› ›

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 - 2014)

13567…22

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    myworldisenough wrote:
    c
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    myworldisenough wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Oh... so here comes another reboot. How original. We've already got a 'Punisher' reboot, a Superman reboot, a X-men reboot, a Batman reboot, The Hulk reboot etc...Guess there's room for one more.

    I've got no issues with reboots. I prefer them to direct remakes which more often than not are disappointing. Reboots can take on a whole new direction. Besides great characters deserve different interpretations as opposed to dragging out movie after movie in an existing series that could become tired and lack creativity.

    They're really the same thing.

    They can be of course. I think want I meant was a reboot of a series as opposed to a remake of an individual film. Example would be, doing a direct remake of Dr No. I would be against that. Dr No is a classic which should be left alone. However the reboot of the Bond movies with CR was a great idea and worked well for me.

    Ok, I see your point, and agree %100.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2012 Posts: 5,767
    My addiction to movie theaters and the fact that despite Germany losing to the Italians I still have to wait for Prometheus made me spontaneously go and see this. I found it quite good, up until
    the Lizard appeared for the first time. The way he transformed belied the atmosphere I got from the film until then, and his appearance in general was kind of boring.
    Andrew Garfield is a very good actor, his character was very likeable, he is basically the only reason why this film somehow works. Spiderman in action is definitely cooler and funnier than in the Raimi films. The romance wasn´t boring, though not too entertaining either. The first half of the movie was a respectable alternative to the one in Raimi´s first Spiderman film. But I don´t really see any justification for a re-boot. It would have made more sense to use the same story, cast and style and pick up where Spiderman 3 ended.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    The justification was that Sam Raimi's SM3 showed that they where driving the show into corner where it would not be able to get out. And honestly all three SM movies where nothing to get excited about. So a new attempt will perhaps be worth my while.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SM3 was Paramount's baby, which made Sam bend to what they wanted. Spiderman 1 and 2 are masterpieces regardless, the latter being the finest superhero film I have seen.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SaintMark wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Spider-Man isn't dark as batman but the source material has had more than it's fair share of dark moments. That being said, from people that I know who have seen this new spidey movie, the film is nowhere near as dark as what people thought it was going to be.

    Which in my book a good thing. I remember Spidey as a smartmouthed loner that struggles with love and money while studying and earning a buck as photographer.
    His comics made me more than once laugh out loud. Sam Raimi's version did not do that for me. So perhaps this new movie does have a better tone and from what I have heard that might just be the case.

    You're my new best friend!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The film will be in danger of failing where a lot of the comics fail. Making Spidey too much of a smart-arse who runs his mouth too much with unfiltered jokes that get so tiring. I love Spidey, I really do. He's no Batman, but he has always been a part of my childhood that I always look fondly on. The problem lies when a writer makes him spat out one liners over and over and over until you roll your eyes. The Raimi films (1 AND 2) had great drama balanced with some wit. I hope the new Spiderman has that balance instead of Spidey routinely switching between nothing but punches and cheap jokes.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The film will be in danger of failing where a lot of the comics fail. Making Spidey too much of a smart-arse who runs his mouth too much with unfiltered jokes that get so tiring. I love Spidey, I really do. He's no Batman, but he has always been a part of my childhood that I always look fondly on. The problem lies when a writer makes him spat out one liners over and over and over until you roll your eyes. The Raimi films (1 AND 2) had great drama balanced with some wit. I hope the new Spiderman has that balance instead of Spidey routinely switching between nothing but punches and cheap jokes.

    Before judging, go and see it. I will tomorrow.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The film will be in danger of failing where a lot of the comics fail. Making Spidey too much of a smart-arse who runs his mouth too much with unfiltered jokes that get so tiring. I love Spidey, I really do. He's no Batman, but he has always been a part of my childhood that I always look fondly on. The problem lies when a writer makes him spat out one liners over and over and over until you roll your eyes. The Raimi films (1 AND 2) had great drama balanced with some wit. I hope the new Spiderman has that balance instead of Spidey routinely switching between nothing but punches and cheap jokes.

    Before judging, go and see it. I will tomorrow.
    I'm not judging at all, just speaking of possibilities.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Of all the reviews and people I know who have seen the movie, spidey isn't quipping or running his mouth every other minute. The general consensus is that Garfield nails Peter/Spider-Man.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2012 Posts: 40,480
    New poster for the film, featuring The Lizard, courtesy of ComingSoon.net:

    spider-eye-wm.jpg
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    I would be all for a remake of the Dr No novel. Even though I really like the film, I don't think they quite did the book justice. As someone else said, they didn't use the obstacle course with the tarantulas etc. It was stupid how Bond just escaped by casually knocking out a grill. Then, there was the giant squid... I'd love to see this sort of thing on the big screen except the ending of Fleming's novel where Bond drowns the doctor in guano. This is cheesy and a bit stupid. They don't need to remake FRWL, GF, TB or OHMSS (although I wouldn't mind seeing a remake of this film with a better actor) but Dr No and certain others that were a lot less faithful to the books would be great. Anyway, if Eon ever ended up doing it which is doubtful, they'd make them expanded adaptations like CR and turn them from thrillers to big action romps which I'm not sure I'd want to see.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    doubleoego wrote:
    Of all the reviews and people I know who have seen the movie, spidey isn't quipping or running his mouth every other minute. The general consensus is that Garfield nails Peter/Spider-Man.

    That's good to hear. I just wish he had a more manly sounding voice.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This is slightly off topic, though still Spiderman centered, but has anyone else caught on to the themes of The Importance of Being Earnest present in Spiderman 2? As a kid I had no idea what the hell it was about, but it actually has a reason to be there.
    The story is an ironic comedy set in Victorian London, where the main characters use "Bunburys", which are made up men they use to get out of social obligations, and deceive the minor characters around them in the play. Peter Parker's Bunbury is of course Spiderman, and he himself is deceitful towards Mary Jane, who she herself is being deceitful for being with a man she doesn't truly love. The main character's decision to give up his "Bunbury" and become honest is like Peter leaving behind his job as Spiderman. And like the main character who discovers his Bunbury's name to actually be his own at the end of the play and its importance, much like Peter realizing he needs to be Spiderman. I hope some here have read it so I am not talking to a wall, but I had an epiphany over it, and always wondered why The Importance of Being Earnest, out of all plays, was in Spiderman 2. So the film, much like TDK, has deep themes that stretch farther beyond just a superhero move, and reach another thought provoking level of intelligence.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Bounine wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Of all the reviews and people I know who have seen the movie, spidey isn't quipping or running his mouth every other minute. The general consensus is that Garfield nails Peter/Spider-Man.

    That's good to hear. I just wish he had a more manly sounding voice.
    When I saw the trailer I though exactly that. But in the film, believe me, he is simply great.
    I haven´t read many comics, but from what I remember, this Spiderman is spot-on.

    SaintMark wrote:
    The justification was that Sam Raimi's SM3 showed that they where driving the show into corner where it would not be able to get out. And honestly all three SM movies where nothing to get excited about. So a new attempt will perhaps be worth my while.
    IMO it would have been more effective to have the balls and go kind of a Bond route, á la YOLT - OHMSS - DAF and change the tone without re-booting. This is a good film, but it´s not so drastically different in the end from Raimi´s Spiderman 1. A comparison to the Burton and Nolan Batman films doesn´t remotely spring to mind.

  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    boldfinger wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Of all the reviews and people I know who have seen the movie, spidey isn't quipping or running his mouth every other minute. The general consensus is that Garfield nails Peter/Spider-Man.

    That's good to hear. I just wish he had a more manly sounding voice.
    When I saw the trailer I though exactly that. But in the film, believe me, he is simply great.
    I haven´t read many comics, but from what I remember, this Spiderman is spot-on.

    SaintMark wrote:
    The justification was that Sam Raimi's SM3 showed that they where driving the show into corner where it would not be able to get out. And honestly all three SM movies where nothing to get excited about. So a new attempt will perhaps be worth my while.
    IMO it would have been more effective to have the balls and go kind of a Bond route, á la YOLT - OHMSS - DAF and change the tone without re-booting. This is a good film, but it´s not so drastically different in the end from Raimi´s Spiderman 1. A comparison to the Burton and Nolan Batman films doesn´t remotely spring to mind.

    I suspected that this would be the case. I was hoping for the latter as I love dark films and Spiderman is such a cool superhero in terms of what he does and how he looks. I also wish Spiderman was more buff.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    Judging from what I have seen from the trailer, the new "AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" looked pretty damn good to me. I look forward to seeing it.

    I realize that most fans tend to put down Sam Rami's third Spider-man movie. Although I'm a fan of all three movies, the first one (the 2002 movie) is my least favorite. I found it a bit too episodic and a lot of bad dialogue.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Spider-Man's body type is supposed to be wiry almost bruce lee-like with slightly bigger muscle mass.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2012 Posts: 5,767
    Bounine wrote:
    I suspected that this would be the case. I was hoping for the latter as I love dark films and Spiderman is such a cool superhero in terms of what he does and how he looks. I also wish Spiderman was more buff.
    But the Batman films were dark from the start, which makes sense because of the protagonist. If you love dark films, Spiderman´s not going to be your hero of choice. Spiderman isn´t like that at all. So it´s absolutely ok if the films are lighter than the Batfilms. However, BB did the term re-boot justice, whereas this new Spiderman film doesn´t change much after all.

    A more buff Spiderman would ruin the character IMO. Spiders are usually known for their lean extremities, not for their looking buff. In general, one ocject of fascination about many insects and spiders is their relative strength in comparison to their body mass. And if you watch the film it becomes obvious right away that the way he moves is far more important than his static physique.

  • BounineBounine
    edited June 2012 Posts: 2,598
    I agree. It does make sense. I know the comics are lighthearted and wouldn't expect them to change this for the film but I had read a while ago that they had made the film darker and just thought it would be cool to see, seeing I like darker films. I'm not suggesting that making the film more lighthearted is wrong or anything.

    I get your point about how Spiderman is wiry and maybe buff was the wrong word to use but in pictures I've seen of him from the comics, he is more muscular than Garfield is in this film. Maybe in the original comics he was skinnier like Garfield. I don't know.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,554
    The Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man wasn't exactly muscular either to be fair.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Nick Hammond doesn't count because that show was a cheap, low budget and was as far removed from the source material as you can get. It had a cool intro 70s jazzy theme though.

    Anyway, Garfield's spider-man is more based on the ultimate universe and if any of you have read any of the USM comics, body-wise you'll know what i'm talking about.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    In most of these pics he's definitely more muscular than Garfield's Spiderman:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=PHOTOS+OF+THE+COMIC+BOOK+SPIDERMAN&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9xjvT5DmHobVqgGnuen9DQ&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1525&bih=718
  • Whitaker1987Whitaker1987
    Posts: 172
    Looking forward to this and sequel too. Marc Webb if chooses Mysterio for ASM 2 would make me very happy.

    Mysterio, The Jackal or Chameleon for sequel.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2012 Posts: 28,694
    It'll probably be Green Goblin again, considering how much Oscorp seems set up, and the fact that
    Gwen will have to die.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Bounine wrote:
    I had read a while ago that they had made the film darker and just thought it would be cool to see, seeing I like darker films.
    Well, it is darker. Just not to a palpable degree. Kind of like TLD was a darker Bond film than AVTAK ;-) .
    Bounine wrote:
    In most of these pics he's definitely more muscular than Garfield's Spiderman:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=PHOTOS+OF+THE+COMIC+BOOK+SPIDERMAN&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9xjvT5DmHobVqgGnuen9DQ&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1525&bih=718
    Indeed, he looks more than buff. I´m not a comic authority, but I think a Spiderman as muscular as Superman is kind of ridiculous, he looks as if the Spider would rip a big hole into its own net with his weight. Also, I associate huge muscles with lack of flexibility.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Spiderman (when done correctly) is all lean muscle, heightening his contortive and acrobatic abilities.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    I always find it amusing how a bunch of males are discussing on an internet forum the correct amount of muscles an actor should have..... just like they discuss how a Bond actor should look in a tux, his hairstyle, if he should have a stubble or not.....
  • BounineBounine
    edited July 2012 Posts: 2,598
    Well, since you bring it up, Craig's hair is too short in SF, or atleast part of it. ;)

    "I´m not a comic authority, but I think a Spiderman as muscular as Superman is kind of ridiculous, he looks as if the Spider would rip a big hole into its own net with his weight. Also, I associate huge muscles with lack of flexibility."

    This is a good point plus the fact that he is part insect afterall so I'm not as bothered by Garfield's build now.

    "Spiderman (when done correctly) is all lean muscle, heightening his contortive and acrobatic abilities."

    Like Garfield then? He just looks a little on the puny side to me but I understand why now.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Again, Garfield's physique is based on spider-man from fron the ultimate universe. Spider-Man is meant to be lean, toned and lithe also bear in mind his body develops over the years, so with him just starting out, the significant change in his body that would be noticeable would be tone and definition, size not so much. That comes later and even then he's not exactly hulking out.
  • BounineBounine
    edited July 2012 Posts: 2,598
    What's the "ultimate universe"?
Sign In or Register to comment.