Amazing Spider-Man : July 3rd, 2012

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Jose Martinez, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. Sam Favate

    Sam Favate Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Real Name:
    Sam Favate
    If they really wanted to be bold, they could set up the circumstances preceding her death as readers know, and then, have her survive. It would change everything we know about the character and could avoid yet another grim revenge superhero tale. Also, Emma Stone's character is a good deal more well-rounded than the comic book character, who, while appealing, spent a good deal of time sobbing over misunderstandings between her and Peter. The writers killed her off because they didn't know what else to do with her - a cheap way out in any story.
     
  2. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,916
    Likes Received:
    490
    Tone is a difficult issue. While I'm fine with alterations to a character's mythology, changes in tone are tougher because I think they affect the property to the core.

    If I see a Spider-Man movie, I want it to still FEEL like Spider-Man. The movie doesn't need to slavishly adhere to everything about the source, but it still needs to feel like it's a match with the source in terms of tone - or it needs to have a really good reason to change.

    If you change too much, then what's the point? Alteration in tone CAN work but it's really tough, especially with such a well-established world like Spider-Man. Look how hated the Schumacher Batman movies tend to be. Why? Because they took a serious character and went silly/campy.

    Part of the reason I loved the Raimi series was because it really felt like Spider-Man - it was a rare comic book movie that got the spirit right. I'm cool with changes to mythology - for instance, I was 100% on-board with the way the movies altered the Peter/Mary Jane backstory - but I do want the movies to fit the established tone of the series.

    I don't think "Amazing" does that, and I think the change hurts it...
     
  3. Simon Massey

    Simon Massey Cinematographer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    Kuwait
    Real Name:
    Simon Massey
    Interesting to hear Stacy does die in the comics - wasn't aware of that. Somehow I doubt the filmmakers will not do this now - Rachel's death in the Dark Knight was done so well that now everyone thinks they have to copy it :)
    Sorry you didn't feel it matched the tone of the comics Colin. Partly I think this is due to the writers wanting to shape Peter's character to how he has dealt with the disappearance of his parents but then they probably didn't deal with this enough in the film to warrant that change as they never moved the character forward within the film itself or allowed him to discover anything new. That for me is the film's main flaw though I still enjoyed it a lot. I guess that's an advantage in a way of only knowing the characters through the films. Not comic book related but I remember when the film The Kite Runner came out and I was appalled at how badly the film had been done partly because it was one of my favourite books at the time.
     
  4. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,469
    Likes Received:
    3,685
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I see what Colin is saying about the comic book and movie's tones not matching but I hadn't really thought of it before he mentioned it. The movie is more serious than the tone of the comics (which are usually fun) but not enough that I would say that they made a major error or huge deviation from the comics.
     
  5. Cameron Yee

    Cameron Yee Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,585
    Likes Received:
    588
    Location:
    Since 2006
    Real Name:
    Cameron Yee
    I know there's an understood and accepted tone to Spider-Man comics, established from the beginning by Stan Lee. But since the character has been around so long, and re-interpreted at various times, I can accept some deviation from the "classic" presentation. Batman comics have probably had more obvious changes to the character over the years, going from lighthearted to quite dark.
     
  6. TheBat

    TheBat Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 1999
    Messages:
    3,088
    Likes Received:
    28
    Real Name:
    Jacob
    i was thinking the same thing. once people learn that the character died in the comics. it will make more sense.
    Jacob
     
  7. Greg Kettell

    Greg Kettell Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 1998
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    NY Capital Region
    Real Name:
    Greg K.
    Saw this last night, it was a lot better than I expected. I think overall it was better than the first Raimi Spider-Man, although it had its absurd coincidences and the silly scene with the crane operators lining them up for Spidey to get to Oscorp just made me roll my eyes.
    Kirstin Dunst has a slight edge over Emma Watson in my eyes as well. But both were fine.
     
  8. DaveF

    DaveF Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    17,383
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Location:
    One Loudoun, Ashburn, VA
    Real Name:
    David Fischer
    The crane scene was emotionally manipulative, but I fell for it. I didn't want to, cut I liked it. There was the same sort of scene with the average joes helping spidey out the bus on the second or third movie. I was wondering if it's a spiderman theme.
     
  9. Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan Sean Bryan
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    561
    Real Name:
    Sean
    Yep, I loved the crane scene.
    And yes, it was reminiscent of the "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" scene on the bridge in the first Spider-Man.
     
  10. TonyD

    TonyD Who do we think I am?
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 1999
    Messages:
    17,068
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Disney World and Universal Florida
    Real Name:
    Tony D.
    The crane scene didn't do anything for me.
    It was pointless actually. These cranes weren't any higher then the tops of other building around here and wold have been just as easy for SM to
    Web onto the building to get to Oscorp .
     
  11. Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan Sean Bryan
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    561
    Real Name:
    Sean
    Well, the "why" is a bit of a head scratcher.
    Certainly they could have done a better job at showing why, but it was shown that his gunshot wound to the leg was preventing him from traversing the way he needed to. Maybe because he hadn't yet quite mastered swinging and may have needed better use of his legs. After all, webs on the tops of buildings swing you toward the building and the overhead cranes lets him swing in a straight line down the street. So maybe the injury to his leg made him less confident he could handle a bounce/run off the side of a building (as Spider-Man IS often shown doing) if needed and the cranes simply provided a straight swinging path where he wouldn't have to deal with the "side to side" building swings. That's basically the way I read it.
    Nevertheless, I loved the emotional impact of the scene, nerd arguments notwithstanding.
     
  12. DaveF

    DaveF Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    17,383
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Location:
    One Loudoun, Ashburn, VA
    Real Name:
    David Fischer
    I took it as a clear the way, fastest approach, and he's hurt thing. As the showed, withy the hurt leg he didn't make the first crane. Implied, he'd never have made it by 'normal' web-slinging.
    As for need annoyance: Oz corp has a room full of spiders that hold the solution to the stable transgenic problem, and everyone's wasting their time failing with lizard DNA?!?
    It's like in Spiderman 2, where there absolutely amazing breakthrough of direct neural controlled arms is ignored as they invent solar fusion. :)
     
  13. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,392
    Likes Received:
    606
    Kind of like Dr. Evil wanting to hold the world ransom for a million dollars when Virtucon alone makes 9 billion dollars annually? :D
     
  14. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,704
    Likes Received:
    566
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I didn't really care for this version of Spider-Man. I didn't like Garfield in the role; I was annoyed by the repeated awkward, "meet cute" scenes between Peter and Gwen; didn't think the villain was really that strong; and Sally Field was OK, but she's no Rosemary Harris. The design of the Lizard was also kind of odd, as he pretty much completely transformed into a non-human form (tail, talons, reverse-jointed legs) but his face was basically just human with scales.
    If this series continues with current cast/crew, the next film will have to have some really great word of mouth to get me into the theater.
     
  15. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,469
    Likes Received:
    3,685
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I like the idea of people helping each other to overcome obstacles (rather than the prevelant attitude today where people will not only actively root for others to fail but they also want to laugh at them as they fail) so that scene worked for me too.
     
  16. SugarSunset

    SugarSunset Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. Garfield in this role gave Parker a cool nerdy look, which isn't what Parker is supposed to be about.
    Although my main concern was that they replicated most of the scenes at the beginning of the film from the first film and then put new stuff into it, (probably) claiming 'Hey, look, aren't we clever? We injected new stuff into something old! What genius! This is going to be amazing!'. Um, no, that's not how it works :f
    I found the Lizard to be quite weird, but I felt he was better than the villain from the first film, The Green Goblin, who looked like he was a villain from a child's film.
     
  17. Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan Sean Bryan
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    561
    Real Name:
    Sean
    Rami's films played up the wholesome, "ah shucks", aspect of Peter Parker and didn't really emphasize his intelligence. Certainly he was portrayed as smart and interested in science, but that was definitely downplayed in those films.
    In Webb's film, the "genius" of Peter Parker was definitely more apparent. This is a Parker that I could see potentially holding his own with Reed Richards and Bruce Banner (after more education, of course). I'm not sure I could say the same for Rami's Parker (which I also really liked as a character).
     
  18. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,916
    Likes Received:
    490
    Don't agree that Peter's intelligence was downplayed. Remember how he got to know Octavius in "Spidey 2"?
     
  19. SugarSunset

    SugarSunset Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was obvious that Parker's intelligence in the reboot is more apparent - I mean, normally the webs come out of his wrists, but like in the original comics, he builds little pods that they come out of. Plus, we get a better look at his room, his computer, his research. He wears glasses quite frequently as well. We don't get to see such a huge background behind Parker in the first film, so he doesn't really have the chance to portray his intelligence and save the world at the same time.
    Either that or I haven't seen Spider-Man 2 for a long time :crazy:
     
  20. Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan Sean Bryan
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    561
    Real Name:
    Sean
    Yep. As I said, he was still shown as intelligent and interested in science (capable of having read scientific papers and understanding concepts that scientists are working on, understanding the risks of things getting out of control, etc...) in the Rami films. But as far as the character goes, he never really "did anything" with that intelligence that affected himself or the story in any significant way. Unless I'm forgetting something, he understood what Octavian was working on and was capable of discussing the science with him. But he didn't help Octavian develop any of that science or use science to help him augment what he was capable of doing as Spider-Man, right? If you were to ask someone who wasn't familiar with Peter Parker from the comics and only knew him through his portrayal in the Rami films if they thought he was a "genius", I think the answer would likely be no. "A really smart guy, sure. But genius? Hadn't considered it."
    In The Amazing Spider-Man, he used his intelligence to develop the mechanical web shooters and adapt the Oscorp webbing for his own use, work with Dr. Connors on his father's formula until they got it working (seemingly), and direct Gwen on how to go about formulating the antidote. His intelligence was much more front and center and played more of a role in his character and the film's story. So, If you were to ask someone who wasn't familiar with Peter Parker from the comics and only knew him through his portrayal in Webb's film if they thought he was a "genius", I think the answer would more likely be yes. "Yeah, he actually made those web shooters himself and helped the doctor develop the cross species genetics treatment. Sure, he could be a genius."
     

Share This Page