Escape to the Movies: Untangling Spider-Man

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Untangling Spider-Man

MovieBob gives us a more detailed look into The Amazing Spider-Man.

Watch Video

Sounds like you're standing FAR away from your computer to avoid the flames. It's always the same story isn't it? More hair gel, less personality.

And bad acting in Starship Troopers? What film were you watching?

Okay... i really can't agree on the Twilight comparison. What makes Twilight... well, Twilight is it's complete lack of likeable character and it's emotionless (almost sociopathic) main characters. In Amazing Spiderman both Peter and Gwen were likeable, relatable and had actual chemistry. And while the romance may have been a little bit rushed (Even though it's still pretty well developed for an action movie) it's by no means bad.

Really, it seems like "It reminds me of Twilight" has become a way of saying "Ew, i don't like girly stuff like romance in my superhero- and fantasy movies!"

Kinda glad he at least said something about Savages at the very end of this segment. I was hoping to see it this weekend.

Well, despite the fact that I still disagree massively with your assessments, at least it's obvious you're speaking with a little more diplomacy instead of the obvious barely restrained rage in the actual review.

Its kinda disheartening that Sony plans 2 more movies so that they can make another trilogy.

Unfortunately Bob, even though this movie is as bad as you say it is it won't stop it being a box-office hit.

You gotta face the unfortunate fact that people(main stream audiences) are sucker for Spiderman.

The only thing we can hope now is that the next 2 movies will bomb so hard that Sony will be finally forced to sell back the rights to its rightful owners Disney/Marvel Studios.

Kevlar Eater:
Kinda glad he at least said something about Savages at the very end of this segment. I was hoping to see it this weekend.

Let's just hope it won't suffer the same fate as John Carter and Battleship because Taylor Kitch is part of the cast.

Antonio Torrente:
Its kinda disheartening that Sony plans 2 more movies so that they can make another trilogy.

Unfortunately Bob, even though this movie is as bad as you say it is it won't stop it being a box-office hit.

You gotta face the unfortunate fact that people(main stream audiences) are sucker for Spiderman.

The only thing we can hope now is that the next 2 movies will bomb so hard that Sony will be finally forced to sell back the rights to its rightful owners Disney/Marvel Studios.

He's more than aware of that. It's why he's so (rightfully) pissed.

Anyway, interesting quirk I noticed is that they still screwed up the order of things. Gwen came in college after Peter had at LEAST three other significant romantic interests

Enjoyed your review and this follow-up.

I think their are basically two groups of spider-man fans on this one.
The young teenage audience who are into making things more dark and gritty who clearly should be watching Batman more and Spider-man less.

And the ones who have been fans for over 30+ years who've seen the origin done a half dozen different ways and understand the basic structure of Peter as a character. Long term core fans have been the ones giving the harshest reviews as well.

Two reviews for one movie. MovieBob is spending a -little- too much time here trying to prove that his opinion is right.

Seriously, your first review was all you needed. This second one just reeks of you trying to justify your opinion to the masses that disagree, which is unnecessary and a bit narcissistic of you.

Stop trying to prove your point, your opinion is different than most others. And that's OKAY... stop already.

Aiddon:

Antonio Torrente:
Its kinda disheartening that Sony plans 2 more movies so that they can make another trilogy.

Unfortunately Bob, even though this movie is as bad as you say it is it won't stop it being a box-office hit.

You gotta face the unfortunate fact that people(main stream audiences) are sucker for Spiderman.

The only thing we can hope now is that the next 2 movies will bomb so hard that Sony will be finally forced to sell back the rights to its rightful owners Disney/Marvel Studios.

He's more than aware of that. It's why he's so (rightfully) pissed.

Anyway, interesting quirk I noticed is that they still screwed up the order of things. Gwen came in college after Peter had at LEAST three other significant romantic interests

Heh try cramming that sub-plots in a 2 hour movie and it will be an even bigger mess than it already is.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Okay... i really can't agree on the Twilight comparison. What makes Twilight... well, Twilight is it's complete lack of likeable character and it's emotionless (almost sociopathic) main characters. In Amazing Spiderman both Peter and Gwen were likeable, relatable and had actual chemistry. And while the romance may have been a little bit rushed (Even though it's still pretty well developed for an action movie) it's by no means bad.

Really, it seems like "It reminds me of Twilight" has become a way of saying "Ew, i don't like girly stuff like romance in my superhero- and fantasy movies!"

My thoughts exactly. I was honestly hoping Bob would have the good sense to not go in depth on his Twilight comparison, because now? Now it looks like he's just desperately reaching to get people to hate this film as much as he does.

The Amazing Spider-man is in no way near any Twilight-level of badness, and Parker's haircare ability isn't a good enough reason.

The "great responsibility" thing was still there. The line itself was never said (Uncle Ben said something along the lines of "If you have an opportunity to do something good, you have a responsibility to do it"). Peter sees a crime that he could easily stop but doesn't because of a silly reason, Uncle Ben dies as a result, and then he hunts the killer. Later, when he listens to the voice mail and the thing with the car thief happens, he's inspired to become a real superhero as opposed to before when he was just hunting one guy under the guise of a superhero. I don't know anything about the comics, so I can only judge the movie for what it is and not as an adaptation, but this makes sense to me.

The story of the movie is actually mashing together several of the different Spider-Man continuities.

In The Amazing Spider-Man comics, The Lizard is a different personality than Curt Connors and does on several occasions try to turn the world (or New York at least) into giant lizards like him. And to be fair, in the original run of the comic, no characters actually say "With great power, comes great responsibility," a narrating text box says it at the end of the very first issue.

In the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (Easily the best Spider-Man cartoon ever but only 24 episodes), Gwen Stacy and Peter are childhood friend who are in high school together and Gwen is working as an intern for Dr. Connors.

In the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, Dr. Connors was friends with Richard Parker, Peter's father, and it's he who accidentally creates Carnage using Spider-Man's DNA and Richard Parker's research.

So yes, while it is not the perfect "Amazing Spider-Man" movie, it gets more correct than Bob gives it credit for.

Additionally, George Stacy has always been a police captain.

"You can't ignore it" my ass, here I am, in my chair, ignoring the FUCK out of that movie because it looks like completely and total shit and it seems I was right.

DVS BSTrD:

And bad acting in Starship Troopers? What film were you watching?

I know right, that was some hilarious shit. MEDIC!!

they sucked out his brains!

Starship Troopers should be re-run instead of this "Spider-Man."

Quiotu:
Two reviews for one movie. MovieBob is spending a -little- too much time here trying to prove that his opinion is right.

Seriously, your first review was all you needed. This second one just reeks of you trying to justify your opinion to the masses that disagree, which is unnecessary and a bit narcissistic of you.

Stop trying to prove your point, your opinion is different than most others. And that's OKAY... stop already.

I think it's more he did the first review after coming home after the movie pissed off, ranted for probably 3 times the length of the actual video and now that he's had a few days he realises that the first video is just a 5 minute rant - something that's a) not his style and b) not a good piece of work. This video is him giving us the reasons why he hates it so much, not just saying that he does.

I think the origin story in here borrows a bit more from Ultimate than the original comics, but I see nothing wrong with that. In there Peter runs out of the house, crashes at a friends place, is found by Uncle Ben who makes a comment about his father and Peter runs off again for pretty much the same reason he did in here.

Karma168:

Quiotu:
Two reviews for one movie. MovieBob is spending a -little- too much time here trying to prove that his opinion is right.

Seriously, your first review was all you needed. This second one just reeks of you trying to justify your opinion to the masses that disagree, which is unnecessary and a bit narcissistic of you.

Stop trying to prove your point, your opinion is different than most others. And that's OKAY... stop already.

I think it's more he did the first review after coming home after the movie pissed off, ranted for probably 3 times the length of the actual video and now that he's had a few days he realises that the first video is just a 5 minute rant - something that's a) not his style and b) not a good piece of work. This video is him giving us the reasons why he hates it so much, not just saying that he does.

The first review was probably done when it was because Spider-man had an early release and it's just proper for a critic to have their review out the day before or the day of release. Otherwise who cares about a review after you already watched the film.

This review is because he still has his regularly scheduled time slot to fill.

All these comic adaptations are only reaffirming my belief that if you want to adapt something and make it better, never make it according to how the original fans would want it.

MovieBob:
Untangling Spider-Man

MovieBob gives us a more detailed look into The Amazing Spider-Man.

Watch Video

I still get this feeling that you're going out of your way to hate this movie. Like, far out of your way. And I think you're allowing your (totally justified) hatred of Sony cash-in to color your perception of the folks that actually worked on the movie.

1. The "dangling plot threads" you've mentioned are a result of this movie not being conceived as a one-off. If the movie had introduced and resolved every thread, you'd be complaining that it's too cluttered. Believe me, I'm not a fan of the Parker-Parent-Conspiracy storyline as a whole... but I can see that they're laying out breadcrumbs to lead down that road later. Connors is one of those, in some ways.

2. I'm really, really not seeing your problem with Peter Parker. He's still an outcast geek here. He's just not the 60's "lie down and take it" kind of geek. If you get any opportunity to interact with high schoolers (and recent graduates, who aren't much different), you'll see that in this modern age, geeks don't feel quite so powerless. They're more likely to react with a bit of anger, and to fight back even knowing they don't physically stand a chance. They're also more likely to hide any fear or embarrassment behind sarcasm, and to start slacking off in academics. You're wanting Parker to be a sort of nerd or geek that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

3. The lesson he learned was the same power/responsibility spiel, just played out differently. Instead of being explicitly told that, he learns it via consequence -- by acting in a self-serving way he not only got Uncle Ben killed, but he also accidentally created the Lizard (via a failed attempt to resolve his parental abandonment issues), which resulted in a lot of destruction and ultimately a very important death (no spoiler). (See, his spider powers weren't the only powers he was misusing.) The power/responsibility theme is really just a "selfish vs. selfless" dichotomy -- The more you have to give, the more you have to give.

This feeling of characters being unfocused? I really think it's a matter of wanting too much archetype. Consider that, in many countries, candy and soda aren't as extremely sweet as ours in the US... and that can lead us to find their candy or soda "bland." When we're hyper-saturated with hyper-saturated flavors (or characterizations), we can lose our "taste" for subtlety.

In this case, I don't think you're not capable of detecting subtlety, I just think you're very much against assigning any of it to this movie. Perhaps subconsciously, you're dismissing even the possibility that it could be happening.

Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

Battle Catman:
Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

Yes.
I'm putting good money down that this movie gets mentioned over green lantern in the inevitable TDKR review.

Turns out that much like the whining fanboys/critics that bob chastises, hes pretty much one too. And thats okay, I'll still like to hear his opinion on a movie, but Thor help us his opinion of himself as being 'better than thou' critic is getting a bit too much. I guess thats what internet fame does...

A BLUE background!? What is this nonsense!? [resistant to change]

Godzilla, bad effects?

Dastardly:

MovieBob:
Untangling Spider-Man

MovieBob gives us a more detailed look into The Amazing Spider-Man.

Watch Video

I still get this feeling that you're going out of your way to hate this movie. Like, far out of your way. And I think you're allowing your (totally justified) hatred of Sony cash-in to color your perception of the folks that actually worked on the movie.

1. The "dangling plot threads" you've mentioned are a result of this movie not being conceived as a one-off. If the movie had introduced and resolved every thread, you'd be complaining that it's too cluttered. Believe me, I'm not a fan of the Parker-Parent-Conspiracy storyline as a whole... but I can see that they're laying out breadcrumbs to lead down that road later. Connors is one of those, in some ways.

2. I'm really, really not seeing your problem with Peter Parker. He's still an outcast geek here. He's just not the 60's "lie down and take it" kind of geek. If you get any opportunity to interact with high schoolers (and recent graduates, who aren't much different), you'll see that in this modern age, geeks don't feel quite so powerless. They're more likely to react with a bit of anger, and to fight back even knowing they don't physically stand a chance. They're also more likely to hide any fear or embarrassment behind sarcasm, and to start slacking off in academics. You're wanting Parker to be a sort of nerd or geek that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

In this case, I don't think you're not capable of detecting subtlety, I just think you're very much against assigning any of it to this movie. Perhaps subconsciously, you're dismissing even the possibility that it could be happening.

Alright, I semi-agree with the third point but...

1. Yeah, not buying the breadcrumbs thing. It might have worked if the movie resolved SOMETHING. The movie simply leaves too much unresolved 1. What was the truth behind the parent's death (asides from obviously being killed by Oscorp, that better not be the truth because it is way too obvious)? 2. What happened to Uncle Ben's Killer? Why does this plot thread need to be open still?

Also, I can see most of the plot of the following movies because it is NOT subtle. Not going to discuss them here because that would technically be spoiling. (That, and I don't know how to do the spoiler formatting...)

2. I semi-agree about the "geek" part on Peter Parker but I still don't understand why people are telling me Peter Parker is likable. He isn't. He is passive-aggressive and indecisive without his mask and a pompous jerk who is full of himself with it. What is there to like about his character?

Also, as repeated above, the film isn't subtle. It hits us with a brick of obvious foreshadowing and expects us to go to the sequel to see the other shoe drop.

Yeah, Bob is really showing his ignorance on this one. It has been said above me already, but yeah, the Lizard is a Jekyll/Hyde thing in which the alternate personality is EVIL. Period. Always has been. Also, constantly trying to turn others into lizards. That's what makes Conners a tragic villain: he can't control it.

Has Bob even read the comics? Or is this an obvious ignoring of the facts because it doesn't fit with Bob's "This movie is shit!" narrative?

See also: Gwen's dad has ALWAYS been a cop, teens have always hidden behind sarcasm and angst (christ Bob, do you not remember highschool?), and nobody ever actually said, "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility", it was always implied....as it is implied in the movie.

You're being a hater for hates sake. At least with Green Lantern, you pointed out bad filmaking decisions, here you just point out things you didn't like.

I think I get your point a bit better, Bob (and to answer your final question, NO, I will NEVER miss emo-dancing Peter Parker)

The funny thing about this remake is that it does almost everything I thought I wanted a Spider-Man movie to do... when I was 12. After I saw Raimi's first Spider-Man, being a dumb, pretentious, little preteen, I insisted that it was a terrible adaptation of Spider-Man because he didn't develop his own webbing, or he didn't quip enough at the villains enough, or Tobey Maguire was too dorky. When the sequel came out, I hated the train scene for being "too sappy". Since then I like to think I've stopped being a stupid kid, and can actually see Raimi's Spider Man as a really wonderful example of the genre. Those films really got what made Spider-Man a dramatically resonant character, and conveyed those aspects of the character and story really well.

Sony has now, hilariously, made that "srs bzns" Spider Man movie that I wanted to see as a 12 year old, and it SUUUUCCCKKKKSSSS.

Usually people see a movie from their perspective and then go out and see reviews or read Wikipedia or something... Well, nowadays people hear/see the review and then comment on why they hate/love the series and why the reviewer is so right/full of it before they actually see the film in question.

The problem is that people forget about the process of making the film takes a lot of time and usually the people writing and directing don't come up with their ideas over one night and stick to them indefinitely. They take aspects of what's popular at the time, their own sensibilities and of course the source material if any it's available. Also the producers, the guys handing out the cash, get a big say as to what goes into the film... So if a producer's niece thinks Edward Cullen is like the OMG sooo hot because of reasons and if more guys in films were like him then all the movies would be box office hits!!!! So then he goes into a meeting were other people are browsing on what's popular right now (they Type romance and the first 5 hits say "TWILIGHT" or "HUNGER GAMES" they go all like yeah they are so hot right now, even tho' the hits are "TWILIGHT SUCKS!") and start throwing ideas at each other that sound pretty similar and then you start to crap all over a still infant project by tying it down to ideas that possibly don't belong to the genre.

Captcha: Zombie attack (in cursive)

I have to admit this film is some serious tactical genius on the part of Sony. They don't care if this film gets good reviews or even if it makes any money(although it undoubtedly will). The entire reason this film exists is to 'license-troll' Marvel, so they can't put Spiderman in the Avengers sequel. If the rights reverted back to Marvel, Sony would effectively be giving them a license to print money(no pun intended). So well done Sony, you magnificent bastards.

Also: Four Spiderman movies and no Black Cat yet? :(

xaszatm:
2. I semi-agree about the "geek" part on Peter Parker but I still don't understand why people are telling me Peter Parker is likable. He isn't. He is passive-aggressive and indecisive without his mask and a pompous jerk who is full of himself with it. What is there to like about his character?

I'm just not seeing what you're saying about him. Now, is he still a bit immature and arrogant at times? Of course! That's part of Spider-man's origin. And I think it would be silly for so important a character flaw to get "wished" away in just one movie (or comic). That's what happened with the original Spider-Man, and I think here they're trying to make things a bit more organic.

Also, as repeated above, the film isn't subtle. It hits us with a brick of obvious foreshadowing and expects us to go to the sequel to see the other shoe drop.

No no no, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the plot is subtle. It's not at all. But that's not the focus of the movie, really. The characters have a lot more subtlety this time around. Not everything is stark black and white (or red and blue, as the case may be). We're not being beat over the head with one-note characters (or one-note characters who suddenly change notes, only to harp on that new note). Even the stereotypical bully gets a moment of compassion at a critical moment.

Some of the updates to the story, I could live without. But the updates to the characters were much needed, and were quite effective in my eyes.

I got 2 minutes, 20 seconds into this video before getting fed up, realised Bob had missed things in the film (on purpose or not) due to wanting to be angry at it and closed the window. One video of this crap is fine as reviews are by their nature personal to each reviewer, but a second one in which you try to point out why 66-73% (Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes) of critics are wrong makes you come across as egotistical at best and at worse things I can't say because I want to avoid the ban hammer.

Oh, and Connors/The Lizards motivation made sense to me. Before he turned he came across as being a bit unhinged, having written a book about how the human species could be perfected through genetics (or just because the actor's Welsh). When he turned into the lizard he cracked and his original idea went through the logical chain of "I am better when part lizard, the human race will be better if also part lizard, I have the tech to turn everyone into part lizard, I will make everybody's lives better".

Most of the time I find Bob's reviews reliable. Sadly anything even closely nerd related (or "anti-nerd" like the Expendables) throws the reliability off completely.

Dastardly:
Snip

Stop making so much sense its getting annoying!

Edit:

Dastardly:
Sniped

AND YOU DID IT AGAIN WHILE I WAS TYPING!! I hate agreeing with people on the internet so say something stupid now so things feel normal again!

Edit 2: Rewatched to the end more out of morbid curiosity then anything else and yeah, Bobs an idiot.

Battle Catman:
Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

But...he liked Scott Pilgrim.

Dastardly:
You're wanting Parker to be a sort of nerd or geek that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

My god, and I thought I was the only one from the last video's thread to actually realize this. The stereotypical nerd that Bob wants so desperately hasn't been real or at least hasn't been in prominence for the last decade. This is what you call an update.

PhunkyPhazon:

Battle Catman:
Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

But...he liked Scott Pilgrim.

I'm guessing he meant that for a period it was a case that if you didn't agree with Bob's reviews of these films, you were an idiot who could not be trusted with choosing what films to watch.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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