Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Roman Monaghan:

bat32391:
Hmm guess I'm in the minority hear because I saw the movie and really liked it. Well except for the stupid cg lizard. But to each their own I guess.

Not even close to the minority. Don't take the chirps of idiot yes men all saying that because Bob said it was bad that they're not going to see it as "the majority." Everyone who saw this movie and then posted on here about it said they liked it and that Bob is talking about his ass, and everyone saying they agree with Bob also mentioned that they have not, and will not, see it. Their loss though, cuz this movie kicked ass.

Nice to know I'm not the only one who thought so.

Okay just saw this movie, is it great no, it's okay, it does have a rather long beginning but so did the other Spider-Man movie, it is worth a see if your a Spider-Man fan though I wouldn't go out of my way, and even though a lot of the mythos was changed the character himself felt a lot more like the Spider-Man from the comics then he did in the other movies, which is nice. Also I like this suit more not so much for look, both suits looked pretty bad to me but at least they have him looking into ways of getting a suit, not I draw picture I have suit now. A lot of Bob criticisms of the movie are just stupid, seriously complaining about the flash on the web shooters seriously way to nitpick, and the comments on the opening being to convent are over exaggerated they just so happen to work for Norman Osborn how is that even a coincidence you know nothing about Osborn but his name, and most the rest makes logic sense genetic researches do work together, but Gwen's father being chief of police is a bit much. Okay that scene towards the end that you mention was pretty stupid.

And Bob expect this review to get linked to in the future it's the new why "we hate and can't trust Bob" moment, and in this case they are right your bias is obvious and your overly negative tone paints you unprofessionally. I also imagine similar things happening in your Dark Knight Rises review.

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Forgettable is a word i'd use to describe it...

You're right. I'm pretty sure two years from now no one is gonna remember something special with this movie other than The unnecessary Spiderman reboot.

When you think about it, isn't that the fate Clash of the Titans(2010) suffered if you go back and asked the people who watched it after a year?

Lol, Clash of the Titans is a whole different can of worms...I think that was so forgettable because it was so generic...

I certainly couldn't tell you anything that happened in that movie other than there being a Kraken at some point...

Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.

Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?

bat32391:

Roman Monaghan:

bat32391:
Hmm guess I'm in the minority hear because I saw the movie and really liked it. Well except for the stupid cg lizard. But to each their own I guess.

Not even close to the minority. Don't take the chirps of idiot yes men all saying that because Bob said it was bad that they're not going to see it as "the majority." Everyone who saw this movie and then posted on here about it said they liked it and that Bob is talking about his ass, and everyone saying they agree with Bob also mentioned that they have not, and will not, see it. Their loss though, cuz this movie kicked ass.

Nice to know I'm not the only one who thought so.

Me and twelve of my friends last night, dude. All of us agreed: damn good movie.

You are never alone.

This movie seems to be poorly done to me. It's trying to make our protagonist all these things but also blend the movie with categories hoping it's the perfect box office movie. Sadly, most of my friends have claimed it's ether okay, meh, and a few hating it with a passion.

Haven't seen it myself so I really don't have a say, but the trailer brushed me off. Nothing interesting is there to draw me in and the CGI is just horrible especially for the lizard man. Also, I really dislike when movies/books/shows have a villain with no purpose as to why they're doing what they do. I like when they have depth, reason to do something despite if we see otherwise but when doing something for the sake of .. doing it, with no cause.. it's silly if not poor overall.

Won't be seeing this. I was alright with the three movies but I don't want to see a re-write of the first despite if it's different in every way it's still the start of Spider Man getting his powers and I have already got to see that before.

Iv herd great things from reviewer's I fallow, Movie bob I feel like you'v been hating on this movie before it was even out from what I herd its awesome.

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

You're right. I'm pretty sure two years from now no one is gonna remember something special with this movie other than The unnecessary Spiderman reboot.

When you think about it, isn't that the fate Clash of the Titans(2010) suffered if you go back and asked the people who watched it after a year?

Lol, Clash of the Titans is a whole different can of worms...I think that was so forgettable because it was so generic...

I certainly couldn't tell you anything that happened in that movie other than there being a Kraken at some point...

Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.

Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

DoomyMcDoom:

In other words it's all about balance, and from what I can tell from what Bob and a few of my friends have been saying, this spiderman movie is mainly just a peter parker teen romance movie, with action and a baddie crowbarred in, and the character family origin stuff is different now. Doesn't really interest me, if someone brings it over on DVD or something at some point I'll watch it, or like when it hits netflix, but theaters are expensive, and I'd rather not spend money on something I don't think I'll like all that much.

Nothing of the sort. He just kinda gets with Gwen - it's in the background. Starts off with taliking to her awkwardly at school, then talk some more, he's there for him when Uncle Ben dies, and eventually he goes round for dinner and the relationship is consummated with a kiss. It's not an annoying love story - it's just part of Peter's character development, and it's great that Peter gets focus in the film as a character instead of just doing the easy thing and building up a villain like most things do.

It's a great love story and I was wanting more scenes between Peter and Gwen, instead of being like "blah another love scene" like I am with most films. They were funny, well written and well acted and the films would've been much worse without them.

I was surprised to hear how caustic this review was, but to each their own since I enjoyed this much more than any of the previous three films.

I think the action and dialogue were both better in this one, and Andrew Garfield emotes more and seems to actually have some personality.

I'd recommend seeing it - it's not anywhere near one of my favorite movies but it's decent.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.

Hey, you're not alone. I don't know much about the comics (which may be the explanation), but thought the reboot to be surperior to the Raimi movies. I'd even go so far as to say that in my opinion Andrew Garfield is a better suited actor for Spider-Man than Tobey McGuire was.

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Lol, Clash of the Titans is a whole different can of worms...I think that was so forgettable because it was so generic...

I certainly couldn't tell you anything that happened in that movie other than there being a Kraken at some point...

Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.

Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

For me the movie changed waaaay too much of the story and I can't fathom how some people think that this badly directed movie was better than The Avengers.

I wanna see this movie just because I want to see if its realy this bad, BUT i wont be seeing it on opening week(end)

*deleted*

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.

Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

Well, I liked the crane scene...
Don't get why it's supposed to be stupid, I actually found it to be quite touching.
But to each his own I guess.

Calibanbutcher:

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

Well, I liked the crane scene...
Don't get why it's supposed to be stupid, I actually found it to be quite touching.
But to each his own I guess.

Yeah, I'm not getting HOW the crane scene was bad. It showed Karma. He could have went after the Lizard the first time he saw him, but he went to save the kid. Because he did that, the construction worker felt it was his duty to repay someone who saved the life of his son. How is that stupid? That's how life works. You do something out of the kindness of your heart without looking for reward and it comes back to you two fold--even at times you don't notice it.

It was showing that actions matter. Just like what happened with his uncle. He failed to act and his uncle died. This time he acted, saved someone and was aided. Past that, the crane scene show him actually beginning to understand -how- to web sling. If you remember the majority of the movie, he was sloppy at it, using a lot of webs just to get a short distance, and making a lot of close calls. It showed improvement in his own skills as well.

It happens in the comic time to time. Usually when he is shot, (Depending where, and this is a rare occurrence) he can't wall climb very well, or swing far and he ends up struggling unless he is -really- focused and pissed. Then again, this is him as a teenager when he first started, he's not used to things like being shot.

Also. Something that needs to be addressed. The complaints of how Peter was dressed or even his hair style in the movies. I hate to break it to you, but:

Peter in a T shirt over a long shirt. Skater-boy clothing fashion.

Even his clone wears hoodies. Notice the hair again one Peter?

His clothing style matches up again with what was shown in The Amazing Spider-man movie. And hair -again-.

And look at that. He enjoys rollerblading, despite being a giant geek. (Actually, most skaters and rollerbladers are geeks)

This is Peter Parker as an -adult- mind you. His style of clothing and hair is extremely on the mark. It seems like people who do not like this and are saying that "This doesn't make sense/fit in Spider-man" actually don't know the least -bit- about Spider-man.

And for those who keep saying how "EMO" Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker was and that it didn't fit. I give you this:

He takes every death and loss of a person -very- seriously and hard. Mary Janes explanation of him is spot on. This was also shown in the movie, but without someone -explaining- it but rather Peter going through it. (Again HAIR)

Less and less like Andrew got it wrong and more and more like people simply don't like Spider-Man outside of the fact that he's a dude who swing around the city.

Had a feeling he'd hate this film for the same reason I believe I will hate it: It is uneccessary.

Spiderman was a great trilogy (well the first 2 were awesome, the third not so much) and its so annoying that "reboots" are being released so soon after their originals.

I really hope no one goes to see this, however I know they will as all my friends are talking on Facebook about how good it is. My closer friends agree with me. A film like A Nightmare on Elm Street you can understand the justification for a reboot, a more modern take on a classic with updated CGI.

Spiderman? So they can keep the licence.

The film may be awesome or it maybe a load of rubbish but one sale they won't be getting, regardless of the quality of the title, is from me.

Britisheagle:

I really hope no one goes to see this, however I know they will as all my friends are talking on Facebook about how good it is. My closer friends agree with me. A film like A Nightmare on Elm Street you can understand the justification for a reboot, a more modern take on a classic with updated CGI..

That was a terrible remake. The CGI was good but the remake it self was not very great.

I'm not seeing the film. I don't want to support what seems to be an EA-scale soul-less cash grab. But then, I don't particularly like spidey in general, so there's not much reason for me to want to watch it anyway.

hmm... oddly harsh, I'm going to see this movie in a few days with freinds and while I'm expecting something average at best I'll come back and see if you were right or just baised

Ramzal:
Yeah, I'm not getting HOW the crane scene was bad. It showed Karma. He could have went after the Lizard the first time he saw him, but he went to save the kid. Because he did that, the construction worker felt it was his duty to repay someone who saved the life of his son. How is that stupid? That's how life works. You do something out of the kindness of your heart without looking for reward and it comes back to you two fold--even at times you don't notice it.

It was showing that actions matter. Just like what happened with his uncle. He failed to act and his uncle died. This time he acted, saved someone and was aided. Past that, the crane scene show him actually beginning to understand -how- to web sling. If you remember the majority of the movie, he was sloppy at it, using a lot of webs just to get a short distance, and making a lot of close calls. It showed improvement in his own skills as well.

It happens in the comic time to time. Usually when he is shot, (Depending where, and this is a rare occurrence) he can't wall climb very well, or swing far and he ends up struggling unless he is -really- focused and pissed. Then again, this is him as a teenager when he first started, he's not used to things like being shot.

Also. Something that needs to be addressed. The complaints of how Peter was dressed or even his hair style in the movies. I hate to break it to you, but:

Peter in a T shirt over a long shirt. Skater-boy clothing fashion.

Even his clone wears hoodies. Notice the hair again one Peter?

His clothing style matches up again with what was shown in The Amazing Spider-man movie. And hair -again-.

And look at that. He enjoys rollerblading, despite being a giant geek. (Actually, most skaters and rollerbladers are geeks)

This is Peter Parker as an -adult- mind you. His style of clothing and hair is extremely on the mark. It seems like people who do not like this and are saying that "This doesn't make sense/fit in Spider-man" actually don't know the least -bit- about Spider-man.

And for those who keep saying how "EMO" Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker was and that it didn't fit. I give you this:

He takes every death and loss of a person -very- seriously and hard. Mary Janes explanation of him is spot on. This was also shown in the movie, but without someone -explaining- it but rather Peter going through it. (Again HAIR)

Less and less like Andrew got it wrong and more and more like people simply don't like Spider-Man outside of the fact that he's a dude who swing around the city.

Thank you for posting this. People making such a big deal out of Peter Parker's appearance in this just did not make any sense to me. Toby Maguire was more "EMO" than anything Andrew Garfield did, and I have friends who are massive nerds who are into programming and skateboarding. I go to an IT college, there are plenty of people there who fit Andrew Garfield's portrayal. Whatever kind of nerd people wanted him to be is just a decades old stereotype that we've seen time and time again.

Also, yeah, my first thought about the crane scene was that it was echoing what happened with Uncle Ben and what he said about responsibility. I agree that it was a quite hokey, but that's not a negative aspect. There's so much that's just hokey about the Spider-man comics and cartoon, this just wasn't a problem for me.

I'm sad you didn't like it, Bob- as a Marvel fanboy, I know I'd be crushed if a super neat hero was in a movie I hated.

Still, I personally loved The Amazing Spider-Man. Peter was adorable, Gwen entirely likeable, even a certain bully was allowed to be something more than a two-bit thug- Character wise, the movie was everything I wanted.

I'll admit that motivations were perhaps a bit shallow, though I think "Evil because of science and that's pretty much it." is a fairly normal Spider-Man villain plotline.

I loved the movie! I was very glad I didn't let Bob's opinion of it sway whether I went out to go see it. It's not a perfect movie, but didn't deserve Bob's fanboy rant.

The movie looked bad from the getgo.

I'd been worried about it looking cheap ever since the first screens we've seen.

I will however say that this costume looks much better than the costume used in the first 3 movies. I also think that person has a much better spiderman physique.

I'd be willing to be that doesn't save it one tiny bit though.

Also....... worse than the dance scene................. how is that even possible? Are you sure you're not being a tad hyperbolic there?

sideshow:

Jetsetneo:
Long Story Short: Movie Bob is overreacting, like hes does.

I'm pretty sure he's hammering the point that this shouldn't be a movie. meaning this only exists so Sony can continue to have the rights asap.

[quote="Jetsetneo" post=""]Seriously fellow escapists, this comment may be buried 10 pages in, but I hope someone hears this: This is worth watching.

No, Green Lantern on crack is worth watching. A movie that completely rewrites vital Spider-Man cannon, not so much. But hey, its only an opinion.

I did hear that if they did go with Spider-Man 4, the new villain would be Mystirio played by Bruce Campbell and all his cameo scenes in previous ones were all the same character. So all those in favour of Spider-Man 4 over this?[/quote

While I don't doubt this movie is a movie for the sake of keeping rights (especially since Avengers has gone bananas and we'll probably get another Superhero movie explosion similar to what happened after Spidey 1). It DOESN'T mean this movie has no merit. Just because some corporate suit demanded one doesn't mean someone on a lower level but heart into it, because clearly some did. It has something. Yeah the Lizard comes up short, a lot, but thats the only true flaw that I saw.

As for re-writing, this movie is probably more canon than the last, and since we're talking Comics, that means a lot to comic geeks who will undoubtedly bring more word of mouth advertising because of it. Not that a Spider-man movie needs it, but it helps.

Just to clarify, key points this movie has that the last 3 did wrong or missed:
-Uncle Ben never explicitly states the "Great power..." line, ever. Hardly a rewrite. Yeah they switched up the key zeitgiest more or less, but if it were a scene for scene copy with different actors I'd be a lot more upset that I paid money for what I already have in my DVD collection.
-Gwen Stacy from the start. MJ comes wayyyy later.
-That Gwen thing? Is going to matter a lot more in AS-M 2, if the ending of this one didn't hammer that home.
-Web shooters/ showcasing Peter's intellect. The other movies did this, but really only in spider-man 2, and peter always used it in reaction, not pro action (building his web shooters)

Frankly after the shark jumping that was Spider-man 3 I much rather have had this.

Lvl 64 Klutz:
Whether MovieBob is right about this movie being terrible or not doesn't really matter to me, I'm still avoiding it like the plague.

While Bob does seem to be a bit too prepared to hate the movie, he does have a right to hate everything it STANDS FOR. With all the marketing surrounding this movie (A lot more so than other summer blockbusters, don't try to deny it), it is blatantly clear that Sony was going for massive opening numbers before any reviews came up.

When Bob says this is a movie made by accountants, he's not that far off. If the movie was great, that's good for THIS movie. But, if Sony's marketing strategy works, and I'm sure it will, that opens the floodgates for all around lazy filmmaking. What this movie stands for is the next step to completely manufactured movies. And I'm not okay supporting that.

This pretty much says everything I'm thinking.

Could it be good? Maybe. Better than the previous trilogy? God I hope so. But can it be better than the possibility of a Spiderman appearance in The Avengers 2, potentially directed by Whedon again? HELL NO.

This film exists purely because Sony doesn't want to give back the rights on Spiderman. It's the same reason that the X-Men keep making movies (and also why, barring the surprising quality of First Class, they keep getting worse). This really is a movie made by accountants. And it may well be good, but it's still by far inferior to what another director could have done with it as part of an effort to help tie Spiderman into the Avengers. This is something EA does on a regular basis, it runs a major franchise into the ground (Spiderman 3) and then, rather than cough up the rights to someone who might do the series better justice, instead opts to desperately and frantically pounds its fists on the remains, hoping to squeeze out just a little more cash. And Sony deserves to be called out for this. It's a bad policy of film making.

So, yeah sure, maybe it's an okay film. But if so, it's mostly by accident, rather than on purpose. This was an attempt to squeeze out more cash and to keep the rights to Spiderman, and nothing more. And I can't support the film on that basis.

DoomyMcDoom:

Carpenter:

DoomyMcDoom:

Not so much the second as the first I think, I never claimed to be a super fan of spiderman, just that I've come into contact with it, and please stop refering to me as you guys, I know I seem to have multiple personalities but I am in fact one person.

When I said "Might just be my memory fading" I meant it, most of my experience with spiderman is from the old cartoon, and that's a while back yo.

What I was trying to say is that if a teenager getting involved romantically with another teenager is something that makes you immediately hate or avoid a movie, spiderman is something to avoid altogether.

and like 90% of every other movie ever, thing is it's not so much that teen romance itself is bad, it's just when the focus is more on teen romance than other meaningful hero development, or development of the relationship between the hero and villian, because as far as I'm concerned if I'm watching a movie based on a comic book hero I'd far rather see awesome villian/hero interaction than a hero turning emo over a girl, especially since when it comes to comic book heroes and lasting relationships, the girl will predictably become his foil later(being kidnapped, demanding his attention when it should be on a worse danger to more people, or revealing his identity accidentally or something), it's cut and paste and cut and paste again, only time this isn't the case is when she's got powers or abilities too.

I will put spiderman 2 into a showcase of a good balance here, since we're talking spiderman. Sure he had his relationship qualms, but the movie also had a good deal of focus on developing a relationship of sorts between peter and doc oc. and although peter did get emotional, he was always like that, it's just part of his coming of age/hero identity crisis journey, he doesn't flip flop and change how he is, as peter parker he's your standard wussy gangly late teen given powers, and shown that he has to man the fuck up and make a stand against all the bastards out there intent on killing stealing and destroying what isn't there. This idealism was passed on to him by his uncle and shortly pounded home through his death, and this shows In how he reacts and relates to everyone, and he stays true to it, all the way through.

In other words it's all about balance, and from what I can tell from what Bob and a few of my friends have been saying, this spiderman movie is mainly just a peter parker teen romance movie, with action and a baddie crowbarred in, and the character family origin stuff is different now. Doesn't really interest me, if someone brings it over on DVD or something at some point I'll watch it, or like when it hits netflix, but theaters are expensive, and I'd rather not spend money on something I don't think I'll like all that much.

Who said they spend a majority of the time with teen romance?

"Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass."

That's what you said, and it just seems very odd considering this is spiderman we are talking about, not Rorschach.

The first three movies had far too much teen romance crap, and that is only such a huge issue because it's handled so poorly and lazily. Guy likes girl, girl obviously likes guy. Wow, thrilling. They spend an insane amount of time around that very basic concept without making it complex in the slightest.

This movie spent far more time on the actual "Transformation" and crime fighting lifestyle than on "teen romance" so your strange statement that it dominates the film seems based on assumption.

CriticKitten:

Lvl 64 Klutz:
Whether MovieBob is right about this movie being terrible or not doesn't really matter to me, I'm still avoiding it like the plague.

While Bob does seem to be a bit too prepared to hate the movie, he does have a right to hate everything it STANDS FOR. With all the marketing surrounding this movie (A lot more so than other summer blockbusters, don't try to deny it), it is blatantly clear that Sony was going for massive opening numbers before any reviews came up.

When Bob says this is a movie made by accountants, he's not that far off. If the movie was great, that's good for THIS movie. But, if Sony's marketing strategy works, and I'm sure it will, that opens the floodgates for all around lazy filmmaking. What this movie stands for is the next step to completely manufactured movies. And I'm not okay supporting that.

This pretty much says everything I'm thinking.

Could it be good? Maybe. Better than the previous trilogy? God I hope so. But can it be better than the possibility of a Spiderman appearance in The Avengers 2, potentially directed by Whedon again? HELL NO.

This film exists purely because Sony doesn't want to give back the rights on Spiderman. It's the same reason that the X-Men keep making movies (and also why, barring the surprising quality of First Class, they keep getting worse). This really is a movie made by accountants. And it may well be good, but it's still by far inferior to what another director could have done with it as part of an effort to help tie Spiderman into the Avengers. This is something EA does on a regular basis, it runs a major franchise into the ground (Spiderman 3) and then, rather than cough up the rights to someone who might do the series better justice, instead opts to desperately and frantically pounds its fists on the remains, hoping to squeeze out just a little more cash. And Sony deserves to be called out for this. It's a bad policy of film making.

So, yeah sure, maybe it's an okay film. But if so, it's mostly by accident, rather than on purpose. This was an attempt to squeeze out more cash and to keep the rights to Spiderman, and nothing more. And I can't support the film on that basis.

Something that has been bugging me with both games and movies lately. Why is it that the average smoe feels the need to "Fight the man!" and getting involved on a corporate level?

I was hoping this movie would suck. I'm not a Spiderman fan at all, but I did like the first film. And all along they kept saying this movie is closer to the comic but I guess they forgot to read it, huh? By the way, how are we supposed to root for Peter and Gwen when we know they're not going to be together in the future? Spiderman should have been in the Avengers instead.

Ramzal:
Something that has been bugging me with both games and movies lately. Why is it that the average smoe feels the need to "Fight the man!" and getting involved on a corporate level?

What are you even talking about? O_o

If a business commits a bad practice, there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't want to support this". Sony created this movie for the purposes of maintaining distributive rights to Spiderman, just as they have been doing with the X-Men. It's not inaccurate to point this out, it's written into the contract they signed when they obtained the rights. EVERYONE knows this. And there's nothing wrong with people saying "I refuse to go to this movie because I recognize that it's an attempt to milk a franchise to death rather than let someone with more creativity take over the rights to the project".

Similar issues exist with regards to copyright laws surrounding intellectual properties (especially with video games), as old IPs are bought by companies and then never used, but kept out of reach of creative minds that could do something with that IP....simply to keep them off the market. There's no good reason for it, it's a bad business practice, and it SHOULD be called out. Saying that it's bad business doesn't make you a "stick it to the man" anti-corporate person. It just makes you intelligent enough to recognize when a company is wasting something that could produce a great product.

So please do tell: why does every person who says "I don't like that this company did X" have to boil down to an anti-corporate nutjob who wants to "stick it to the man"? Why can't they just be a reasonable individual who recognizes bad business practice and doesn't want to support those practices? What bothers me far more than people who are trying to "stick it to the man" are people (like yourself) who seemingly decide that anyone who says "I won't support this business" is actually saying "I refuse to support any business, capitalism is evil, long live Lenin".

CriticKitten:

Lvl 64 Klutz:
Whether MovieBob is right about this movie being terrible or not doesn't really matter to me, I'm still avoiding it like the plague.

While Bob does seem to be a bit too prepared to hate the movie, he does have a right to hate everything it STANDS FOR. With all the marketing surrounding this movie (A lot more so than other summer blockbusters, don't try to deny it), it is blatantly clear that Sony was going for massive opening numbers before any reviews came up.

When Bob says this is a movie made by accountants, he's not that far off. If the movie was great, that's good for THIS movie. But, if Sony's marketing strategy works, and I'm sure it will, that opens the floodgates for all around lazy filmmaking. What this movie stands for is the next step to completely manufactured movies. And I'm not okay supporting that.

This pretty much says everything I'm thinking.

Could it be good? Maybe. Better than the previous trilogy? God I hope so. But can it be better than the possibility of a Spiderman appearance in The Avengers 2, potentially directed by Whedon again? HELL NO.

This film exists purely because Sony doesn't want to give back the rights on Spiderman. It's the same reason that the X-Men keep making movies (and also why, barring the surprising quality of First Class, they keep getting worse). This really is a movie made by accountants. And it may well be good, but it's still by far inferior to what another director could have done with it as part of an effort to help tie Spiderman into the Avengers. This is something EA does on a regular basis, it runs a major franchise into the ground (Spiderman 3) and then, rather than cough up the rights to someone who might do the series better justice, instead opts to desperately and frantically pounds its fists on the remains, hoping to squeeze out just a little more cash. And Sony deserves to be called out for this. It's a bad policy of film making.

So, yeah sure, maybe it's an okay film. But if so, it's mostly by accident, rather than on purpose. This was an attempt to squeeze out more cash and to keep the rights to Spiderman, and nothing more. And I can't support the film on that basis.

Just a question: Would Spidermah have added anything of value to the Avengers movie?

Several days later, I see that people are still casting judgement on the film without actually seeing it for themselves and have decided to take the opinion of a whiney screaming fanboy like Moviebob. Seriously, the movie isn't bad. Bob is just being a biased asshole who went into the movie hating it and has continued to hate it ever since it was announced. Stop being mindless sheep and form your own opinion.

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

Yeah the only thing I remembered in COTT is "Release the Kraken!" other than that zip.

Btw do you have any memorable scene after watching TASM?

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

I can't tell you...to avoid spoilers...

It's not on Prometheus levels of stupid, but it takes you out of the movie for a few moments...

I hate to be "that guy" but almost every criticism I have seen of this movie is by people who don't know crap about Spider-Man. The big complaint from reviewers is that this movie didn't need to exist and is some shallow corporate churn out. I'm sorry but you are wrong. You may like the Sam Raimi films but they were not Spider-Man films. They were movies in which a nerdy Toby Maguire plays a nerd who gets super powers.

This movie was far from perfect but it was an ACTUAL Spider-Man movie. Spider-Man looked, and behaved like Spider-Man. I had low expectations for this film, but after seeing it I'm glad it exists and am excited to see where it will go.

Yes they change character histories but the characters retained who they were from the comics and the way they felt. And in Hollywood that is a big accomplishment.

CriticKitten:

Ramzal:
Something that has been bugging me with both games and movies lately. Why is it that the average smoe feels the need to "Fight the man!" and getting involved on a corporate level?

What are you even talking about? O_o

If a business commits a bad practice, there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't want to support this". Sony created this movie for the purposes of maintaining distributive rights to Spiderman, just as they have been doing with the X-Men. It's not inaccurate to point this out, it's written into the contract they signed when they obtained the rights. EVERYONE knows this. And there's nothing wrong with people saying "I refuse to go to this movie because I recognize that it's an attempt to milk a franchise to death rather than let someone with more creativity take over the rights to the project".

Similar issues exist with regards to copyright laws surrounding intellectual properties (especially with video games), as old IPs are bought by companies and then never used, but kept out of reach of creative minds that could do something with that IP....simply to keep them off the market. There's no good reason for it, it's a bad business practice, and it SHOULD be called out. Saying that it's bad business doesn't make you a "stick it to the man" anti-corporate person. It just makes you intelligent enough to recognize when a company is wasting something that could produce a great product.

So please do tell: why does every person who says "I don't like that this company did X" have to boil down to an anti-corporate nutjob who wants to "stick it to the man"? Why can't they just be a reasonable individual who recognizes bad business practice and doesn't want to support those practices? What bothers me far more than people who are trying to "stick it to the man" are people (like yourself) who seemingly decide that anyone who says "I won't support this business" is actually saying "I refuse to support any business, capitalism is evil, long live Lenin".

Because you're not doing it in a rational sense. You've made a decision off of two things. The first being the fact that they are putting out another Spider-man movie for money. Okay, they remade -every- marvel movie that has ever had any kind of movie or show to begin with for that purpose. Captain America had a show/movie, Spider-man had one, Hulk. These movies already had projects beforehand that didn't catch too much wind, but was attempted again because the current generation is all about these kind of movies involving superpowered heroes.

So if you've seen Captain America or any marvel movie already, you've already beaten your own cause. Worse off is the fact that you are making a very narrow minded decision off of a product you haven't tried yet. It's like saying you hate liver and onions without ever trying to eat it. Your opinion on the quality of a product you have not experience is as founded and valuable as a grain of dirt. (Not to sound insulting.) Any movie made is for the sake of money. No one makes a fill in Hollywood for the sake of "This is going to be fun." The people who make those movies need to eat and have places to live. So anything made is for the sake of income.

Secondly, it's a problem that you say things/act so impulsively because the company has never done anything to hurt YOU. YOUR money wasn't put into making the movie, and I am sure you have done no writing for the script, no stunts, no acting, and you weren't behind a camera. It's a self entitled position that consumers constantly put themselves in that they have to feel as if they are being cheated for someone daring to put out anything that doesn't fit their -exact- demands. Again, the company that has funded making The Amazing Spider-man has done nothing to hurt YOU. It bugs me because people have this preconception of an evil company that dares mess with what a consumer DEMANDS they have a list of things handed to them, in a certain manner.

They've done nothing to you. I can understand if you had no interest in the movie for the sake of it just not interesting you period, but honestly you are not making an informed nor a well thought out one. It's simply just...petty.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here