The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage

So, I thought I would be upfront with my view. I hate, HATE, the new Spider-Man movie. Keep in mind, I liked the 3 Raimi did (yes, even the 3rd was still good in my opinion, way better than this one).

I read all the comics when I was a kid. The old ones from the 60/70's, the ones in the 80's when I was a kid, and early 90's was when I stopped. I saw nothing about the Comic Book in this Reboot/Remake. It was so completely opposite of what I had grown up reading, I left the theatre disgusted I had spent my money and time on it.

All over the Web I've read nothing but good reviews on it, and how in people's opinions "it blows Raimi's films out of the water". Sorry, in my mind, it couldn't be farther from the truth. Raimi's films will be cherished by me, much like Tim Burton's Batman films were, and this Spider-Man film is Batman and Robin to me.

Tell me I'm not alone. If I am, I really lose hope for future comic book movies, and for America in general. After watching the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo the American Version (aka, dumbed down as much as possible) and now this, I don't even want to go out to the movies anymore. The biggest, stupidest looking person sat behind me the whole time, laughing (more like "GUfaw") every five minutes during Spider-Man, and honestly, that was the target audience.

So....did you like it?

bret_owen99 wrote:

All over the Web I've read nothing but good reviews on it, and how in people's opinions "it blows Raimi's films out of the water". Sorry, in my mind, it couldn't be farther from the truth. Raimi's films will be cherished by me, much like Tim Burton's Batman films were, and this Spider-Man film is Batman and Robin to me.

Tell me I'm not alone.

You are not alone.

I guess it depends on what sources for reviews you go to. The three sites I read reviews on and actually put some worth to them (because it is rare that their opinions don't match with mine from not only a general movie, but a fanboy perspective too) did not give Fake Spidey good marks at all. The two sites that give a numerical grade to sum up their review gave Fake Spidey a 6.0 and 6.5. MovieBob at the Escapist utterly trashed it.

When first talks of the reboot hit, I thought it was a mistake. The Raimi films were too good, and weren't all that long ago. Sony just didn't want its rights to expire, but at least they could have just recast and moved forward instead of doing yet another origin film.

Then when word hit about the changes they were making to the origin, then wanting the film to have a more darker, angsty Peter/ Spidey... all I thought was: great, let's radically deviate from established history, and also turn it into some Dark Knight meets Twilight abomination. Yes, Peter for the most part has a pretty crappy life in the comics, but he is not a dark character. Hence, friendly neighborhood Spidey.

No way I was going to see this film. The sad part is, it is going to make a lot of money. Kids will be getting their parents to take them and their siblings to see Spidey, so that's increased revenue right there on the family factor. Then consider that many mainstream people will probably see it once just to check it out... and there really isn't anything else major coming out for two weekends before DKR hits and obliterates any competition like Avengers did.

Enough to warrant a sequel? Fake Spidey will have to clear about 440 million to be considered profitable. It seems though that Sony is set on doing a sequel already, so unless it really tanks we might be stuck with it no matter what.

Cruel Angel wrote:

Enough to warrant a sequel? Fake Spidey will have to clear about 440 million to be considered profitable. It seems though that Sony is set on doing a sequel already, so unless it really tanks we might be stuck with it no matter what.

Most movies always come with the option for a sequel, and most studios begin preparing for them almost as soon as they're done filming the first, at the very least lining people up for roles in the proposed sequel. Ultimately, though, it depends on money.

My friend has seen this film, and was suitably impressed. Usually (excluding Prometheus) we have similar enough taste to enjoy the same thing, so I will probably end up seeing this at some point. I appreciate your views on it though, but if I see it, I'll do so with an open mind.

I liked it... actually, because of a few details I felt were closer to the comics I recall from the late 70's and early 80's. Peter didn't want to be a hero, he felt put upon by the responsibility. I remember him, in those days, being referred to as an anti-hero. He doesn't know Mary-Jane Watson yet, she's not the girl next door, and he doesn't work for the Bugle until he goes off to college. He built the web-shooters, they were not a genetic mutation as a result of the spider-bite.

I really liked the Raimi films, but ranked this reboot higher and am really hoping for a sequel. I am, in fact, actually hoping to see what happened to Gwen in the comics happen in a movie later on... as horrible as that is to say,

I still think the first Raimi Spider-Man, despite its deviations, is a great example of the way to make a superhero movie. They evenly balanced the origins of the hero and the villain, created a strong plot that didn't lose the audience, and had well-developed characters.

Spider-Man 2 was great because it got to build on that, and stay focused on the characters. Spider-Man 3 would have been great if they hadn't tossed in Venom, which Raimi said wasn't his plan.

I plan to see this one, but not too soon. If it's still playing at the end of the month, I'll see it at the Maya in Salinas if I'm not doing anything else.

I'd like to see it to form my own opinion, but not sure if I'll get around to catching it at the theaters. Still would like to see Ted and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, but will probably wait for those two to hit DVD.

Calixar wrote:

I liked it... actually, because of a few details I felt were closer to the comics I recall from the late 70's and early 80's. Peter didn't want to be a hero, he felt put upon by the responsibility. I remember him, in those days, being referred to as an anti-hero. He doesn't know Mary-Jane Watson yet, she's not the girl next door, and he doesn't work for the Bugle until he goes off to college. He built the web-shooters, they were not a genetic mutation as a result of the spider-bite.

I really liked the Raimi films, but ranked this reboot higher and am really hoping for a sequel. I am, in fact, actually hoping to see what happened to Gwen in the comics happen in a movie later on... as horrible as that is to say,

So I'm going to address a few of your details, not to dispute them, but to give my take on them.

Peter didn't want to be a hero. That was addressed in the first Raimi film (not as much as this one, but it still was). They did a great balance between him being selfish, and seeing his Uncle Ben die, and then reluctantly becoming a Hero (without wasting half an hour searching for one criminal).

Mary Jane was a better fit for the Movies in my opinion. If they had started out with Gwen Stacy, and kept with what happened to her in the comic books, it would have been too dark. Spider-Man the Raimi Movies were light hearted, because they were family friendly movies, not Tween angst ridden films. Necessary change in my opinion. As far as her being the girl next door, instead of a fashion model that he just starts dating, also made sense story-wise, and set up the love triangle perfectly between her and the two boys she knew from high school.

The Daily Bugle, while not in the comics until he went to college, was a great way to start him out in the Raimi movies, and gave us more great characters. Robbie, J.J. Jamison, and Betty Brant were great in all 3 movies, and the Actors they chose were perfect. This reboot relied too heavily on a small cast, which really didn't come off to me as well as the Raimi films. Dennis Leary is one of my favorite comics, but this role just didnt' suit him. Instead of J.J., we get a by the numbers angry movie cop.

Now we get to the thing that I honestly did take issue with in the Raimi films, but I think worked out better in the long run: the web shooters. At the time, I thought it was really stupid for Raimi to build them into Peter, which wasn't really in the comics until the Black suit. However, it made for a better story arc. When Peter didn't want to be Spider-Man anymore, he couldn't fire webs anymore. When he was fighting villains, or swinging, he didn't have to ever worry about running out. This film *Spoilers* he didnt' really make the web-shooters, he stole them from a lab. Tell me how he is going to refill that? That was the worst part to me. It made him a thief, and not as intelligent as the comics, because he just stole something that someone else had invented.

Again, not trying to argue with you, but trying to say why I loved the Raimi films more than this one. Raimi films changed things, that I'm not disputing, but the Spirit of the comic was there (even in 3, with Venom). This film didn't feel like it had any heart, or spirit, just empty teenage angst and dumbed down jokes. I didn't laugh at a single one. I didn't smile. I couldn't enjoy this movie for 5 minutes.

i loved it. thought it was great. honestly do you want to see the same origin story over and over again, the same character put in the same situations over and over again? i loved the first two rami movies, the third, i'm sorry brett but it blows imo and if it brings you joy then i am glad. i don't as ive said before blame rami, he wanted to make a cool sandman movie(which would have rocked!) and instead got stuck with harry osbourne with a nija sword on a flying snow board and topher grace as eddie brock so......... and anyone who wants to say twlight and darknight put together i refer them to all the times dark all black dressed goth pete parker felt the need to dance all the bloody time in spiderman three .its true this movie does have a slightly darker tone to it but its not the darknight, its still a spiderman movie loaded with humor and heart. spiderman doesnt live in a bubble, its had to grow and adapt itself through the years and i like the more modern vibe it had. i think to truely make cannon slaves happy they would have to set the movie back in the sixties.( which i would be guilty of wanting to see that movie!!)

Spoiler:

another thing i would like to point out, that might help some of you out there, is that i look at the movie franchices like graphic novels or trade paperbacks. the story doesnt have to be perfect to the cannon established in every comic, sometimes its just fun to read a what if comic and see how things could have been different, or using classic themes and updateing them. honestly brett sams movies were so good it would have been silly to try and redo them in anyway, so why not explore some different ground.



in closing, i loved the first two rami movies, and not only consider them great spidey movies, or great superhero movies, but just great movies in general. if you didn't like this movie thats your perogative, but being a person who grew up reading all the originals myself, in a house where my dad owned two ditko spiderman pages(just sold them last summer and i wept! but i got a new guitar out of it sooooo oh well, i miss them!), i know something about my favorite hero and if you hold on to one time in his history or one moment, your not really gonna be happy. rami is not making anymore spiderman, and i think its a bit silly to hate on a movie because 1. he didn't make it. or 2. because someone else thought it was better than his movies. it was fun, it was dramatic, there were web shooters and emma stone was hot and played her part perfectlly, and all the cg was incredible so i have no complaints.lol

ps i also loved the girl with the dragon tattoo so i think we only agree on badass wrestlers brett!

Huge Marvel fan, huge Spidey fan, no interest in seeing it.

Not because of anyone's review, or the direction they decided to go, or because it was just thrown together so Sony could retain the rights. I'm just not interested in another origin story, even if they changed it. Just absolutely no interest in yet another re-telling of that same story I've read and watched many, many times since I was a kid. I'll go see the next movie, sure, but not this one.

To clarify a couple of points of Spidey-continuity, J. Jonah and the Daily Bugle were there almost from the start. JJ is introduced in Spidey's second appearance (ASM #1). Peter first sells Spidey pix to Jonah in ASM #2, while still in high school. So if JJ isn't in the movie, that's a major chunk of the mythos missing right there.

Peter didn't meet Gwen or Mary Jane until after high school. Gwen was a fellow college student, and Mary Jane was "Mrs. Watson's niece" that Aunt May had been trying to fix Peter up with for ages. Peter's high school-era romance was actually with an "older woman"...JJ's secretary Betty Brant. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't do too much with her in the movies.

From what I've heard of the new movie, it sounds like it's based not so much on the original Spider-Man mythos, but that of "Ultimate Spider-Man"...that "new universe" Spidey created about a dozen years ago. Could anyone out there who followed the Ultimate universe verify this? My interest in that series was limited to Peter's dating the X-Men's Kitty Pryde.

I read Ultimate Spider-Man for awhile. In it, the spider that bites Peter on a field trip practically attacked him in an accident, and it was enhanced with a super serum called "OZ" because it was made by Oscorp. (Norman Osborne uses a purer version to make himself into a Hulk/demonic Goblin in this continuity.)

JJ was there pretty early on from what I recall, as was MJ and Gwen, who in this version was a girl who fell on hard times and wound up living with Peter and Aunt May.

If the new movie didn't follow that, it seems pretty obvious they did some radically different changes for the sake of not simply remaking part of Raimi's movie.

The 2nd Doctor Roberts wrote:

To clarify a couple of points of Spidey-continuity, J. Jonah and the Daily Bugle were there almost from the start. JJ is introduced in Spidey's second appearance (ASM #1). Peter first sells Spidey pix to Jonah in ASM #2, while still in high school. So if JJ isn't in the movie, that's a major chunk of the mythos missing right there.

Peter didn't meet Gwen or Mary Jane until after high school. Gwen was a fellow college student, and Mary Jane was "Mrs. Watson's niece" that Aunt May had been trying to fix Peter up with for ages. Peter's high school-era romance was actually with an "older woman"...JJ's secretary Betty Brant. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't do too much with her in the movies.
From what I've heard of the new movie, it sounds like it's based not so much on the original Spider-Man mythos, but that of "Ultimate Spider-Man"...that "new universe" Spidey created about a dozen years ago. Could anyone out there who followed the Ultimate universe verify this? My interest in that series was limited to Peter's dating the X-Men's Kitty Pryde.

lol. i'm going back and watching sams movies and rereading my trades of the original ditko run right now after i saw the movie today. ive got the commentary on in the background and i never realized elizabeth banks is playing betty in the movie! the actor playing flash is also main character on true blood now. the whole deal with betty would be great if they did what i reffered to earlier, a period set 60's version of spiderman! i think that would be really cool.

jaredofmo wrote:

I read Ultimate Spider-Man for awhile. In it, the spider that bites Peter on a field trip practically attacked him in an accident, and it was enhanced with a super serum called "OZ" because it was made by Oscorp. (Norman Osborne uses a purer version to make himself into a Hulk/demonic Goblin in this continuity.)

JJ was there pretty early on from what I recall, as was MJ and Gwen, who in this version was a girl who fell on hard times and wound up living with Peter and Aunt May.

If the new movie didn't follow that, it seems pretty obvious they did some radically different changes for the sake of not simply remaking part of Raimi's movie.

this is why i think they left out the daily bugle angle for this movie, let the new story stand up and then bring in the daily bugle for the sequel. also, the movie moves realativley fast, in the sense that not alot of time passes its pretty fluent and fast, you get the sense that maybe only a month has passed in the whole movie. peters whole motivation to work there was for money, which aunt may and he desperatelly needed. so in the future they can easily go to the daily bugle, also there was a shot of the daily bugle paper in the movie as i recall and it had a not so flattering editorial about or favorite web head. lol

I saw this featurette on the movie before "Brave" and I honestly thought it looked cool, a bit witty and all (same guy who was in the two-part "Daleks in Manhattan" story) but after reading all of this, I'm not even sure I'd want to rent it. Spiderman hasn't been one of my favourite superheroes and now, I'm just not sure seeing how a "Twilight" comparison has been made.
~

Anything is comparable to Twilight.

Evil Monkey Pope wrote:

Anything is comparable to Twilight.

So, Classic DW is like Twilight because it's just so awesome and sparkly and uhg, if I continue I'm going to smack myself. No, not everything is comparable to the mess that is Twilight.
~

jaredofmo wrote:

If the new movie didn't follow that, it seems pretty obvious they did some radically different changes for the sake of not simply remaking part of Raimi's movie.

It is a remake, really. If the superhero element was removed, more people would be quick to call it that. The way I see it, it's the same character with the same basic story, so it's a remake.

I think the hipster term is more "reboot" to make it less offensive than "remake", but I agree with you on that one. It really is. And I didn't think that the Raimi movie was that bad. I lost interest after the first one, but I don't see why the sudden need for a new one other than to cash in on this sudden hype about superheros with Thor and Iron Man and The Avengers.

Forgot to say, I can see why they did a remake of "The Hulk" because the first one, I even thought was awful. I heard that the other one was better, but more people like The Hulk in The Avengers?
~

it was not a remake for the simple reason that the back story is completely different than the rami movie, it shows peters parents and tells what happened to them, and it ties in peters father with curt conners. they had to retell the origin in this film to move forward with the new direction the backstory was taking. its not a remake in my opinion because all the characters from the rami movie are not there, ie theres no harry, marry, normon, or the daily bugle crew. this movie is wildly different from the rami movies but to me thats a good thing, the sam way the nolan movies were wildly different from from the burton films. to me this movie makes an excellent parallel to to doctor who in the sense that the fundemental characteristics of the character are always present but the tone, feel and direction of the show was stamped by the producer of the show. to me imho debateing if this is good or not compared to rami is like trying to compare barry letts era to the phillip henchcliff era. lol. alls i'm saying is see the movie(and i'm not insisting you run out and pay movie theater prices on something your on the fence about, but rent or cable or watch on dvd with a friend etc) before you make up your mind. i am a die hard spiderman fan and i enjoyed the movie very much. it had alot of things i thought were very clever and new.

and for the record, there is nothing remotely like twlight to this movie, not one vampire that sparkles or werewolf, not one demon hybrid alien baby.

AppleJack25 wrote:

I think the hipster term is more "reboot" to make it less offensive than "remake", but I agree with you on that one. It really is. And I didn't think that the Raimi movie was that bad. I lost interest after the first one, but I don't see why the sudden need for a new one other than to cash in on this sudden hype about superheros with Thor and Iron Man and The Avengers.

Forgot to say, I can see why they did a remake of "The Hulk" because the first one, I even thought was awful. I heard that the other one was better, but more people like The Hulk in The Avengers?
~

to me, the hulk was better in the avengers movie than he was in his two solo movies, and i think the reason why is because the hulk is a hard character to do solo. having all that interaction with thor and loki in the avengers is what made him so classic and lovable in the avengers

Spoiler:

the other reason is that mark ruffalo brought that quiet intensity to bruce banner thats needed for the character imo.

The 2nd Doctor Roberts wrote:

To clarify a couple of points of Spidey-continuity, J. Jonah and the Daily Bugle were there almost from the start. JJ is introduced in Spidey's second appearance (ASM #1). Peter first sells Spidey pix to Jonah in ASM #2, while still in high school. So if JJ isn't in the movie, that's a major chunk of the mythos missing right there.

Yeah... at work today I remembered that. Aunt May was having trouble with bills and Peter got the idea to help out. You're right, but I did like not trying to squeeze too many things into the new origin story. If they get a #2, I can see it happening there.

The 2nd Doctor Roberts wrote:

Peter didn't meet Gwen or Mary Jane until after high school. Gwen was a fellow college student, and Mary Jane was "Mrs. Watson's niece" that Aunt May had been trying to fix Peter up with for ages. Peter's high school-era romance was actually with an "older woman"...JJ's secretary Betty Brant. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't do too much with her in the movies.

I don't know why exactly, but I like the idea of Gwen being first, though. If one of them has to be in high-school with him, I prefer it be her.
I recall Mary-Jane coming into the story as kind of a bad girl. She was borderline slutty, did drugs, and all that. But until you mentioned it just now, I completely forgot that May knew her aunt. That's a lot of years ago. I haven't read a comic book since the early 90s.


I did and do like the Raimi films, but I felt like there was just too much crammed into the first and third. I look forward to, hopefully, more than a three-film series in which Harry and Mary-Jane come in later and Peter goes on to be friends with Flash Thompson. I do like how his character in this film wasn't just a stereotypical jock/jerk.

I get that some people (like my own best friend, who never read a single comic book) don't care much for this movie, but I have to say I thought it was better. But then, I'm a freak... I never liked anything Frank Miller did, for instance. I've been called horrible, ugly names over that.

also i wanted to say, imo theres a difference in terms of remakes when your dealing with a character thats been around for sixty years and had multiple story lines and angles and changes through the years. when you take that character and keep telling stories with him then your exploring the different options to tell stories with that character. a remake to me is when they straight(or sometimes not so straight) remake a movie like

total recall
fright night
the thing
nightmare on elm st
clash of the titans
let me in
the ring, heck any forgein movie that gets an american remake. lol
oceans eleven
and many many more lol

to me there is just a big difference in redoing something that was only a movie and telling different stories with a character with a rich and long history. if spiderman had only ever been a sam rami movie then i would deffinately see a remake connection but to me its just not the same with bond or super hero franchises. just my opinion.

Well, having never read Spiderman....I only read DC, I can not be offended by changes in the plot line based on the comic. I have read and seen so many origin stories of Batman and Superman, and have enjoyed them all. Should I not enjoy the Donner films because it disagreed with Action Comics or the Man of Steel origin? If I would have been to upset that Batman's origins were being rebooted, I never would have read and enjoyed Year One or Batman Begins. I enjoy other writers takes on the story. And I hope I will enjoy this version of Spiderman.

These comic characters are old, and the story will be re-written and updated. I can't wait to see what the next director does with the Batman franchise after Dark Knight Rises is in the history books. (As long as it doesn't go the campy route>)

@HitmanHart, I think you completely misunderstand my displeasure with the Movie. It has nothing to do with my love for the Raimi films (I love the Tim Burton Batman, but that doesn't mean I don't love the Nolan films as well). It has nothing to do with other people liking it, therefore I have to dislike it (I always hate it when someone tries to use that argument).

I truly feel (my opinion, and from the money it's making, and review's it's getting, I know I'm in a small minority) that it is a poorly written, badly directed, really badly acted horrible movie overall. Not just a bad Spider-Man movie, but a bad Comic Book movie, and overall Bad Movie alltogether. I would not let my children watch this. i wouldn't want them to think that this is what a "Good" film is. I wouldn't want them laughing every 5 minutes at the dumbed down jokes, much like the person behind me in the theatre was doing.

As far as my "Twilight" comparison, I stand by it. It's the measuring stick of bad that I go to, and for this, I think it is apt. Two thirty year old actors (I think Emma Stone is beautifull, but she's getting too old to play the teenage part, and Garfield is looking way too mature to pull off 'Teenage' Peter Parker) acting all 'angst' ridden and angry, and pretty much horny (hope whona doesn't mind my language) isn't "chemistry" to me. Not to mention the whole tone of the movie about rebelling against older people/parents (first with Peter's temper tantrum against his Aunt and Uncle, then his incessant whining to Captain Stacy). Sorry, maybe I've just gotten too old to see any enjoyment out of whiny teenager's who think they are right all the time.

As far as the debate over Remake/Reboot, I don't even know what to say. Here's a movie for you. Two parents with the last name Wayne are tasked with creating a laughing gas for a maniacal mobster named the Laughster. His sidekick, the Pengu, kills the Wayne Parents. 15 years later, an angst ridden boy named Bruce steals a prototype suit his Uncle was working on. Did I mention he also has Hulk powers? Yes, everything he touch's crumbles. And he instantly knows Kung Fu. What, you don't think this sounds like Batman? I'm just trying to make it more modern? more hip?

This is why I didn't like the new movie. It didn't just 'change' a couple of things, it changed everything. I would rather watch Kick #SS, because that's more of a Spider-Man movie than this one was (and overall better movie). I just don't get it, I'm sorry. I'm really wary to go to the theatre anymore, because every movie seems to be dumbed down and made more modern just to sell it to a wider audience. That doesn't make a good movie, it makes a Britanny Spears album.

I'm not saying people don't have the right to like it, or disagree with me, but I would rather be on this side of the fence than the other. Just my point of view.