The Amazing Spiderman

LoathsomePete · 08-07-2011, 10:16 PM

This "10-Year wait till remake" thing is getting kind of annoying, however if X-Men: First Class taught me anything it's that it's never too late to rejuvenate a sagging series, and after the disaster of Spider-Man 3 it's definitely one that needs to be redone. The problem is this is going to suffer from the same problems of all first comic hero movies and that's the origin story. A lot of people already know Spider-Man's origin story by now so an hour of the film will be wasted explaining it. I'm a little dubious of the parents subplot that is going to be added to the story, I didn't like it when the Ultimate Spider-Man added some conspiracy subplot to Peter's powers, so we'll see how they work it in this one. I do like how they've brought back the mechanical web shooters and there's no Mary Jane Watson. The first person perspective at the end of the teaser was kind of... bleh, but whatever with any luck none of it will be used in the final product. All in all it's at least on my radar now, which is more then can be said from a few months ago.

Queen Boo · 08-08-2011, 10:42 AM

Gwen Stacy as a character always annoyed the **** out of me but the trailer makes her seem like less of a throbbingly basic bitch.

Paedantic Basterd · 08-08-2011, 11:00 AM

Fuck me, the first one was 10 years ago? I feel like an old codger.

FETCHER. · 08-08-2011, 11:02 AM

Aren't you like 20 or something :/?

Paedantic Basterd · 08-08-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurora

Aren't you like 20 or something :/?

I know, that's the point. I shouldn't feel old at 22 due to rapid remaking of films from my teenage years.

KW710 · 08-20-2012, 12:51 PM

Well, first of all, Sony had to remake it because all of Marvel's character rights deals have a 3 year ticking clock built it. If you don't make a movie using the character at least once every 3 years, the rights revert back to Marvel (i.e. Disney now). So Sony was in a bind because if they didn't, they'd lose the rights to a very lucrative franchise. So that explains the reboot so soon.

Overall, I felt like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was a better film, holistically. Sam Raimi just has more directing experience and is also more adept at action sequences, and you could tell.

That said, I thought Andrew Garfield made a much better Peter Parker. I also loved that the character animation while he was swinging through the city was more accurate to the comic art (all sorts of weird mid-air poses, etc.) and that his powers were more accurate too (mechanical web-shooters). Also, the character relationships were stronger in this film, particularly between Peter and Gwen. Marc Webb might not be the best action director, but that wasn't really the point. If Sony had wanted another action flick, they could have hired plenty of other people who could do the job passably well. They purposefully hired Marc because they wanted someone who was good at character stories, which is what you got.

Howard the Duck · 08-20-2012, 11:19 PM

it's a total pile of crap except for Garfield

Period

08-07-2011, 10:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
LoathsomePete Cardboard Box Realtor Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Hobb's End Posts: 7,648	This "10-Year wait till remake" thing is getting kind of annoying, however if X-Men: First Class taught me anything it's that it's never too late to rejuvenate a sagging series, and after the disaster of Spider-Man 3 it's definitely one that needs to be redone. The problem is this is going to suffer from the same problems of all first comic hero movies and that's the origin story. A lot of people already know Spider-Man's origin story by now so an hour of the film will be wasted explaining it. I'm a little dubious of the parents subplot that is going to be added to the story, I didn't like it when the Ultimate Spider-Man added some conspiracy subplot to Peter's powers, so we'll see how they work it in this one. I do like how they've brought back the mechanical web shooters and there's no Mary Jane Watson. The first person perspective at the end of the teaser was kind of... bleh, but whatever with any luck none of it will be used in the final product. All in all it's at least on my radar now, which is more then can be said from a few months ago. __________________ Last.FM 101 Albums That May Not Change Your Life, But I Really Like And You Might Too

08-08-2011, 11:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	Fuck me, the first one was 10 years ago? I feel like an old codger.

08-20-2012, 12:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
KW710 Groupie Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 41	Well, first of all, Sony had to remake it because all of Marvel's character rights deals have a 3 year ticking clock built it. If you don't make a movie using the character at least once every 3 years, the rights revert back to Marvel (i.e. Disney now). So Sony was in a bind because if they didn't, they'd lose the rights to a very lucrative franchise. So that explains the reboot so soon. Overall, I felt like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was a better film, holistically. Sam Raimi just has more directing experience and is also more adept at action sequences, and you could tell. That said, I thought Andrew Garfield made a much better Peter Parker. I also loved that the character animation while he was swinging through the city was more accurate to the comic art (all sorts of weird mid-air poses, etc.) and that his powers were more accurate too (mechanical web-shooters). Also, the character relationships were stronger in this film, particularly between Peter and Gwen. Marc Webb might not be the best action director, but that wasn't really the point. If Sony had wanted another action flick, they could have hired plenty of other people who could do the job passably well. They purposefully hired Marc because they wanted someone who was good at character stories, which is what you got.