• The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - Spidey's back in a brand spanking new movie!
    1,168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rusty100;36716358]There's a difference between thinking about why something happened and being totally perplexed by a characters pointlessly stupid actions that don't even fit with the character - yeah he was a good guy with very old school morals, but nobody in their right mind would have done what he did. Literally the only reasoning for it was to advance the plot. You can try to justify it all you want, but it wasn't in his character at all. He has a duty to help others, but he also has a duty not to basically commit suicide and leave peter fatherless for the second time. Nobody with a kid to take care of is going to take such a retarded risk, especially one so out of character. He scolded peter for humiliating a bully, do you really think he'd be the kind of guy to grab a loaded weapon from right under a fleeing robber? the robber hadn't even hurt anybody yet. not that uncle ben knew that, which is the point. he has no fucking clue what this guy did and what he's capable of. nobody is going to go for that dudes gun. it makes no fuckin sense.[/QUOTE] I just don't see that. There was no way Ben was going to know what would happen if he went for the gun. He's a good guy who acted on his instinct. He had no time to think through it like you just did, or the bad guy would have just walked off before Ben even moved. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rusty100;36716376]If it isn't a satire, then this argument is really shit because then it's just intentionally poor writing? That's still poor writing (if it isn't being satirical of it). And even satires need smarts behind intentionally stupid stuff.[/QUOTE] Who cares if the argument is shit, it's the creators' vision. All the one liners and smart ass remarks are cliche as fuck, but they work. Why? Because it's fuckin' Spider-Man, you know? It's like saying Batman's brooding attitude is cliche, or Superman's boyscout personality is cliche, or Iron Man's narcissism is cliche. Of course they're cliche. They're archetypes. And comic books are corny as hell [i]anyway[/i]. It's part of their charm. And, to me, any good comic book move is going to convey that same charm.
Like I said before, it fit with Ben's character, but that doesn't make it a SMART decision. It was a brave, heroic thing to do, but a stupid one. The ssame argument could be made for Peter and what he does as Spider-Man. He has Aunt May to support, what would happen if he died fighting some random super-villain? The SMART thing would be to count his losses and NOT fight crime, but with great power comes great responsibility and all that.
Exactly. Nobody would have gotten hurt if he let the bad guy go. Nobody at all. What's some stolen cash, compared to risking your life? [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BanthaFodder;36716494]Like I said before, it fit with Ben's character, but that doesn't make it a SMART decision. It was a brave, heroic thing to do, but a stupid one. The ssame argument could be made for Peter and what he does as Spider-Man. He has Aunt May to support, what would happen if he died fighting some random super-villain? The SMART thing would be to count his losses and NOT fight crime, but with great power comes great responsibility and all that.[/QUOTE] Yeah but Spiderman has a huge advantage, he's super human. Uncle ben isn't, and that was a loaded weapon. It's substantially stupider to do what he did.
The thing about superhero movies is, you can't go into it looking to bring SERIOUS logic into it. [i]"Oh, sure, a guy like Norman Osborn would test this experimental serum on HIMSELF first, yeah."[/i] [i]"Nah, totally, if I was rich like Bruce Wayne, I'd TOTALLY dress up like a fucking BAT and punch people. Not fund the police or put all my money into urban restoration, I'd just beat the SHIT out of bad guys."[/i] [i]"Oh, how CONVENIENT for Ton Stark that his missles contain the EXACT materials he needs to create a sustainable power source he can store in his chest. And OF COURSE the terrorists would possess the materials to make a robotic super suit that can fly, shoot fire, missles, and deflect heavy gunfire. And he'd TOTALLY be able to make it in a DANK CAVE IN BUMFUCKISTAN WITHIN A COUPLE MONTHS."[/i] I'm not saying that you should just turn your brain off, but ALL superhero movies require some degree of suspension of disbelief. Hell, even the stuff that IS convoluted has some sort of explaination: [i]Why did Doc Ock's arms have AI?[/i] The experiment was obviously pretty volitile. Incase Otto was incapacitated, the arms would continue to stabilize the experiment. Preforming the experiment was their prime objective, it was what they were programmed for, hence why, when the inhibitor chip breaks, they start to influence Ock's subconscience, and THEIR objective becomes HIS. [i]Why didn't Harry's Butler just tell him that his dad was the Goblin?[/i] It was originally planned to make the butler a hallucination created by Harry's psyche (hence why he never speaks to anyone but Harry), that Harry ALWAYS knew his dad killed himself deep down, but the Butler would tell him the truth and dissappear once he was ready to accept it. The idea of hallucinations was taken from the comics, but the explaination was left out, as it was deemed too far out for mainstream audiences.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;36716506]Exactly. Nobody would have gotten hurt if he let the bad guy go. Nobody at all. What's some stolen cash, compared to risking your life?[/QUOTE] All I'm saying is, Ben's hero complex coupled with instinct would not have left him with time to weigh that fact.
[QUOTE=sdwise;36716630]All I'm saying is, Ben's hero complex coupled with instinct would not have left him with time to weigh that fact.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I mean if Ben ran away, it wouldn't have shown he is an example to Peter.
I just realised something. The whole "Ben grabs the gun"... Imagine if it worked out? Imagine, if you will, that the ASM universe is OUR universe. Like, this really happened. Now imagine that Ben grabbed the gun and held the robber hostage until police arrived. We'd probably be raving about this old guy with the massive testicles in the Sensationalist Headlines section right now. About how much of a badass he was, how brave he was, what a hero he is. BUT... it didn't work out like that. What I'm saying is, you hear stories about stuff like that in real life, like some average guy stopping a gunman or something. Remember that one where the Middle School kid convinced that gunman to turn himself over through the use of Post-It notes? I'm just saying, it's not like it's something NO ONE would have done. It WASN'T a SMART thing to do. But it WAS a heroic thing to do. The only problem with it was that it didn't work out.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;36716629]The thing about superhero movies is, you can't go into it looking to bring SERIOUS logic into it. [i]"Oh, sure, a guy like Norman Osborn would test this experimental serum on HIMSELF first, yeah."[/i] [i]"Nah, totally, if I was rich like Bruce Wayne, I'd TOTALLY dress up like a fucking BAT and punch people. Not fund the police or put all my money into urban restoration, I'd just beat the SHIT out of bad guys."[/i] [i]"Oh, how CONVENIENT for Ton Stark that his missles contain the EXACT materials he needs to create a sustainable power source he can store in his chest. And OF COURSE the terrorists would possess the materials to make a robotic super suit that can fly, shoot fire, missles, and deflect heavy gunfire. And he'd TOTALLY be able to make it in a DANK CAVE IN BUMFUCKISTAN WITHIN A COUPLE MONTHS."[/i] I'm not saying that you should just turn your brain off, but ALL superhero movies require some degree of suspension of disbelief. Hell, even the stuff that IS convoluted has some sort of explaination: [i]Why did Doc Ock's arms have AI?[/i] The experiment was obviously pretty volitile. Incase Otto was incapacitated, the arms would continue to stabilize the experiment. Preforming the experiment was their prime objective, it was what they were programmed for, hence why, when the inhibitor chip breaks, they start to influence Ock's subconscience, and THEIR objective becomes HIS. [i]Why didn't Harry's Butler just tell him that his dad was the Goblin?[/i] It was originally planned to make the butler a hallucination created by Harry's psyche (hence why he never speaks to anyone but Harry), that Harry ALWAYS knew his dad killed himself deep down, but the Butler would tell him the truth and dissappear once he was ready to accept it. The idea of hallucinations was taken from the comics, but the explaination was left out, as it was deemed too far out for mainstream audiences.[/QUOTE] Exactly. IMO, you have to become a part of the mythology. You have to allow yourself to be pulled into the universe the artists are trying to create. Think out the puzzles they [i]want[/i] you to think about. For instance, the Mob/Villain/Batman trinity that has been a staple of Nolan's Batman universe requires you to think about how and why each piece of the puzzle behaves in his unique way, but also how their actions play out with respect to the rest of the trinity. It's actually very complex, but it requires you to forget the fact that no one [i]ever[/i] would dress up like a bat and fight insane, homicidal clowns who are in cahoots with the fucking mob.
Now how come they change Uncle Ben's murderer from a car thief to a robber? It would had made more sense if the guy was actually trying to rob Ben Parker of his car rather than a stupid scuffle. [SP] Also, the robber had a star tattoo on his hand[/sp]
[QUOTE=BCell;36716729]Now how come they change Uncle Ben's murderer from a car thief to a robber? It would had made more sense if the guy was actually trying to rob Ben Parker of his car rather than a stupid scuffle. [SP] Also, the robber had a star tattoo on his hand[/sp][/QUOTE] It was always a burglar in the comics. The car thief was Rami. (I'm pretty sure.)
[QUOTE=sdwise;36716846]It was always a burglar in the comics. The car thief was Rami. (I'm pretty sure.)[/QUOTE] I don't know if Raimi originated the carjacker, but the original thief broke into the Parker house to find some sort of treasure. Shit was utterly retarded, especially since there was NOTHING Peter could have done to prevent it.
[QUOTE=Whatsinaname;36630044]I suppose having The Illusive Man as Uncle Ben is another thing I liked about this movie. :v:[/QUOTE] When I was watching the film, I swear Instead of hearing peter coming from his mouth, I heard "Shephard" Oh boy. I ENJOYED THIS FILM WAY TOO MUCH~
[QUOTE=goldenbuttocks;36716652]Yeah, I mean if Ben ran away, it wouldn't have shown he is an example to Peter.[/QUOTE] No, my point was that there was a way to handle Ben's death without making him do something insanely stupid.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;36717512]No, my point was that there was a way to handle Ben's death without making him do something insanely stupid.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I do agree with that sort of. But, can't change it now, it already happened.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36697367]It really picks up during the end though, the dialogue is still predictable and cheesy as fuck but at least I didn't expect EVERYTHING that happened. Especially the end of the villain and how he behaves.[/QUOTE] If you think this dialogue is cheesy, watch the 2002 Spider Man again.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;36717853]If you think this dialogue is cheesy, watch the 2002 Spider Man again.[/QUOTE] [i]Spider-Man[/i] gave us "[i]You're the one who's out, Gobby... [b]OUT OF YOUR MIND.[/b][/i]". [i]The Amazing Spider-Man[/i] gave us "[i]EY, OH, AH'M SWINGIN' HERE![/i]" and "[i]Uh oh, someone's been a [b]BAD LIZARD![/b][/i]", so I'd say they're even.
[QUOTE=BCell;36716729]Now how come they change Uncle Ben's murderer from a car thief to a robber? It would had made more sense if the guy was actually trying to rob Ben Parker of his car rather than a stupid scuffle. [SP] Also, the robber had a star tattoo on his hand[/sp][/QUOTE] Stop thinking of it as a remake. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BanthaFodder;36718137][i]Spider-Man[/i] gave us "[i]You're the one who's out, Gobby... [b]OUT OF YOUR MIND.[/b][/i]". [i]The Amazing Spider-Man[/i] gave us "[i]EY, OH, AH'M SWINGIN' HERE![/i]" and "[i]Uh oh, someone's been a [b]BAD LIZARD![/b][/i]", so I'd say they're even.[/QUOTE] Seriously, watch it again. I wouldn't even call it a good movie, it was just so insanely cheesy.
And the line "With great power comes with great responsibility" was never uttered once in the movie
because for once that line wouldn't have made much sense why would he talk to Peter about power Peter was a scrawny nerd with a skateboard there is no power in ben's eyes
"[I]We played around with the idea of using it, but ultimately it felt like it was in the subtext of the film in so many places. I think we've all heard it so many times that I didn't think that it was necessary to use. Uncle Ben, of course, issues a statement using some of the similar words to kind of convey that idea. There were moments where we thought about using it, but it didn't feel as emotionally honest to the scenes and to the sequences. We were trying to create something more naturalistic. Because we had seen it so many times before, I didn't think it was absolutely necessary[/I]." - Marc Webb No, "Avengers Assemble!" and no "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". Where's the fan service for these teeny details?!
It would have stuck out like a sore thumb. The problem with that phrase is that it lacks power behind it because of how famous it is. It's more like you look for that specific line every time you watch something, sort of like "No, Luke... I am your father." It doesn't have the same impact as it did. Ben's new speech about responsibility and doing the right thing works with this Peter Parker a lot more and works with the audience a lot more. I just do not think people can take "With great power comes great responsibility" seriously anymore.
In my opinion the movie was good in it's own a right but felt a bit... dumbed down. I really prefer the original series as I feel there was more depth and complexity to the characters. Making Spiderman into a skater/hipster seems weird although closer to the comics I guess... I will definitely be watching the sequels to this though, as like I said, it is a good in it's own right. For the record I loved Spiderman 3 and thought the bits where Peter walked down the street eyeing up girls and acting like some kind of pimp fucking hilarious.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36719705]Making Spiderman into a skater/hipster seems weird although closer to the comics I guess...[/QUOTE] Hes never been that in the comics.
I mean his attitude in the comics seems cheeky with an edge of immaturity
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36719793]I mean his attitude in the comics seems cheeky with an edge of immaturity[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah hes always been that.
Indeed, Tobey Maguire seemed to portray him as a far more complex and emotionally confused character whereas this one seems to present him as a fairly one dimensional padawan of lulzmaking and lover of skateboarding, nnnng
Deep thinker, you are. I simply differentiate those actors with how Tobey made Peter a nerd while Andrew made him a cool nerd
Was there a scene where "Tool Peter dances through the streets"? If not...I'm not sure I can watch this.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36719705]Making Spiderman into a skater/hipster seems weird although closer to the comics I guess...[/QUOTE] I don't understand, he wasn't a hipster in any way? As in, in the film. I never read/paid attention to the comics
I still don't see how people think the characters in Raimi's trilogy had more depth. There was plenty of more room for subtle exposition in this movie than Raimi ever allowed. Raimi set out to make entertaining movies, which is why there are a lot more action sequences or the action lasts for much longer than in this one. Marc Webb wanted to pursue a different style of film that would be separate from Raimi's trilogy. Hence the new suit, new personality, and the change up of characters. He didn't want there to be much comparison other than them both being about Spider-Man. This films Peter Parker was much better than Maguire's performance. Maguire portrayed Peter as sort of a whiny nerd. I mean, he rode a little motor scooter for fuck's sake. They clearly wanted his Peter self to be as nerdy as possible, but his Spider-Man to be stronger, more agile but still came off as a nerd. In this film, Garfield plays him as a bit more of an independent, from subtle things like the auto-lock on his door to his sneaking into Oscorp all by himself. They wanted this Peter to be more in control of his own actions and no longer be a victim of circumstance. It was no longer a random spider that escaped and bit him, he [I]chose[/I] to go into that room, and while it was a coincidence that his father bred those spiders, it was not up to chance that he got bitten. For Garfield's Spider-Man, they clearly wanted to go with a more wisecracking Spider-Man that focused a lot more on web combat that it did on physical punching and other athletics. This Spidey is all about the web shooters and demonstrating the versatility of the webbing. I'm glad they showed some form of a web cocoon in this movie because it is one of Spider Man's signature moves. All in all, the original trilogy are all still entertaining to watch, but if I had to pick one out of all 4 that have recently come out, I would go Amazing Spider-Man any day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.