The Not so Amazing Spider....garbage

[quote="bret_owen99"]@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.

i wasnt trying to say that you dont like it, just because its popular and other people like it, i'm saying that you obviously have a problem with people saying its better than the rami films, if i didnt make that clear then i appologize.

second i would have been one of those dumb people laughing at the dumbed down jokes because i infact laughed alot through the movie.

as far as the acting goes, im sorry but your just crazy, that movie was well acted. one of the first things i said to my nephew when we left the movie was how pleased i was to finally see a female scientist character so well acted by emma stone who brought a real depth to the character and pulled off being sexy at the same time. i mean you wanna talk about bad acting the rami movies had james franco in them three times.


brett i may be way off base, and i don't mean to offend but through our chats on things through the time we've interacted and by some of your own types of statments i think you can handle it. i think its very believable that you had a crappy mindset when you saw this movie and are determined to hate!lol. you know the rami movies had just as many things you could pick out and trash as you are doing with this movie, but you like them so your beating up on this one, thats just my opinion.

and to adress laughster scenerio, so its ok to have the joker be batmans parents killer in tim burtons movies, but spideys parents who were virtually unknown and ripe with potenial for interesting backstories is out of line? do you hear yourself?


to finish like what you want, don't what you don't my friend this world would be boring with out you!

You can call me out on things, no offense taken. We have to agree to disagree. While I'm a big fan of Emma Stone, I saw nothing of her in the movie other than her 'dolled' up to be an object of affection to Garfield. She's been in much better movies, and done better with roles, but this was the one they gave her.

As far as pointing out James Franco, thems fightin words! James Franco is a good actor, and was one of the reasons I enjoyed the 3 other movies so much. His dynamic, not just with Maguire and Dunst, but with Norman Osborne, really gave the movie a rich cast and relationships (two friends fighting over one woman, two friends fighting over the attention of a father)

Did I have a bad attitude going in, somewhat. I saw the commercials, and heard the rumors of what the plot was going to be (more geared towards the Ultimate Universe than the original one). I wanted to be proved wrong. I wanted Andrew Garfield to blow me away, much like Christian Bale did as Batman. It just didnt' happen in my view.

As far as the Parents go, I never wanted that in the movie, let alone the comic books. I remember when reading the comic books, and they started doing the storyline of how his parents were 'Spies' or something like that, and even as a kid, I thought why add a useless plotline like that to the story. He already had Uncle Ben (which was pivotal not just in the comics, but the Rami movies as well). He had Aunt May, they really didnt' need to bring back people who really didn't have anything to do other than give birth to him (not trying to start a whole nother argument with that topic).

And to bring up the Batman comparison, yes I hear myself. Burton changed a lot of things, and a lot of comic book fans were not happy. I was never a big Batman comic book fan, so I didn't mind at the time. Perhaps that's why I take such a big issue with this. I have over 1000 Spider-Man comics in my garage, and that movie reminded me of none of them.

Yes, I pick what I like and what I don't like, and I defend those things, even if I'm in the minority. I thought Ang Lee's Hulk was a beautiful film, and I hate it when people bash it for being poorly written or directed. I thought the First Nicholas Cage Ghost Rider was a great movie, and didn't see the need for an average action movie clone sequel. Everybody has different tastes on comic book movies, and It just bugs me that I spent so many years reading so many comics, and for the most part, the only movies that people like, have nothing to do with the comic books themselves. X-Men the first movie started me on this path, and I wasn't happy until the third one.

bret_owen99 wrote:

You can call me out on things, no offense taken. We have to agree to disagree. While I'm a big fan of Emma Stone, I saw nothing of her in the movie other than her 'dolled' up to be an object of affection to Garfield. She's been in much better movies, and done better with roles, but this was the one they gave her.

As far as pointing out James Franco, thems fightin words! James Franco is a good actor, and was one of the reasons I enjoyed the 3 other movies so much. His dynamic, not just with Maguire and Dunst, but with Norman Osborne, really gave the movie a rich cast and relationships (two friends fighting over one woman, two friends fighting over the attention of a father)

Did I have a bad attitude going in, somewhat. I saw the commercials, and heard the rumors of what the plot was going to be (more geared towards the Ultimate Universe than the original one). I wanted to be proved wrong. I wanted Andrew Garfield to blow me away, much like Christian Bale did as Batman. It just didnt' happen in my view.

As far as the Parents go, I never wanted that in the movie, let alone the comic books. I remember when reading the comic books, and they started doing the storyline of how his parents were 'Spies' or something like that, and even as a kid, I thought why add a useless plotline like that to the story. He already had Uncle Ben (which was pivotal not just in the comics, but the Rami movies as well). He had Aunt May, they really didnt' need to bring back people who really didn't have anything to do other than give birth to him (not trying to start a whole nother argument with that topic).

And to bring up the Batman comparison, yes I hear myself. Burton changed a lot of things, and a lot of comic book fans were not happy. I was never a big Batman comic book fan, so I didn't mind at the time. Perhaps that's why I take such a big issue with this. I have over 1000 Spider-Man comics in my garage, and that movie reminded me of none of them.

Yes, I pick what I like and what I don't like, and I defend those things, even if I'm in the minority. I thought Ang Lee's Hulk was a beautiful film, and I hate it when people bash it for being poorly written or directed. I thought the First Nicholas Cage Ghost Rider was a great movie, and didn't see the need for an average action movie clone sequel. Everybody has different tastes on comic book movies, and It just bugs me that I spent so many years reading so many comics, and for the most part, the only movies that people like, have nothing to do with the comic books themselves. X-Men the first movie started me on this path, and I wasn't happy until the third one.

lol, i can see we are just worlds apart because i loved the first two xmen and hated the third, and i think the ghost rider movie is in a time with the thomas jayne punisher movie for my least favorite comic book movie of all time. i did however really like the artistic direction of the first hulk and i thought it was wonderfully acted, i just think it ran a bit longer than it could have, but thats just me. my favorite part of that movie was the very end when he said don't make me angry in spanish.

Yeah, don't worry about it. I have good friends, who have just as many comics as me, who argue the same thing. They love X-men 1 and 2, and hate 3 and Wolverine (I thought the Wolverine movie was good with what they had to work with).

Personally, I loved the Dolph Lundgren Punisher movie, which would have been a lot better if they had actually used the Skull on his shirt at the end of the movie. Apart from that, Thomas Jane is one of my favorite actors, and although the movie deviated from the comic in a lot of ways, I think he personified a tortured soul more than anyone else I had seen play the Punisher.

Point is, comic book fans are just as different as Doctor Who fans. I know I'm in the minority in not liking the new Moffat Era (and can't wait for it to end), just like I know I'm in the minority in not liking the new Spider-Man movie. There will probably be at least two sequels (won't go see either), and I'm sure they will all make money. I just hope, after this gets rebooted again in another 10-15 years, the new direction they go with will be more to my liking (like the Raimi films, or the Nolan Batman films were).

i like the original punisher too and think 100% it would have been better with the skull!
i thought thomas janye was good in the role, i just thought the overall script was bad. the origin part of the movie i thought was brilliant but it just went down for me from there. i thought wolverine was ok mostly, i wasn't big on the ending. i personally would have loved to see more of the "set in history kinda stuff" like more of the world war two stuff etc.

Well,I saw this Spiderman yesterday, and I enjoyed it quite a bit,even more than the first film. But,like I said, I enjoy new takes on comic books from different creators and have never read many of these books,so I don't care if it follows any sort of continuity with them. And I really don't see why it is supposed to be darker that the Rani films? I did not pick upon that. Except for Gwen's father dying.

Ronpur wrote:

Well,I saw this Spiderman yesterday, and I enjoyed it quite a bit,even more than the first film. But,like I said, I enjoy new takes on comic books from different creators and have never read many of these books,so I don't care if it follows any sort of continuity with them. And I really don't see why it is supposed to be darker that the Rani films? I did not pick upon that. Except for Gwen's father dying.

I agree with all of these points and I too really enjoyed it.

With all the effort put into remaking comic characters, one would think they could make up some new characters.

There are already plenty of great B & C list comic characters that get screwed over in favor of rebooting A listers.

Evil Monkey Pope wrote:

There are already plenty of great B & C list comic characters that get screwed over in favor of rebooting A listers.

Makes me a little glad that I mainly only read mangas, and only comics I read are Archie or B.C. ~shrug~

Though seeing some of the "A listers", makes me wonder what the appeal is.....I got this feeling some folks are going to get bored getting the same old characters again, I mean one can only tell the stories of Superman or whomever so many times before one says, "Enough already!". At this rate, the next remake for Spider-Man's going to be in about 2 or 3 years, and he's going to be a 14 year old emo who never gets along with his folks and Jamerson's going to run a TMZ type company.

I hope Marvel/Disney is not reading.

Comic characters have ALWAYS been re-written and ret-conned. Happens all the time because we are dealing with 70 plus year old characters that never age and need to be modernized. The 50s Adventures of Superman was different from the Donner films which was different than Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superfriends, The Superman Animated Series...etc. I never get bored with them because I keep an open mind when watching or reading them and enjoy the work someone new puts into their version of the character. In comic books, the style of them changes when a new artist takes over. I love those changes.

And I like this version of Spiderman more than the previous origin story movie, which was 10 years ago.

Ronpur wrote:

Comic characters have ALWAYS been re-written and ret-conned. Happens all the time because we are dealing with 70 plus year old characters that never age and need to be modernized. The 50s Adventures of Superman was different from the Donner films which was different than Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superfriends, The Superman Animated Series...etc. I never get bored with them because I keep an open mind when watching or reading them and enjoy the work someone new puts into their version of the character. In comic books, the style of them changes when a new artist takes over. I love those changes.

And I like this version of Spiderman more than the previous origin story movie, which was 10 years ago.

Ehh, for me, I can not stand constant retcons and so on, it's like having a piece of gum you've already chewed. Plus all these reboots, especially for say....Star Trek....thanks to JJ and company, 40+ years of story telling, especially of boldly going where no one has gone before is pretty much out the window in favor of new stories of a punk assed Kirk, Spock with anger management problems, and nothing but battles and explosions is all we are going to get now, just because it's the in thing? I'm pretty much done with Transformers because they've went this way and keep retelling the same thing with the same characters.....in the 1990's and early 2000's, I could see new characters on the shows and the toy shelves, now it's all the same....another Optimus Prime, another Megatron, and now with everything pretty much being influenced by the Bayformers films, I now officially HATE Bumblebee since it's becoming "The Bumblebee Show!" and nothing but 100 different versions of him. Dear lord, imagine what's going to happen to Shakespeare or Tolkien in the coming years.

I don't know, but I don't think it makes me a whiny ?&@*!!! for wanting to see something brand, spanking new and, dare I say, original? ~Ques gasps of shock in the room and Twilight Zone music playing~

I have wondered if the ideas are all used up... so, sort of with you there.

Calixar wrote:

I have wondered if the ideas are all used up... so, sort of with you there.

Not just with this genre, but with films in general... I think there are still good original ideas (or variations) out there. It's just that studios are way easier to convince to shell out money for an already proven concept, franchise, etc than something new or different. Especially when most studio execs can't understand such things in the first place.

So just a question I want to throw out there. Anyone who liked the new Spider-Man, did you also like the tv show Friends?

The Castellan wrote:

Ronpur wrote:

Comic characters have ALWAYS been re-written and ret-conned. Happens all the time because we are dealing with 70 plus year old characters that never age and need to be modernized. The 50s Adventures of Superman was different from the Donner films which was different than Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superfriends, The Superman Animated Series...etc. I never get bored with them because I keep an open mind when watching or reading them and enjoy the work someone new puts into their version of the character. In comic books, the style of them changes when a new artist takes over. I love those changes.

And I like this version of Spiderman more than the previous origin story movie, which was 10 years ago.

Ehh, for me, I can not stand constant retcons and so on, it's like having a piece of gum you've already chewed. Plus all these reboots, especially for say....Star Trek....thanks to JJ and company, 40+ years of story telling, especially of boldly going where no one has gone before is pretty much out the window in favor of new stories of a punk assed Kirk, Spock with anger management problems, and nothing but battles and explosions is all we are going to get now, just because it's the in thing? I'm pretty much done with Transformers because they've went this way and keep retelling the same thing with the same characters.....in the 1990's and early 2000's, I could see new characters on the shows and the toy shelves, now it's all the same....another Optimus Prime, another Megatron, and now with everything pretty much being influenced by the Bayformers films, I now officially HATE Bumblebee since it's becoming "The Bumblebee Show!" and nothing but 100 different versions of him. Dear lord, imagine what's going to happen to Shakespeare or Tolkien in the coming years.

I don't know, but I don't think it makes me a whiny ?&@*!!! for wanting to see something brand, spanking new and, dare I say, original? ~Ques gasps of shock in the room and Twilight Zone music playing~

See, those things, Star Trek, etc I don't like reboots of. We don't need remakes of old movies or TV Shows. But comic book characters do not other me, it is just the nature of the art form.

And Sherlock Holmes is another character I enjoy remakes or different interpretations of.

bret_owen99 wrote:

So just a question I want to throw out there. Anyone who liked the new Spider-Man, did you also like the tv show Friends?

No, but I liked Seinfeld and Frasier.

bret_owen99 wrote:

So just a question I want to throw out there. Anyone who liked the new Spider-Man, did you also like the tv show Friends?

No. What does that have to do with it?

I just saw this yesterday, and really, it doens't match Raimi's movies, and Andrew Garfield just isn't a convincing a Peter Parker as Tobey Maguire, but I don't think it was awful. Although, I've read several of the original Ditko reprints and about nine Romita reprints, and I have to say, the storyline changes they made were not.....the best. I'm sort of a purist when it comes to Spider-Man, I didn't like it when they made those changes, like Doc Connors never went to jail cuz nobody found out he was the lizard, and Spidey found the murderer of his uncle, but in this he never did find him. I mean what?

Although, the cliff hanger in the middle of the credits was interesting.

Aswell, it was alot more darker and griddy than the other films, which were fun.

APPARENTLY.....the movie was supposed to be less based on the Ditko comics and more based on Ultimate Spider-man.

But, what I'm thinking, is, if they do a sequel, how on earth will they replace JJJ? He was, like, the best part of the Raimi movies.

Also, I think Andrew Garfield's performance was a bit.....Anakin-esque.

Spidey didn't catch up to Ben's killer for years....

I thought he did that in Amazing Fantasy 15?

Ronpur wrote:

The Castellan wrote:

Ronpur wrote:

Comic characters have ALWAYS been re-written and ret-conned. Happens all the time because we are dealing with 70 plus year old characters that never age and need to be modernized. The 50s Adventures of Superman was different from the Donner films which was different than Lois and Clark, Smallville, Superfriends, The Superman Animated Series...etc. I never get bored with them because I keep an open mind when watching or reading them and enjoy the work someone new puts into their version of the character. In comic books, the style of them changes when a new artist takes over. I love those changes.

And I like this version of Spiderman more than the previous origin story movie, which was 10 years ago.

Ehh, for me, I can not stand constant retcons and so on, it's like having a piece of gum you've already chewed. Plus all these reboots, especially for say....Star Trek....thanks to JJ and company, 40+ years of story telling, especially of boldly going where no one has gone before is pretty much out the window in favor of new stories of a punk assed Kirk, Spock with anger management problems, and nothing but battles and explosions is all we are going to get now, just because it's the in thing? I'm pretty much done with Transformers because they've went this way and keep retelling the same thing with the same characters.....in the 1990's and early 2000's, I could see new characters on the shows and the toy shelves, now it's all the same....another Optimus Prime, another Megatron, and now with everything pretty much being influenced by the Bayformers films, I now officially HATE Bumblebee since it's becoming "The Bumblebee Show!" and nothing but 100 different versions of him. Dear lord, imagine what's going to happen to Shakespeare or Tolkien in the coming years.

I don't know, but I don't think it makes me a whiny ?&@*!!! for wanting to see something brand, spanking new and, dare I say, original? ~Ques gasps of shock in the room and Twilight Zone music playing~

See, those things, Star Trek, etc I don't like reboots of. We don't need remakes of old movies or TV Shows. But comic book characters do not other me, it is just the nature of the art form.

And Sherlock Holmes is another character I enjoy remakes or different interpretations of.

I prefer Mr. Holmes as what I have read and seen in the really old films....Victorian era times.

I am sorry, but I'd hate to see him remade for today....plus the fact that you'd really have to dumb him down to appeal to joe sixpack.

Well the more ignorant his audience is the more Sherlock locks like a genius so that totally works in his favor.

Calixar wrote:

Spidey didn't catch up to Ben's killer for years....

Lies!

Or maybe that was somebody else who killed his uncle, instead of the one in issue 15, like they did with Spider-Man 3.