that summer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

BATMAN BEGINS was an across-the-board critical success. This is not.

I get his point though. Begins was mild at the box office. I wouldn't put this on the level of Begins or Raimi's 1 or 2, but the fact that it's not the worst in the franchise makes it something of a win.

It's flawed but decent summer action fare. It could easily take on video and the brand is such that Sony still has a franchise. 

I'm not saying that Sony can't call this a success or that it won't do fine on home release, but let's not call this film BATMAN BEGINS, because its not.

In that it paved the way for The Dark Knight to do a billion? No, Amazing's not that good and The Spectacular Spider-Man isn't going to do that kind of business. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

 

I'll agree that it was a weird approach to use the promise/smile at the end but I figure this is them setting up the Gwen Stacy/Goblin scenario, where Peter will have to learn the lesson Captain Stacy tried to warn him about. Many find it insulting but I see it as them setting up his arc and how it will end up paying off in the 3rd while we get MJ introduced.

But isn't the entire point of Spiderman's origin story (or any superhero's origin tale for that matter) is that "with great power comes great responsibility," and isn't Peter's dick move at the end kind of a "fuck you" to that philosophy? The entire point of Raimi's film is that Parker learns that in order to be an effective hero, he has to take on a greater set of responsiblity--and that means not getting the girl. Basically, by disregarding a dying man's last request, Parker decides to forgo his own responsibilities just so he can get laid.

Now, I'd agree with your point if the film even hinted that this was another lesson to be learned, and that it was going to end badly for him, but the film treats this as the correct choice: we're supposed to stand up and cheer for this couple, and I think that is what's pissing people off about the ending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

In that it paved the way for The Dark Knight to do a billion? No, Amazing's not that good and The Spectacular Spider-Man isn't going to do that kind of business. 

Exactly. THE AMAZING SIDER-MAN will have none of the impact, influence or legacy of BATMAN BEGINS. It is like BATMAN BEGINS only in the sense that it shamelessly strives to ape what that trend-setting film did. And it mostly fails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I'm not saying that Sony can't call this a success or that it won't do fine on home release, but let's not call this film BATMAN BEGINS, because its not.

Its Superman Returns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

Exactly. THE AMAZING SIDER-MAN will have none of the impact, influence or legacy of BATMAN BEGINS. It is like BATMAN BEGINS only in the sense that it shamelessly strives to ape what that trend-setting film did. And it mostly fails.

I don't think it's trying to be BB at all.  The admittedly poor marketing may have tried to make it seem that way, but the actual film doesn't come across like Begins in the slightest to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

Its Superman Returns.

I wouldn't go that far either.  Spiderman actually does stuff in this film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I wouldn't go that far either.  Spiderman actually does stuff in this film.

Superman saves a space shuttle/air plane, stops an elaborate bank robbery, there's that montage of him saving people across the planet... and lifting up a giant fucking rock.

Spider-Man saves the kid from the car on the bridge and fights the Lizard.

I'm referring to how it isn't one clear consensus on the film. All over the place just like Returns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

 

I get his point though. Begins was mild at the box office. I wouldn't put this on the level of Begins or Raimi's 1 or 2, but the fact that it's not the worst in the franchise makes it something of a win.

 

It's flawed but decent summer action fare. It could easily take on video and the brand is such that Sony still has a franchise. 

That's all I was saying.  It grossed 200M and 372M WW.  Video is where it built it's following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

Regardless of our opinion of it, the reboot is a success by the only measure Sony values (box office revenue). I'm sure video release will only bolster its in-the-black status. With Batman being out of the picture for (presumably) at least 4-5 years, minimum, we'll be seeing a second film from this cast in 2-3 years. A different director seems like a sure bet, but I wonder if they'll spend more on the movie this time (though from all feedback, it's not the effects or production design* that needed bolstering but the script and editing).

 

 

 

*Dislike of Lizard's design notwithstanding.

II'm thinking more like 3-4 years, maximum. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

I don't think it's trying to be BB at all.  The admittedly poor marketing may have tried to make it seem that way, but the actual film doesn't come across like Begins in the slightest to me.

 

Like BATMAN BEGINS, it attempts to establish the character in a more grounded, real-world setting than the previous film series, and like BATMAN BEGINS it throws a lot of that out the window in a tonally jarring comic-booky climax. It also attempts to add more backstory to the character, but where BATMAN BEGINS did this with style and confidence, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN chickens out and falls back on what it knows will work, ie the Raimi film's basic story structure. Its agenda is exactly the same as BATMAN BEGINS, And if not for Sony getting scared at the last minute, we would have gotten a film that was even more like BATMAN BEGINS than the film we got.

Cross-species mutation, giant mutant lizards, spider bites passing along super powers, and this is a more grounded, real-world setting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Cross-species mutation, giant mutant lizards, spider bites passing along super powers, and this is a more grounded, real-world setting?

I think you're confusing tone and content.

I didn't get a real-world vibe from the tone OR the content.  Just from the people who keep insisting it's there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

II'm thinking more like 3-4 years, maximum. 

I dunno. I can see the character popping up in a JL flick in three years (or less), but not the next iteration. I weirdly trust WB at this point not to pull a Sony and present us with the next iteration while the last franchise is still warm.

Box Office Report: 'Spider-Man' on Track for $800 Million Worldwidehttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amazing-spider-man-box-office-800-million-348683

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Cross-species mutation, giant mutant lizards, spider bites passing along super powers, and this is a more grounded, real-world setting?

Those are the trappings of the story, you can't get around those, just like the Batman mythos can't get around a guy dressing like a Bat and a dude in a Scarecrow mask gassing the city with a fear toxin. But both films present these things in the most grounded, real-world way as possible, where as the Raimi films didn't even try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

But both films present these things in the most grounded, real-world way as possible, where as the Raimi films didn't even try.

You keep insisting this, but I just don't see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

You keep insisting this, but I just don't see it.

Ok, let's take how Peter is portrayed in both films. In Raimi's film he is this "Golly gee" almost anachronistic character, very close to what we'd find in the early comics, and as pointed out, the sort of teenager that really doesn't exist any more, and didn't really exist in 2002 either. It is an idealized version of a "nerd". The new Peter is presented to us as the sort of kid we'd actually find in a modern high school, in a world where "nerd" doesn't mean uncool. It goes beyond just modernization, it's putting Peter directly in OUR WORLD, and not the more idealized world of Raimi's. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but the approach here is clearly more grounded in our reality. And that's just how the main character is presented.

You are a thoughtful and observant guy so I'm having trouble seeing how you aren't making this distinction. I know I'm coming across as looking to find flaws here, but honestly, I like the film in a lot of ways. But I'm just calling it as I see it.

I trhink the real term we wanna use here is "heightened". Raimis films use Silver Age comic storytelling to add a layer of fantasy on top of the more solid emotional core of them all. It embraces the fantastical elements of this universe more than ASM, which tries to shoehorn the fantastical into a much smaller, human film, which makes it look more ridiculous in context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

The new Peter is presented to us as the sort of kid we'd actually find in a modern high school, in a world where "nerd" doesn't mean uncool. It goes beyond just modernization, it's putting Peter directly in OUR WORLD, and not the more idealized world of Raimi's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

I trhink the real term we wanna use here is "heightened". Raimis films use Silver Age comic storytelling to add a layer of fantasy on top of the more solid emotional core of them all. It embraces the fantastical elements of this universe more than ASM, which tries to shoehorn the fantastical into a much smaller, human film, which makes it look more ridiculous in context.

See, this latches on to my thoughts -- if Raimi's Spidey is Silver Age, ASM is Bronze Age.  Might be a little more modern and up-to-date, but still felt very comic book-y to me, moreso than any of Nolan's Batman films.  ASM is a super-hero movie through and through; the Batman films have been crime dramas that happen to feature a super hero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

 the Batman films have been crime dramas that happen to feature a super hero.

I'll give you that as far as TDK goes, but BATMAN BEGINS is straight up Bronze age Denny O'Neil to a fucking T.

Begins still borders on the comic-book/fantastical side, a la the fear toxin, the big master plan is to destroy the city, etc.

True.  And like I said, I'll give you that ASM's Parker is a little less Lee/Ditko Spidey and a little more modern, but I don't think that makes the film anywhere near what BB tried to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

True.  And like I said, I'll give you that ASM's Parker is a little less Lee/Ditko Spidey and a little more modern, but I don't think that makes the film anywhere near what BB tried to do.

He has less the characteristics on Lee/Ditko but ironically Garfield physically resembles em (tall and lanky) where Tobey looked considerably more Romita Sr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

Begins still borders on the comic-book/fantastical side, a la the fear toxin, the big master plan is to destroy the city, etc.

Just echoing this. For all of Nolan's insistence on grounding the series, BEGINS is remarkably comic book-y in tone and content. 

As it pertains to the comics, Begins is by far the most tonally consistent live-action Batman film. TDK was a major step away from that. 

Love him or hate him, I think the fact that Begins is so close to the Batman comics of the 70's is largely due to David Goyer.

As great as both of Nolan's Batman flicks are... Begins is better. Gotta be said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

But isn't the entire point of Spiderman's origin story (or any superhero's origin tale for that matter) is that "with great power comes great responsibility," and isn't Peter's dick move at the end kind of a "fuck you" to that philosophy? The entire point of Raimi's film is that Parker learns that in order to be an effective hero, he has to take on a greater set of responsiblity--and that means not getting the girl. Basically, by disregarding a dying man's last request, Parker decides to forgo his own responsibilities just so he can get laid.

 

Now, I'd agree with your point if the film even hinted that this was another lesson to be learned, and that it was going to end badly for him, but the film treats this as the correct choice: we're supposed to stand up and cheer for this couple, and I think that is what's pissing people off about the ending.

Yes, that's the lesson. Yes, that's a bit of an eff you. But it's one movie where he's just starting out. He's still learning what it takes.

And I certainly wasn't heralding his decision, despite understanding the conflict.

And this film hardly aped Batman Begins. It just took place at night a lot.

Batman Begins is a better comic book movie than The Dark Knight, but The Dark Knight is a better made movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

As great as both of Nolan's Batman flicks are... Begins is better. Gotta be said.

It's better in terms of focusing on the character of Batman, but it's not a better film. By the by, there's no such thing as a comic book movie versus a movie movie. A film is a film is a film. Batman: Year One is a comic book, yet it's actually less fantastical than either Batman Begins or TDK.

I'm absolutely sick of films being defended with hypotheticals of what might happen in a sequel. I paid for THIS film, I want THIS film to be good. They're all so afraid of doing anything fun, because it's 'grounded' or whatever.

'well in the real world, he wouldn't be at that point yet'.

Utterly tiresome.

All these films are fantasy, I paid to watch a myth, an escapist tale, something that works in broad entertaining strokes, with adventure, heart and humour. Something that isn't afraid to tread on cliche with invention. If I wanted to watch a film where people act realistically (which doesn't mean I want people acting dumb, there's a difference between heightened reality and dumb - see Prometheus) I'd see a real film, one with actors and frailties and dark truths about the nature of humanity.

If I see a film called "Spider-Man" he'd damn well better be a HERO. Honourable, and defiant, and brave, and not act like a total cock. If he does, well, then I want to see that broad journey, that lesson to be brought to the foreground, and at the very least, he had better have completed that journey by the 3rd act. If there happens to be a sequel? Great! Because then the next one can develop the themes of it's villain and how that interacts with our established character. It also means we jump into adventures from the beginning. 

Right now, the next film feels like it's just going to be tying up loose ends from this one, which is unacceptable and lazy. Stand alone, stand proud - give the audience a good time and don't hold out on the good stuff.

Yeah, let's keep following the same formulaic routine of trilogies. And fuck Fellowship of the Ring and its ending while we're at it.

A 'trilogy' is a vaguely defined term. Shakespeare wrote a trilogy, but they all flow naturally into each other, without damaging individual stories. 

Lord of the Rings, is different. It's a book. It has a finite, definite ending. It's always leading to that. Myth, on the other hand, and that's what these characters are, are strong enough so survive outside of their original creator, the flew the nest long ago. They are open to interpretations and as such, there is no defined way to end their story. If Spider-Man was following an established arc from the books, then yeah, carry on. But they seem to be winging it out of laziness. There's nothing smart going on. 

The one thread they sort of think they might do, is killing off Gwen Stacy. But that doesn't excuse them from not telling THIS film's story on it's own. THAT story, if anything, needs more room to develop over two hours, and as such, they'd be better off getting any baggage out of the way already. Otherwise it just creates a blockage of story that shits the bed.

I think Frodo and Sam did exactly what SeanCE is referring to.

Perhaps I should've said Empire Strikes Back instead.

You might be right, Sean, but I'll admit that one of my personal nags specifically regarding superhero movies is that the origin, lesson-learning and eventual arrival at being The Hero always seem to come within the first movie. I've always found this to be quite limited in scope, as I felt it could be more interesting to see their struggle and growth stretched across more than one film. Instead, we always get a repeated process of them having a momentary lapse before arriving at the same conclusion the previous installment did, which is tiresome.

The original Star Wars has a nice, lean plot to it. As a kid, at the end of Star Wars, I was satisfied I had seen a complete story. They even get medals! But we're left with a tease of things to come, Darth Vader may, or may not be dead. At that point, as far as the audience are concerned he's still a cog in the Empire's machine. He still has to report to a bunch of stuffy space nazis who are quite happy to take the piss out of him. In the second film, he's promoted to 'baddest dude in the known universe'. 

Empire strikes back tells it's own story, a continuation of the first film, an expansion of it's world. But it's weakness' come from it's 3rd act, which sort of puffs out of steam gradually, and seeing how most of Return of the Jedi is a superficial retread of the last act of the first film, I think it's fair to say that the final act of Jedi, is actually the final act of Empire, just delayed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Stand alone, stand proud - give the audience a good time and don't hold out on the good stuff.

Which is why I never got the complaints of people feeling Two-Face should've been saved for the next film. What I think Nolan does great is give everything he's got for each film. Begins and TDK both feel like COMPLETE films.

Just seen this with the girl, both of us liked it but didn't love it. Her number one question to me during the movie was "when's he going to put his suit on?"

I liked the Spidey bits, but I kept thinking "come on come on, get on with it". The re-origin was just a chore to be honest.

The girl really loved the bit where he was swinging on the cranes, and jumped a mile when the Lizard bust through to get Gwen, but she fidgeted a lot during the non-Spidey bits.  She told me she liked the other one (Raimi's) better.

Stone and Garfield were great though.  I loved his rueful look to Field at the end.

None of the changes overly offended me, but then again none of them really interested me either.

The one point where I didn't feel like it was an aping of the first was during the Stan Lee cameo.  I loved the staging of that, the 3D worked really well and it was like an actual comic spread come to life.

So, OK.  I'd see the second one.

Just come back from seeing this. Garfield and Stone aside, I really didn't like it much. And this isn't a word I use often since the meaning has become so confused but god, I had no idea Spiderman could be so EMO.

Ironically you mis used the term emo.  Garfield in this movie is not at all what "emo" is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

Perhaps I should've said Empire Strikes Back instead.

 

You might be right, Sean, but I'll admit that one of my personal nags specifically regarding superhero movies is that the origin, lesson-learning and eventual arrival at being The Hero always seem to come within the first movie. I've always found this to be quite limited in scope, as I felt it could be more interesting to see their struggle and growth stretched across more than one film. Instead, we always get a repeated process of them having a momentary lapse before arriving at the same conclusion the previous installment did, which is tiresome.

You have a point, and it would be interesting to see someone make an ambitious superhero film where we don't actually see the character become the "hero" until another film--but The Amazing Spiderman is not that movie.  There is no indication that the film is operating within such a scale; this is simply a retold origin tale: Spiderman is supposed to become the "hero" he's meant to become by the end of the third act. That's not to say that I expect him to be perfect, to always make the right decisons, but there needs to be a change: from scruffy nerd, to vengeful vigilante, and finally to hero status.

Again, that ending is a complete "fuck you" to the film's internal logic, by making Parker completely eschew his responsibilities in favor of getting the girl; he shows that he's learned absolutely nothing throughout the film.  I agree with SeanCE: this film's not smart enough to do what you're stating it's doing, and I highly doubt that the writers had any of that in mind while they were writing it.  The ending was supposed to be a crowd-pleasing moment (The character becomes the hero and gets the girl!), but comes off as rather sleazy and shitty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

Ironically you mis used the term emo.  Garfield in this movie is not at all what "emo" is.

I was referring to the movie not Garfield, and it is mostly definitely emo. The whole thing is awash in adolescent emotions masquerading as grittiness. It's a by-product of trying to steal from the Batman Begins handbook but instead ending up closer to Twilight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

 

I was referring to the movie not Garfield, and it is mostly definitely emo. The whole thing is awash in adolescent emotions masquerading as grittiness. It's a by-product of trying to steal from the Batman Begins handbook but instead ending up closer to Twilight.

Very well done.

"Adolescent angst" is an awfully broad description for emo, which is a very specific thing.
 

"Emo" changes every few years, and yeah, is born of adolescent angst. Five years ago, it was skinny jeans and eyeliner. Ten years ago, it was black fingernail polish and jelly bracelets. Tomorrow it'll be something else; the attitude is the only constant.