The Amazing Spider-man

[gordonblu]

I do believe SM3 to be a flawed film, mainly because it gets crowded with too many characters, but I really liked that one as well. I do think the first is the best, followed by 3, then 2 (Doc Ock was great, rest was rehash instead of new story), then ASM, which I liked more than I thought I would.

I think the reason I can accept it is dues to the new film feeling more like Brian Michael Bendis' alternate universe Ultimate Spider-Man, leaving Raimi's undisputed as classic Lee/ Ditko Spider-Man.

I find my reaction all the more ironic, seeing as I have been VERY vocal in my disapproval of them rebooting.

[Gotham Knight]

I would like to add that I believe Spider-man 2.1 was a much better cut than the standard Spider-man 2. Doesn't seem like it added much (8 minutes I think) when advertised, however I double dipped and discovered that it really improved an already good movie, especially where the alternate scenes were concerned, as apposed to the 'additions.' Although, the additions did, in most cases, prove themselves to be much more substantive than what you usually get in a release like this. This is coming from a man who HATES superfluous cash-ins. I HATE them.  While obviously marketed as one no doubt, Spidey 2.1 is not. Give it a whirl sometime.

Sad that it isn't apart of the re released blu ray versions of the trilogy. 

[johnnygobbs]

Personally, I feel vindicated in giving this film a chance.  Although the film 'only' has a 72% rating on Rotten Tomatoes many of the reviews I've read in the UK thus far have been very encouraging, some even rating this reboot over the Raimi franchise.

Having seen this film I was very satisfied.  In fact the only thing counting against it was that much of the first half of the movie is an (understandable) regurgitation of many of the plot threads that made up the first Raimi Spider-Man, and really, ten years is far too soon for what at times feels like not merely a reboot but a remake (say what you will about the various Batman franchises but nobody could mistake Burton, Schumacher or Nolan's respective versions for the other).  Still, above anything else (including the decent acting, special effects and production values) what I really like about The Amazing Spider-Man is the potential it sets up for the sequels.  SPOILER ALERT: We can easily guess that the Norman Osborne thread is going to be prevalent in future films but we also have the unresolved search for Uncle Ben's killer, who hopefully won't turn out to be the Sandman or any other incipient super-villain for that matter, as well as Peter's promise to a dying Captain Stacey to keep away from Gwen - and we all know how that ended in the comic-books - which should nicely dovetail with the aforementioned Osborne angle.  Also, kudos to the filmmakers for remaining relatively faithful to the original comic-books despite being trumpeted as the 'Ultimate version' of the story, and for resisting the temptation to kill-off the main villain (an annoying and all-too-common trope in comic-book movies).

Finally, as much as I love the Raimi series I don't know if I can honestly think of any performance of a particular character that I didn't prefer in this film.  Andrew Garfield, Sally Field, Emma Stone, Chris Zylka and Dennis Leary were arguably all better than Toby Maguire, Rosemary Harris, Bryce Dallas Howard and Joe Manganiello respectively, and Martin Sheen and Rhys Ifans were both at least as good as Cliff Robertson and Dylan Baker.  I appreciate it's an unfair comparison in some cases as Captain Stacy and Curt Connors were not as prominent in the Raimi series as they were in the new film but overall the performances were still marginally stronger this time round.

However, on balance I'd still say that the first Raimi Spider-Man is my overall favourite if only because for all its pluses the new movie didn't really do anything that the 2002 film hadn't alreday done to some extent.  As I stated before, I think it's the potential set-up for a long-lasting and compelling franchise where The Amazing Spider-Man's particular strength lies.

[riddler]

Gotta agree that all the actors who were portrayed in both series were upgraded. We saw the post credits scene (spoilers!) one major question is that if Norman Osborn is brought in, how will they explain the lack of Harry in the first film? The simple rationale is that it's implied Norman is sick during the first film and that harry is off.

Since it's becoming an interesting topic in this thread, i'll give my brief thoughts on each of the Raimi films. Also it should be noted I've seen all 4 films in theatres and own the first 3.

SM1: well acted but did drag on slightly. I did think Peter Parker was TOO nerdy. The green goblin was a controversial villain, on one hand Dafoe is at the top of his game here and the character is very maniacal on another hand though it did stray from the comics and seemed slightly cartoony.  One downside is the character of Peter Parker doesn't progress an awful lot after becoming spider-man and the death of his uncle.

SM2: Great follow up and 'bridge' film to the implied trilogy. Harry's character progresses an awful lot but MJ starts to get annoying here. Doc Ock is a great villain. The story is interesting and probably has the best mix of plotlines. The first film was kind of slow while the third film seemed to have too many plotlines going on. This one was just right, we had Parker's struggle with balancing his life, Harry's progression, May transitioning to become a widow, the MJ wedding denial and Octavius emerging. Definitely had one of the best cliffhanger endings in cinematic history (and of course this coming from a guy who's all time favourite movie is Back to the future part II)

SM3: actually underrated. I went opening night to the 12:01 showing and don't remember anyone leaving thinking it sucked. The pace is fast, as mentioned it did have slightly too much going on. For all it's criticisms it did have a few excellent sequences; the crane scene, the birth of sandman, as well as the church scene and final fight. The middle act suffered due to weak acting and too much drama between Peter and MJ, as mentioned the dancing and emo Parker got silly. Of course everyone is mad about Venom but since there was no 4th film, it's likely better that he were killed than leave things on an unresolved cliffhanger. The sandman was kind of pointless, there was no need to make him Ben's killer, his character was underdeveloped; he starts out stealing money because he has to, maintains he's not a bad guy yet plots to kill spider-man and then comes full circle for no reason. Also the giant sandman was kind of silly. The final fight with Harry joining in was outstanding though.

Overall thoughts on the raimi trilogy; they did overuse some plot points including the MJ/peter/harry triangle. It was kind of silly having MJ being the dansel in distress each film although I'll cut it some slack for the fact that the original plan was to have Gwen captured in the third film but Bryce Dallas Howard got pregnant. I liked James Franco as Harry, had they continued the series it would have been a tough void to fill. As you can tell I was not a fan of MJ, she didn't really add anything, all 3 films she was practically an antagonist to peter. JK simmons was great as JJJ, this gives them a difficult choice for the new series, it's reported he was originally set to reprise his role before it was written out. I guess they wanted to establish that it is not connected to the previous series. I can't imagine anyone else playing that role.

[The Dark Knight]

Because playing a dual role is all about balance; it's the same person playing 2 different personalities. Basically it's like playing a role and a half. Clooney for instance played the exact same character in and out of the suit. Tobey failed to make it believable that His Peter parker WOULD take the mantle of spider-man. He was clearly the wimpy nerd. Check the scene early in the Amazing spider-man when Peter stands up to flash WITHOUT powers; that implies he is a hero a heart whereas MaGuire's clearly was not.

I didn't catch this reply before. But here I go. I totally disagree. If anything, it is Garfield's Parker that is more in line with the George Clooney comparison of playing the same person in and out of the suit - as your standing up to Flash before Ben's death and being bitten example highlights. There wasn't too much of a big difference before or after.

Maguire's Peter was one character, and when he put on the suit, he was more confident and did wisecrack, despite what people say. Garfield's Spidey doesn't wisecrack any more than Maguire's. In TASM, I felt it didn't really properly convey if Garfield's Peter was meant to be cool (skateboarding, hoodie, etc) or a nerd that didn't fit in.

With Maguire's Peter they knew what they had and played to it. With Maguire, Spider-Man is his release from the stresses of everyday life. But also Maguire's Peter conveyed the importance of Ben's death a lot more, with it being the big factor in changing his life - taking on a greater responsibility as Spider-Man from that point on.

The Lizard is a good villain, but was underutilised. His simplistic plan is no different from Mr. Freeze's in Batman and Robin. 

And it shouldn't be about setting up sequels that have the potential to be as lacklustre as this. They promoted this film as the untold story, only for us to discover, oh wait, we'll tell you more about that later. We can only judge what we have now. If TASM did not surpass the 2002 film, sorry, that's a failure on its part, because Webb was going to show us how to do it 'properly' this time, and blow us all away.

[BatmAngelus]

The Amazing Spider-Man gave me more appreciation for Spider-Man 1.

The new movie has enjoyable moments and definitely feels different from the Raimi films.  But it also felt pretty unfocused and meandering to me, with unresolved issues left for the inevitable sequel.  The drive of the story seemed to be about the mystery of the parents in the first act, then it became about finding Uncle Ben's killer...until finally the Lizard came into the picture and the rest of it was Spidey vs. the Lizard, with the previous plots abandoned.

While I initially found "The Untold Story" element about the Parker parents to be intriguing in the trailers, I ended up being bored by it in the movie and by the end, I didn't feel like I learned much more about them than I already knew going into the theater.  The tease that this is part one of a trilogy gives me dread that I'll have to wait another 4-6 years in The Amazing Spider-Man 3 to find out who broke into the Parker house and why that lead the Parkers to leave Peter with Ben and May.  Which is ridiculous.

As for Uncle Ben's killer, I find it ironic that in today's superhero movies, Joe Chill was caught by the police on the night of the Wayne murders while Uncle Ben's killer escaped, leading a vengeful vigilante to roam the streets (first in ski cap and jacket, which turns out to be a disaster and leads the vigilante to realize he needs a disguise)...

Now, back to my original statement- I don't remember being impressed with 2002's Spider-Man when I saw it in theaters.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe I was expecting something else.  Maybe I didn't expect some of the changes from the comics.  Or I didn't like the tone.

But I had to rewatch it after Amazing Spider-Man, just to compare the two Spider-Man origin movies.  And I'm glad I did. 

Is it perfect?  No.  But when comparing the two movies, I definitely found the earlier film a lot stronger and gained more of an appreciation for it.

The story was far more focused and the pacing was better.  20 minutes into it and Pete and Norman already have powers and the story keeps progressing from there.  Raimi's first film is shorter than Webb's, yet I felt like the story covered more ground and had more closure by the end.  There were just-enough hints on where to go with the sequels, with Peter's relationships to Harry and MJ, but no plot points that were deliberately left unresolved so that another movie would answer them down the line.

Another important thing is that I felt more for Peter Parker.  He was more of an outcast, as well as more of a Boy Scout, and those qualities made me feel/care more about him than the current take.

Much has been said about the new Peter Parker being more of the science wiz and more of the wisecracker than before.  Yet Parker in Raimi's film has the same qualities. 
Sure, Maguire's Parker doesn't have a scene where he makes up a formula in front of a more experienced scientist (a formula that ends up being faulty and turns Connors into the Lizard...), but it's clear within the first 10 minutes that Peter's smarter than the average Joe. 
Raimi's Spider-Man also cracks jokes.  Yes, they might be lame ("It's you who's out, Gobby.  Out of your mind!"), but they're there and I didn't think the new Spider-Man handled this element any better.

Directing-wise, the style just feels like a living, breathing Stan Lee-Steve Ditko Spider-Man comic to me.  Much like Burton's Batman films, it feels set in its own world, under Raimi's unique style, and I much prefer that over today's "real world" approach to superhero films.

Another thing I wanted to comment on, writing wise, is that I found the love story in Spider-Man 1 to be far more developed and better written.  Mary Jane barely acknowledges Peter's existence as she dates Peter's enemy Flash in the beginning and the script gradually builds up their interactions, making them acquaintances when she dates his best friend Harry, then they become friends...until MJ finds that she has feelings for Peter in return.  It's not flawlessly executed, but it's believable and developed better than most summer movie romance subplots.

The Gwen-Peter relationship in the new movie seemed to happen quickly and easily, with Gwen attracted to Peter from the start, and it wasn't until Captain Stacy was revealed that there was much conflict to the relationship.

It's a shame that it took a reboot for me to appreciate the 2002 film more (it's been years since I've seen the movie), but alas it did and I'll miss Raimi's approach.

Despite all that, I do have to say that I'm interested in what's next for the rebooted Spidey.  Mainly- finding out which character Michael Massee is actually playing (if that character even has life outside of that credits scene), who will play Norman Osborn in the sequel, what the Green Goblin will look like (if it's Ultimate Green Goblin, I'm out...), and if/how they'll cover the Death of Gwen Stacy story.

[johnnygobbs]

Gotta agree that all the actors who were portrayed in both series were upgraded. We saw the post credits scene (spoilers!) one major question is that if Norman Osborn is brought in, how will they explain the lack of Harry in the first film? The simple rationale is that it's implied Norman is sick during the first film and that harry is off.

I'm not sure that the absence of Harry during TASM is such a big deal.  Didn't Peter first meet Harry at college in the original comic-books?  Harry is probably at some swanky prep school during the events of TASM, and since the Norman Osborn-related plot-points of TASM centre around Oscorp there's no real reason why a non-scientist like Harry would feature.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Harry's introduction into the new series, assuming that's going to happen, as it will be interesting to watch his friendship develop with a Peter Parker who already has something of a grudge against Oscorp (at least as far as his investigation into his parents' disappearance goes).

[The Dark Knight]

I feel that we didn't get Peter reacting to the spider bite and the implications it had enough. As if he got the powers and that was it. He knew a spider bit him – he looked on the internet for symptoms, etc. But I felt there was something extra missing here.

Other than the police saying he's a wanted fugitive, we don't really get to see what New Yorkers think of Spider-Man during this time. I would have liked this part to be expanded upon – people on the street grappling with the "is he a menace or trying to help?" thing. We have them talking about Spider-Man during the crane sequence, urging him on, but that's about it.

Also, we go from Peter warning Captain Stacy about a giant lizard – thinking he's a wacko to say such a thing, to Stacy turning up and dealing with the Lizard later. I felt we needed to have that surprised reaction from Stacey where he realizes that Peter is correct, but we really don't get it.

[gordonblu]

it's funny because I know people who complained about the the New Yorkers banding together for Spider-Man in Raimi's films, yet we get it again in this one. This is one of the reasons why the new film doesn't completely work; if you're touting this as a reboot with a "completely different" take on the character, then you shouldn't copy what has been done before. But this film is BEGGING for comparisons because it doesn't really break new ground, or tell the story differently enough. Plus these things were handled better by Raimi in the first place. Did I think the New Yorkers were a little cheesy in 1-3? Yes, but it worked. This new crane scene was downright groan-inducing. It didn't fit the slightly more negative world view the new movie has.

[riddler]

Not that it's unpredictable but I hate the fact that there's already franchise wars starting and particularily by the 'new is always better' crowd that likely makes us all hate Nolanites.

People that had deep connections to the Raimi films are trashing this one left, right, and center and of course the new group that probably enjoyed the Raimi films are now comparing them to cinematic trash.

I wish people would grow up and realize that comic characters have different interpretations and it's possible to like more than one. People hated Raimi not using the web shooters, now they have a spider-man film with web shooters. People liked mary jane as the love interest and/or Harry Osborn, they still have 3 films of that which can never be taken away.

I do agree that the origin was mishandled. I would have preferred a hybrid of the two previous reboots; the incredible hulk at batman begins. Have the film start with peter as a young boy, telling the untold story of the parents the way they did ala Batman Begins. Then speed up the origin through a montage. There definitely were parts that were glossed over including the reactions to the spider bite and Ben's death although it is rational that he may not have had the effect that Tobey did in the first film as it may have needed time to take effect.

I can kind of understand how people feel the villain plot was the same as the first 2 raimi films; Oscorp scientist had good intentions to help mankind, got outside pressure and a mandate from the contractors, rushed into production and was basically forced into becoming a villain. That being said Connors was an excellent character, it was nice to see him progress to becoming evil.

The main reason why I have a hard time not ranking this one the best spider-man film is that with the POSSIBLE exception of the title character (which is being debated on), every character which has appeared in both series was given more weight and handled better in the newer installment
Martin Sheen's Ben had more depth and versatility than Cliff Robertson and seemed to be someone Parker could relate to more. Sheen seemed more like the cool uncle kids like being around whereas Robertson was more like the old, wise man.
Sally Fields May also had more depth and versatility than Rosemary Harris. The first May was also one-dimensional as a sweet old lady, this one is closer to the comics; she waits up on Peter, lectures him, and acts far more assertive.
Dennis Leary's captain stacey was far more important than James Cromwells. Cromwell is a fine actor but take his character out and the film barely changes. Leary's character becomes a protagonist and antagonist in the film.
Emma Stone's gwen stacey was the best love interest so far period. Bryce Dallas Howard is a good actress but her character was somewhat of a ditz. Stone is more than a dansel in distress, she rivals Peter in terms of intelligence and actually helps him instead of getting in the way.
Can't recall the actors but this Flash Thompson was clearly an important character for the high school scenes while the formers was glossed over. Like the comics, in this film he clearly gets a kick out of being a jerk (although even the film scales him back, he's an even bigger jerk in the comics)
Ryfus Ifans > Dylan Baker. Somewhat unfair here because Baker wasn't given a lot to work with but prior to the announcement of the rebook, people wondered aloud whether Baker could handle being the top villain. Ifans clearly did, his portrayal was just as good as the villains in the previous series which is impressive given that the Lizard is at best the 4th ranked spider-villain behind Dock Ock, Gobbie, and Venom.


And as mentioned I really did not like Tobey as spider-man. Now to be fair he was fine in the first film, just had a steady decline throughout the series. Possibly because in 2002 he was a hungry actor getting his first big break while by 2007 he had already made the big bugs and seemed to mail in his performance for a paycheque. Garfield today is also a hungry actor getting his first big break so I guess it's possible for the same thing to happen with him although i can't see people laughing at his performance the way Tobey is mocked for his third film.