Conundrum

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I don't think Bob is obsessing over it at all. People love RedLetterMedia for how he took apart the Star Wars prequels in 45mins to in a hour plus for each. That's not obsession he's just being thorough. My complaint with Escape to the Movies and The Big Picture is that it's not long enough to get his point across in 3-6 minute format. IF you guys REALLY want to hate MovieBob try finding his American Bob series XD. It's awkward to realize some of his opinions on politics.

Why is cracking jokes such a big deal for people. Most of the jokes he tells sorta suck, and the whole balancing his real life with his responsibility as Spider-man is a much more thematically important part of his character that the Raimi films got right so I forgive them for having organic webshooters and no one liners.

I haven't seen the movie, so won't come down on either side of the argument, but having seen the scene where he takes on the car thief I do agree with this. He comes across less as a wise-cracking teen antagonising his opponent while perhaps trying trying to subdue his own nervousness and more of a...well, douchebag bully. Does his level of humour improve or differ at all in the film?

Gatx:

RTK1576:
Bob, STOP.

Do you understand what you've done here, Bob? I completely agree about self-contained stories and dropped plot lines. It irritates the hell out of me. I don't have any reason to argue with you here.

Instead, I read the first paragragh and all I can think is "Bob is ranting about the Spider-Man movie AGAIN!" You didn't get this crazy over Green Lantern... why this?

You're seriously testing my patience here. Yes, you didn't like the new Spider-man movie. You've said so in three previous postings, now four. This isn't going to change opinions. This isn't going to halt the box-office progression. This isn't going to make other critics start hating this movie just because you feel the need to keep pointing out the negatives over and over and over and over...

Move. On.

It's because other people seem to like Amazing Spider-man and people keep telling him that he's wrong so its natural to want to retaliate. There's no point to prove with Green Lantern because everyone hated Green Lantern.

This is quite a different situation. I mean, how many "I think you were wrong about this film, or that film" messages do you think Bob gets on average after one of his reviews, or columns? Having people tell you "you're wrong" comes with the territory of being a critic, and you can either ignore them and carry on to the next film regardless (as most critics do), or you can engage with them in an open discussion and just agree to disagree (as some are known to do).

Bob isn't going for "agree to disagree" here, though, it feels more like he's saying "I'm right, and everybody here who disagrees is an idiot, and I'm going to make it my crusade to show you why you're wrong!!11!!"

It might be natural for someone to want to retaliate in the face of this kind of backlash, but Bob's also got to be professional about it. He's not some raging fanboy on the IMDb, he's the movie critic for a professional website. And, as far as The Amazing Spider-Man is concerned, he really hasn't demonstrated that much integrity since even before the film was released (seriously, he's been pretty much trolling it since it was first announced).

He released a video, said he didn't like it (even if a lot of his 'reasons' did come off as jumped-up complaints), and that's all we needed to know. Sure, we could also expect an Intermission to tie-in and expand on the video, fine, that's the usual for him. But the follow-up video - in which he made the incessant and unfair Twilight comparisons - and today's article are just unnecessary, and look like he fells the need to actually justify his opinion.

That kind of behaviour could either reinforce my feeling that he's made it his personal crusade to destroy the public perception of this film, or it could potentially be seen as some kind of insecurity, like he realises he probably went a bit too far in his first video, but doesn't want to lose face over it.

It's one thing to not like a film, it's another to just rage about it through almost every outlet available to you for two weeks (and I wouldn't be surprised if he makes it to three or even four). And when your job hinges on having an opinion people feel they can trust, that kind of behaviour has the potential to be a recipe for disaster.

As someone who came to a lot of the same conclusions and didn't like the movie that much either I agree. It wasn't terrible but I'm not recommending it to anyone either. I said that on another blog and woke up to ten flames telling me how I was wrong. So he didn't like the movie, so you did, what does it matter? Let Bob have his opinion, he's a critic it's what they do, and just move on.

Kmadden2004:

Bob isn't going for "agree to disagree" here, though, it feels more like he's saying "I'm right, and everybody here who disagrees is an idiot, and I'm going to make it my crusade to show you why you're wrong!!11!!"

So, you are someone who (I assume) frequently watches his Shows and you are just now noticing this behavior? He is always like this. Either you agree with Bob or you are stupid, that is literally the way he acts regarding anything. This isn't new ground for bob. Watch the Game Overthinker, he is really really ignorant when it comes to games. If it ain't Nintendo, it ain't good. That could pretty much be his motto.

But do you know what I find funny? On another site he does a show with story elements, story elements that are nearly universally loathed and yet here he get's to judge the work of others...because he so clearly knows what the fuck he is talking about. I really don't know how the hell this guy managed to get into this kind of work.

Jiggy:

Kmadden2004:

Bob isn't going for "agree to disagree" here, though, it feels more like he's saying "I'm right, and everybody here who disagrees is an idiot, and I'm going to make it my crusade to show you why you're wrong!!11!!"

So, you are someone who (I assume) frequently watches his Shows and you are just now noticing this behavior? He is always like this. Either you agree with Bob or you are stupid, that is literally the way he acts regarding anything. This isn't new ground for bob. Watch the Game Overthinker, he is really really ignorant when it comes to games. If it ain't Nintendo, it ain't good. That could pretty much be his motto.

But do you know what I find funny? On another site he does a show with story elements, story elements that are nearly universally loathed and yet here he get's to judge the work of others...because he so clearly knows what the fuck he is talking about. I really don't know how the hell this guy managed to get into this kind of work.

Have you seen Yahtzee's ZP on webcomics? It's like that, plenty of people are happy to watch Bob jump around the monkey cage and sometimes even confront him on it because they upset him.

While it may seem to a lot of people here to be "too soon" after the whole thing with Spider-man, there are still plenty of good points brought up. The concept of continuity is new and filled with potential for abuse. Just because the Avengers got it right doesn't mean everyone else is going to. And this isn't just an issue with movies. It's not quite as bad as said in the article yet, but it's not that much of a slippery slope argument.

Plus, it's not like Ice Age 4 is prime material for writing a column about.

But of course, everyone's just going to roll their eyes and go "oh look, he's talking abuot spider-man again."

Bob, I actually forgot about the Indian guy. Thanks. I didn't feel that harmed by it, but you are right. A ball was dropped.

I think you do have to compare this movie to Spidey 1. The Lizard, as utilized here, was a much more compelling villain than Green Goblin. Someone else wrote it best: GG was practically a Power Rangers villain. And villains are important.

Is this dude ever going to shut up about this movie? It's the ME3 ending all over again, he won't stop whining until everyone believes him. Even though he's just being a biased fanboy, and everyone with at least two brain cells has called him out on it.

Using Spiderman was a mistake but it makes sense as an example of his point as it was the last film he saw that was a continuity starter. Using the thing you did most recently as an example of a point is something we all do so I'm willing to cut him some slack.

Not a lot though, any more spiderman for at least a month and I'll join in telling him to drop it

You still aren't acknowledging that I and most of the rest of the world really enjoyed this film. It's getting good reviews everywhere and the very worst I've heard from anyone whose not was 'it's okay'

For some reason, in this one case, your views are really out of step with almost everybody. It's metacriticing a solid 66, ahead of 3 quite easily, on TV Tropes the reviews are Great, good, great, good, great, great, great, mediocre

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/reviews.php?target_group=Film&target_title=TheAmazingSpider-Man#7614

So we're looking at eltiests, tropers, whatever all giving this film good reviews, even the sporty people on my Facebook have been recommending this. There were plot issues and gaping plot holes, but considering it achieved the goal of entertaining basically everyone but you, this probably isn't the correct film to be analysing the flaws of, because they clearly didn't matter

@Gatx

Well, putting aside the fact that humor is the most subjective thing on the planet (I thought the jokes were pretty damn funny), it is also a HUGE part of Spider-Man's character. Cracking jokes during battle is what he DOES. It is as iconic as the suit or the web-shooters. He does it partly to boost his own confidence and partly to pressure the villains into messing up by mocking them and making them mad.

It is also important to me because it is what made me identify with the character and like him more than the other superheroes. Bob claims this movie wants Spider-Man to be Batman, but honestly I think the Raimi-films are more guilty of that crime by stripping Spidey of his humor and just making him a straight-up crime-stopper who ONLY shows up, beats the bad guy and leaves them tied up for the police to find before anyone can see him.

Silverspetz:
@Gatx

Well, putting aside the fact that humor is the most subjective thing on the planet (I thought the jokes were pretty damn funny), it is also a HUGE part of Spider-Man's character. Cracking jokes during battle is what he DOES. It is as iconic as the suit or the web-shooters. He does it partly to boost his own confidence and partly to pressure the villains into messing up by mocking them and making them mad.

It is also important to me because it is what made me identify with the character and like him more than the other superheroes. Bob claims this movie wants Spider-Man to be Batman, but honestly I think the Raimi-films are more guilty of that crime by stripping Spidey of his humor and just making him a straight-up crime-stopper who ONLY shows up, beats the bad guy and leaves them tied up for the police to find before anyone can see him.

This is pretty much what I was going to tell Gatx. Bravo Silverspetz!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even if you're only going by the Amazing Spider-Man comics and don't mix the Ultimate SM in there, in which case it's even more so, the Amazing Spider-Man movie does a better job of being faithful to the comics than ANY Spider-Man movie or other Spidey media ever has. It gets the characters right, it gets the tone right, it gets pretty much everything right. The only thing it's missing is good old J.J., but that probably won't be missing long. Is it the best Superhero movie ever? No, but it's up there.

lord.jeff:

Bob your hatred of this movie is making you sound as bad as a Star Wars fan talking about Episode One.

Yeah pretty much. As I said previously he sounds like a badly hurt nerd whose favourite franchise didn't live up to expectations.

I went to the movie with a comic nerd and he liked the movie well enough. Even had his spidey shirt on. People were clapping at the end of the movie. People were dressed up and left happy. This kind of thing doesn't happen at "terrible" movies.

Then again, MovieBob likes Sucker Punch and that was one of the worst movies I've seen in my life so . . . his credibility is shot to my mind.

BrotherRool:

For some reason, in this one case, your views are really out of step with almost everybody. It's metacriticing a solid 66, ahead of 3 quite easily, on TV Tropes the reviews are Great, good, great, good, great, great, great, mediocre

Er, he liked sucker punch and it scored a 23%. This is not the first time.

Dammit Bob. I wanted your opinion to be generic and in line with rotten tomatoes and the general consensus. I also cannot stand that you spent 2 articles and a video making well thought out criticisms of a problematic movie that would get the pass-over from people who aren't as emotionally invested in Spiderman as you are. If I wanted in-depth criticism on a movie based on a comic/game icon that does not feel the need to artificially meld into the 'popular/acceptable' opinion I would go to a niche website about this kind of culture and...oh wait, this is the Escapist and you're a movie critic. I'd have to be some kind of masochist or extremely dull to keep coming back here if I didn't like what you do every week, particularly if I was afraid of controversial opinions.

Unnecessarily long sarcasm aside, does anyone know if Bob has a podcast, blogs or anything else where he spends more time discussing this film~? I'd very much like to read/hear it.

(It may just be me, but I'm sure he has a lot more to say and I'm interested enough to want to know.)

MovieBob:
Conundrum

Just because your film is first in a series doesn't mean you can get away with leaving out important details.

Read Full Article

image

Trishbot:
I went into "The Amazing Spider-man" thinking I would hate it because Bob hated it so much.

Instead, I walked out very satisfied.

Is it my favorite superhero movie ever? Not even close. It's not even my favorite Spider-man movie (that would be Spider-man 2). But I definitely liked it more than Spider-man 3 and I like it almost as much as Spider-man 1.

Half of what ASM does it does better than the original Spider-man, and half of what it does is worse than the original Spider-man. Both of them I feel are very flawed movies with very strong strengths.

I mean, I rewatched the original Sam Raimi Spider-man, and, you know what? It's got some serious problems too. Green Goblin looks like a Power Rangers villain reject. The acting is all over the place and totally hammy, even during dramatic scenes. Spider-man himself rarely quips and wise-cracks, and the organic webshooters were an odd thing to do. Mary Jane exists solely to get kidnapped, attacked, and have Spider-man save her. Add in random things like a concert cameo from Macy Gray, pointless scenes of Goblin trying to get Spider-man to join his evil empire, and very cartoony, very dated effects, and it's a good, if weird, film.

The new film does many things better. Andrew Garfield is a far more versatile and believable actor in the role (even if he's a bit of a jerk). Emma Stone's Gwen in insanely superior to Kristen Dunst's Mary Jane. The web shooters are back, the wisecracking Spider-man is well done, and I felt the action scenes were really cool and dynamic, and I even liked the very strong familial relationship Peter has with Uncle Ben in the new one, where you see them doing family things, dealing with family issues, and you could see how Uncle Ben himself is not some saint of a man but a very flawed, loving person that embraced his role as Peter's father figure. Peter telling him he's a good father, and then Peter being unable to listen to Ben's last phone message, were better than any moments in the original film.

But the new film has some problems; yes Peter's a bit of a jerk, the story meanders all over the place, I can't remember a single tune from the soundtrack, there's a lot of plotholes, and the sheer absence of J. Jonah Jameson is sorely missed.

Agreed with you on ALL of it up to the point where you said that it was on par with the previous Raimi movies. Tobi McGuire is a terrible actor and they lost me on that movie during the "cried when you were in that play" scene. Plus the screechy voice whenever MJ was captured, or he got hit, and he talked like a spineless ninny the rest of the time.

For THIS article that MovieBob posted (who I've always considered to be a bit of an idiot), I take exception to all of the movies he pointed out that didn't pull the "incomplete movie within a continuity" thing.

First (and most glaring) was Harry Potter which had EIGHT installments Mr. Movie expert. Forgot about the last two which were each half of a movie? Moreover, shouldn't it bug you more that each year they just happen to solve the problem right before they go home? Didn't solve a mystery in winter, and then just deal with boring classes for the next 6 months. Didn't have a year where some major event didn't occur that challenged them and made them grow. Didn't ever come back from summer break and retained the lessons they learned from the last year. ALWAYS THE SAME (plus poor acting) should have placed it below this Spider-man film for you.

Lord of the Rings was almost as bad with THEIR first installment, where a character just disappeared (Gandalf), the parties split after a character is killed, and the two hobbits are captured without resolution. That was the best one too!

This movie told the story of Spider-man v. Lizard and that's where is stopped, within the confines of its own storyline. It didn't do a Matrix 2, it did an Empire Strikes back. There were some unresolved threads, but the story was pretty much contained.

Were there problems with this movie? Of course there were. It was, however, far better than the Spider-man movies that came before. The only thing the first series did better? They had Bruce Campbell in each one.

Scorpid:
I don't think Bob is obsessing over it at all. People love RedLetterMedia for how he took apart the Star Wars prequels in 45mins to in a hour plus for each. That's not obsession he's just being thorough. My complaint with Escape to the Movies and The Big Picture is that it's not long enough to get his point across in 3-6 minute format. IF you guys REALLY want to hate MovieBob try finding his American Bob series XD. It's awkward to realize some of his opinions on politics.

The difference, my friend, is that RedLetterMedia organizes their complaints into one review and place their own entertaining storyline within. Not only are all their complaints valid, but the whole thing is entertaining to watch. Though I do disagree with them every once in a while, I find their opinions to be based off of fact and good taste rather than MovieBob's more biased and trivial complaints.

The irony? RLM didn't really like the movie either.

I wanna jump on the angry villager bandwagon but my dog in this fight is getting tired.

Maybe it's my add but after the first page I just skimmed the second which was pretty poorly paragraphed for a bob article, but I thought "no no he's gotta have something in there"

Naw, just more whining that this isn't the spiderman bob wanted it to be. The avengers and LOR is a terrible comparison. LOR had random characters with no real depth or explanation coming out of it's ears due to runtime issues. I actually never read any of the books so I can say from experience I had a about 100 million unanswered questions my friends had to pull books out to explain. A lot of "beloved" characters would come and go and I'm thinking "wtf is this guy?" every 30 seconds then "wait what happened to that guy?". Enough so that you could travel to the moon and back and only be part way through the extended edition.

And fucking Avengers? really? That movie was 90% inside jokes because you HAD to have read the comics or seen the other movies to understand whats going on and even then it felt unfinished to me and frankly a bit of a cop out on the story arc it's based off.

All and all I'm just annoyed that you didn't respond to all the things people have pointed out wrong in both your review and follow up. poor showing sir. Suck up your pride and apologize or actually the defend the bullshit you posted previously.

maninahat:
Here is how they should have had the story (speaking in the tiny capacity I have as an internet nobody):

The lizard doctor is working on the new medicine for a shady company. He's a well meaning, but short tempered guy. When he discovers that the shady company have been testing deadly, unfinished serums on random tramps/veterans, he gets mad and tries to leave. The company doesn't like this and try to have him "removed". In a scuffle between him and some goons, he accidentally slashes himself with a semi-successful serum, which makes him turn into a super strong, super angry lizard. Instead of the bullshit "turn the world into lizards" plot that comes out of nowhere, have an angle about how the lizard is tracking down and killing all the big wigs in the company, V for Vendetta style.

Where spiderman comes in is that he tries to stop the lizard and his attempts to murder people. Parker eventually learns the doctor's motive, and realises the similarity between the lizard's goals and his own desire to get back at his uncle's killer. Seeing the lizardman, he realises in the end that you can't just solve your problems with anger and vengeance. Justice is stoic and impartial.

Well look at that! A fucking story-arc, using the shit that was already established and not built on by this terrible movie. Hell, its the exact same plot to Batman Begins, but they were already ripping The Dark Knight off anyway. Give me $200 million dollars.

Yeah, but that's bass ackwards to the very fundamental personality of Dr. Connors/Lizard. There's a fine line between a hero and a villain, and Connors' was that he wanted to regrow his arm so badly, to symbolically rebuild himself that he was willing to try it when things get desperate. Your way turns him from Greek hero with his tragic but sympathizing/empathizing flaw into unfortunate victim of circumstance.

maninahat:
Here is how they should have had the story (speaking in the tiny capacity I have as an internet nobody):

The lizard doctor is working on the new medicine for a shady company. He's a well meaning, but short tempered guy. When he discovers that the shady company have been testing deadly, unfinished serums on random tramps/veterans, he gets mad and tries to leave. The company doesn't like this and try to have him "removed". In a scuffle between him and some goons, he accidentally slashes himself with a semi-successful serum, which makes him turn into a super strong, super angry lizard. Instead of the bullshit "turn the world into lizards" plot that comes out of nowhere, have an angle about how the lizard is tracking down and killing all the big wigs in the company, V for Vendetta style.

Where spiderman comes in is that he tries to stop the lizard and his attempts to murder people. Parker eventually learns the doctor's motive, and realises the similarity between the lizard's goals and his own desire to get back at his uncle's killer. Seeing the lizardman, he realises in the end that you can't just solve your problems with anger and vengeance. Justice is stoic and impartial.

Well look at that! A fucking story-arc, using the shit that was already established and not built on by this terrible movie. Hell, its the exact same plot to Batman Begins, but they were already ripping The Dark Knight off anyway. Give me $200 million dollars.

Great, and where's the Curt Connors in this? If you're going to make up a random villain with none of his personality traits why even make it the Lizard? Ignoring the fact the 'turn the world into lizards' plot is a)common in the comics (literally his first appearance if I remember right)and b) in keeping with Connors 'helping to advance the world and humanity' plot.

While I accept the disapearance of Rathan was a dropped ball it's not inconceivable the Lizard killed him off camera (I pretty much just assumed he did that while Spidey was saving the kid given he was CLEARLY following him) so... not seeing all these flaws Bob keeps complaining about. The plot really isn't that much of a mess than a standard issue of Spiderman.

CaptainMarvelous:

maninahat:
Here is how they should have had the story (speaking in the tiny capacity I have as an internet nobody):

The lizard doctor is working on the new medicine for a shady company. He's a well meaning, but short tempered guy. When he discovers that the shady company have been testing deadly, unfinished serums on random tramps/veterans, he gets mad and tries to leave. The company doesn't like this and try to have him "removed". In a scuffle between him and some goons, he accidentally slashes himself with a semi-successful serum, which makes him turn into a super strong, super angry lizard. Instead of the bullshit "turn the world into lizards" plot that comes out of nowhere, have an angle about how the lizard is tracking down and killing all the big wigs in the company, V for Vendetta style.

Where spiderman comes in is that he tries to stop the lizard and his attempts to murder people. Parker eventually learns the doctor's motive, and realises the similarity between the lizard's goals and his own desire to get back at his uncle's killer. Seeing the lizardman, he realises in the end that you can't just solve your problems with anger and vengeance. Justice is stoic and impartial.

Well look at that! A fucking story-arc, using the shit that was already established and not built on by this terrible movie. Hell, its the exact same plot to Batman Begins, but they were already ripping The Dark Knight off anyway. Give me $200 million dollars.

Great, and where's the Curt Connors in this? If you're going to make up a random villain with none of his personality traits why even make it the Lizard? Ignoring the fact the 'turn the world into lizards' plot is a)common in the comics (literally his first appearance if I remember right)and b) in keeping with Connors 'helping to advance the world and humanity' plot.

Curt who? Oh, was he the lizard? I've already forgotten since watching the movie.

I don't know much about the comics, but from what I understand, none of the movies have been especially close to the comics anyway. I'm pretty sure Peter Parker wasn't a skateboarding, Calvin Klein model in the comics, so perhaps the movie was going its own way. It did it wrong.

As for Connors, was the whole "turn everyone into lizards" thing a major part of his comic book character? If that is the case, this movie really failed to establish he was that sort of person. In the movie, he comes across as a nice guy who wants to grow his arm back and help people. Then all of a sudden, he decides that turning everyone into freakish lizards is a great way to help people. This is despite the movie depicting him as being clearly upset at the idea of becoming a lizard, him being vociferously opposed to testing the medicine on veterans, and him using his lizard powers to stop an evil businessman abusing the medicine. His desire for reptilian world domination is a total reversal of what was already established by the film, and it seems to come out of nowhere.

At least in the (first two) Raimi movies, the villains and their objectives are clear as day. Everything they do is established by what they were like before they got their powers: Osborne as an unscrupulous, angry scientist who wants to get back at the people who bankrupted him. His powers drive him violently insane, and he uses them to murder his ex-coworkers. Octavius is a well meaning, happy scientist who ends up with nothing left but his experiment. His arms take control of his mind, and encourage him to pursue the deadly research.

maninahat:

Curt who? Oh, was he the lizard? I've already forgotten since watching the movie.

I don't know much about the comics, but from what I understand, none of the movies have been especially close to the comics anyway. I'm pretty sure Peter Parker wasn't a skateboarding, Calvin Klein model in the comics, so perhaps the movie was going its own way. It did it wrong.

As for Connors, was the whole "turn everyone into lizards" thing a major part of his comic book character? If that is the case, this movie really failed to establish he was that sort of person. In the movie, he comes across as a nice guy who wants to grow his arm back and help people. Then all of a sudden, he decides that turning everyone into freakish lizards is a great way to help people. This is despite the movie depicting him as being clearly upset at the idea of becoming a lizard, him being vociferously opposed to testing the medicine on veterans, and him using his lizard powers to stop an evil businessman abusing the medicine. His desire for reptilian world domination is a total reversal of what was already established by the film, and it seems to come out of nowhere.

At least in the (first two) Raimi movies, the villains and their objectives are clear as day. Everything they do is established by what they were like before they got their powers: Osborne as an unscrupulous, angry scientist who wants to get back at the people who bankrupted him. His powers drive him violently insane, and he uses them to murder his ex-coworkers. Octavius is a well meaning, happy scientist who ends up with nothing left but his experiment. His arms take control of his mind, and encourage him to pursue the deadly research.

It's less an aspect of Connors' personality and more one of the Lizard; it's these details that Bob should really have been noticing and saying "Huh, well, I guess it's more accurate than they did with Doc Ock" given it's a similar deal, whereas Ock gets 'controlled by his tentacles' (doesn't happen in the comics, don't seem to get as many complaints about that as we get for Peter suddenly having a fashion sense) Connors falls prey to the reptilian side of his thinking. When he turns into the Lizard his BRAIN changes so while he's still the same person(-ish, it's complicated, comics are weird, etc) his virtues and values change, while he's human the idea of being a Lizard hybrid is terrifying once he's transformed it's suddenly awesome. In fact, one of the last things he does as a rational human before the formula starts messing up his brain is to try and stop the injections which, after he's transformed, stops becoming a major deal for him. They don't make a massive deal of it in the movie but that might be one of the true to the comic details they should've expanded on, but CONNORS doesn't want to make the world the Lizards, the Lizard does and he's usually got at least some grip on Connors brain

Gonna try and avoid angling in on the Peter Parker with the Skateboard thing, because he's clearly the first geek who ever tried to be cool, but he still has the same personality. What they got right and Raimi got wrong was the smartass response to everything with a quip and antagonise your bullies which was pretty much Parker's hallmark from about issue 60 onwards. My personal issue with Tobey Maguire making Spiderman look like he's around 28 in high school aside, Garfield gets across a different chunk of the Peter Parker character, the side which in the comics bought a motorcycle and went to parties. Which not everyone likes, and that's cool, but the character's still Peter Parker.

I'm not saying the movies devoid of flaws, the bit with the cranes and the fact Flash had a really understated character arc for example (would've appreciated more of Eugene showing he's got the same things going as Parker does, they hinted a lot but said nothing) as well as the mysterious vanishing Mr Rathan but some of the criticism feels unfair to me.

Bob you have an opinion on ASM we get it you don't like it chill the hell out, I personally loved the movie but I don't keep writing articles on my enjoyment of it.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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