The Amazing Spider-Man (Spoilery discussion)

[Captain Canuck]

I'm with Bass on this 100%

I'm agog at how these criticisms of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are supposedly destructive to the film when I can think of more egregious examples:

(except I have no idea what that means)

"Lizard is a stupid villain who goes has for no reason" - Green Goblin and Doc Ock both went crazy due to science. Doc Ock wanted to destroy Manhattan too, and Green Goblin just wanted his company back. If Lizard is crappy, so are they.

And so is Loki (in both Thor AND the Avengers), except Tom Hiddleston did SUCH a good job portraying him. His threats and motivations were dumb (trying to destroy a planet with a portal bridge b/c he's having a temper tantrum and hates Jotuns, invading earth with a generic alien army b/c he's having a temper tantrum and hates humans and feels superior)

"Everything is left unresolved" - The burglar plot is resolved; Spidey gets that hunting the burglar is an immature, self-gratifying waste of time and decides to be a hero, not out of guilt over his uncle's death, but because he matures and accepts his responsibility by actually doing something heroic: he saves a kid and "gets" it.

Exactly. (I said this earlier by the way...)

The parents are resolved from Peter's point of view: they died in a plane crash. They left him to hide the secret of their formula which is terribly destructive. We know there's more but it's clear those answers are for a sequel not this film and they balance it carefully. Contrast this with THE AVENGERS which put the villain off-screen into the post-credit sequence. The whole film is a trailer for AVENGERS 2: THE THANOSING. But apparently, that's okay to leave unresolved, but not Spidey. What's the whole deal with the tesseract in CAPTAIN AMERICA? It's okay we know little because, hey, it'll be in THE AVENGERS (except it isn't) but Parker's parents can't be held for for a sequel?

Blech.

I don't even think there needs to be much more. They kept the formula from Osborn and he had them killed. That was pretty clear, but Peter hasn't found out yet.
I just saw it again today and picked up some things about how evil Osborn is that I missed the first time: I totally didn't hear the conversation in which Connors' boss says they're going to test the lizard serum at the veteran's hospital and tell people it's a flu shot. That was the same conversation where he implies that they had the Parkers killed and would do the same to Connors if he didn't cooperate.

Peter Parker moves beyond the needs of catching the burglar. The burglar is a distraction to him. He thinks he's trying to do good but Captain Stacey points out he's just wasting his time and powers doing this. Parker drops the burglar because it's unimportant and it is. We know who the burglar is, Parker knows he could've prevented Ben's death, and he gets power and responsibility, so he doesn't need to spend his time hunting down one burglar for revenge when there's other people to save. Secondly, as for him not saying "Great power great responsibility", he doesn't need to say it. It doesn't need to be said. It's done. Webb and the rest replaced that line with, "I'm Spider-Man." That line, when he says that for the first time, encompasses everything you just said and what's more, is that Peter Parker puts it together for himself, he's not just told it, and he gets it. Thirdly, Ben is not the only mentor for him; Stacey teaches him the lesson too, but in an argument, rather than Ben's compassion. The meaning is absolutely clear. It's just not spelled out in the dialogue, instead it's lived through the story.

And it doesn't really make sense for Uncle Ben to talk to Peter about power, instead he talks about the ability to do something good, I think the exact quote is, "If you have the ability to do good for others, it's your moral obligation to do it. It's not about choice, it's about responsibility." Which I feel is an acceptable adaptation of the mantra. It catches the meaning of the original, but makes it more like something a parent would actually say to a teenager.

Then Ben lives it out by trying to wrestle the gun away from the burglar right after Peter refuses to stop him.
And everything Bass said about Peter's conversations with Captain Stacey are right on the money too. Peter realizes that Captain Stacey is right and he's not trying to help, he's selfishly going after his own agenda.

I'm glad you didn't delete your post Bass. I think most people enjoy your take on stuff, that's why it seems like you're the focus of the discussions - you think through what you're saying and usually have a pretty good argument that people want to engage in, whether they agree or don't

It's like my Uncle Ben used to say, "Where two men agree, one is useless."

 

[Bass]

I was just being a smart a** cuz I love when people use words I have to google.

I didn't think you were being a smart ass.

(except I have no idea what that means)

It's possible I may have made up that word.

I don't even think there needs to be much more. They kept the formula from Osborn and he had them killed. That was pretty clear, but Peter hasn't found out yet.
I just saw it again today and picked up some things about how evil Osborn is that I missed the first time: I totally didn't hear the conversation in which Connors' boss says they're going to test the lizard serum at the veteran's hospital and tell people it's a flu shot. That was the same conversation where he implies that they had the Parkers killed and would do the same to Connors if he didn't cooperate.

Exactly. And Curt Connors stops caring about it because he wants to "save the world" and Peter never finds out. I assume the reason Dr Ratha never does it is because Connors takes all the lab equipment and Ratha can't do anything without it. Apparently in the deleted scenes Ratha is killed by Connors, and this could've done with a little explanation, but the sense was that anything to do with Osborne wasn't going to be done this film, so they never made it into key plot points regarding Peter becoming Spidey, nor with the Lizard, rather it was background information that was clearly hinting to the sequel as evidenced by us not seeing Osborne's face on the big wall at Oscorp. As soon as you saw that, I think it was clear that stuff wasn't where this film was going. To be honest, I don't even really feel it needs a sequel. It's odd; there's these dangling threads for a sequel, but somehow they balanced it so you weren't left unsatisfied by their openness. They kept the story focused on the theme of power and responsibility (with Connors being the dark mirror to that, thinking it's his responsibility to do the good thing and turn mankind into lizards) and resolved that. If you look at the deleted scenes, they all involve teasing the Osborne story that wasn't going anywhere, so they were excised to keep the focus on Peter's transformation, not the background of his parents. I've seen it twice, with about a dozen people, and no one felt it was open-ended, or rather, no more so than IRON MAN or THE AVENGERS or BATMAN BEGINS. In fact, people just kept saying it was BATMAN BEGINS for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

And it doesn't really make sense for Uncle Ben to talk to Peter about power, instead he talks about the ability to do something good, I think the exact quote is, "If you have the ability to do good for others, it's your moral obligation to do it. It's not about choice, it's about responsibility." Which I feel is an acceptable adaptation of the mantra. It catches the meaning of the original, but makes it more like something a parent would actually say to a teenager.

Then Ben lives it out by trying to wrestle the gun away from the burglar right after Peter refuses to stop him.

Yes, exactly. Ben kinda stumbles through the speech because it's not something he's prepared, and he tries to live up to the ideal and is killed, when Peter wouldn't have been. Then Stacey also tries to live up to that ideal of doing good because you can and he dies too. Spidey gets he's the only one who can deal with this, and if he doesn't, other people will die trying to do what he's supposed to do. It works.

I'm glad you didn't delete your post Bass. I think most people enjoy your take on stuff, that's why it seems like you're the focus of the discussions - you think through what you're saying and usually have a pretty good argument that people want to engage in, whether they agree or don't

It's like my Uncle Ben used to say, "Where two men agree, one is useless."

I had a crappy day. I followed Dan Slott after unfollowing him a while back because he has these stupid arguments, and he had another argument today about why BATMAN BEGINS is one of the "worst superhero movies ever". As someone who doesn't care for BEGINS I was appalled at his reasons why, which were childish and misguided. After reading a lot of posts which had him hating Batman leaving Ra's to die but advocating locking Ra's forever in a cage in the Batcave without a trial as a better ending, then followed by criticisms of this film in my feed, here, and elsewhere, I just vented, then realised I'd end up spending more time on this crap when I don't have time to do so.

I spend all day taking apart stories and so when I go to relax with my social media and it's just people talking about this stuff, I get wound up, rather than winding down. C'est la vie.

 

[Captain Canuck]

It's possible I may have made up that word.

agog (adj) - full of intense interest or excitement : eager

Exactly. And Curt Connors stops caring about it because he wants to "save the world" and Peter never finds out. I assume the reason Dr Ratha never does it is because Connors takes all the lab equipment and Ratha can't do anything without it. Apparently in the deleted scenes Ratha is killed by Connors, and this could've done with a little explanation,

When Connors calls to find out where he is, he's on his way to the veteran's hospital with the vial. The info for making more serum was on file at OSCORP (at least i assume it was since the info for making the antidote was...) It really does need to be explained what happens to Ratha, but to be honest, I didn't even notice the first time I saw the movie, and it didn't bother me the second time.

 

[ProjectX2]

"Lizard is a stupid villain who goes has for no reason" - Green Goblin and Doc Ock both went crazy due to science. Doc Ock wanted to destroy Manhattan too, and Green Goblin just wanted his company back. If Lizard is crappy, so are they.

Most of the motives for Spider-Man villains are pretty dumb but don't you think Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus had more character? They had a conflict (Norman vs. the Goblin, Otto vs. the arms) that I don't think was really explored much with Connors vs. the Lizard. And Doctor Octopus didn't want to destroy Manhattan, he wanted to finish his energy machine and prove that he was right but his arrogance/the arms kept getting in the way. I also think Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina were a hell of a letter better than Rhys Ifans.

"Everything is left unresolved" - The burglar plot is resolved; Spidey gets that hunting the burglar is an immature, self-gratifying waste of time and decides to be a hero, not out of guilt over his uncle's death, but because he matures and accepts his responsibility by actually doing something heroic: he saves a kid and "gets" it. The parents are resolved from Peter's point of view: they died in a plane crash. They left him to hide the secret of their formula which is terribly destructive. We know there's more but it's clear those answers are for a sequel not this film and they balance it carefully. Contrast this with THE AVENGERS which put the villain off-screen into the post-credit sequence. The whole film is a trailer for AVENGERS 2: THE THANOSING. But apparently, that's okay to leave unresolved, but not Spidey. What's the whole deal with the tesseract in CAPTAIN AMERICA? It's okay we know little because, hey, it'll be in THE AVENGERS (except it isn't) but Parker's parents can't be held for for a sequel?

I don't mind when minor hints are left for a sequel (the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, the ending of Back to the Future) but I hate it when plots are introduced and then left for a sequel to resolve. What if you don't even get a sequel? Am I the only one annoyed that the Oscorp guy randomly vanishes? Are they saving that for a sequel too?

I can't remember much about Captain America so I can't disagree with you there but I don't see how The Avengers is just a giant trailer for the sequel. Yes, we know Loki borrowed his army someone but I think we all presumed it was just The Other and not Thanos. We don't even know The Other answers to Thanos until the very end and that's in a scene during the credits. I don't even think Thanos is going to be the villain in the Avengers sequel, but that's a whole other point.

Agog, blech, etc.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Agog, blech, etc.

:lol:

 

[ProjectX2]

I feel like everyone who likes the Sam Raimi movies dislikes this one and vice versa.

 

[Ice]

I feel like everyone who likes the Sam Raimi movies dislikes this one and vice versa.

Except me. I still like the Sam Raimi ones. Well, the firs two.

 

[ProjectX2]

To lighten the mood...

"If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, come and get it!"

 

[Ice]

I will forever love that picture.

 

[Bass]

agog (adj) - full of intense interest or excitement : eager

I used it wrong. I meant "aghast". (I think. I don't know anymore.)

When Connors calls to find out where he is, he's on his way to the veteran's hospital with the vial. The info for making more serum was on file at OSCORP (at least i assume it was since the info for making the antidote was...) It really does need to be explained what happens to Ratha, but to be honest, I didn't even notice the first time I saw the movie, and it didn't bother me the second time.

I felt I didn't need to know what happened to Ratha either time. Once the Lizard steps on stage, that's what matters.

Most of the motives for Spider-Man villains are pretty dumb but don't you think Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus had more character? They had a conflict (Norman vs. the Goblin, Otto vs. the arms) that I don't think was really explored much with Connors vs. the Lizard. And Doctor Octopus didn't want to destroy Manhattan, he wanted to finish his energy machine and prove that he was right but his arrogance/the arms kept getting in the way. I also think Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina were a hell of a letter better than Rhys Ifans.

I thought Rhys Ifans was perfectly fine in his role. I felt Willem DaFoe was great as Osborne, but the Green Goblin was awful. Doc Ock wanting to prove he was right isn't any 'better' than Lizard wanting to save humanity. As for the conflict; they didn't have more character. All three are precisely the same villain; good scientist corrupted by their science. In fact, it's worse in Doc Ock's case because he actively fights against himself during the story. Doc Ock saves the day in SPIDER-MAN 2. Not Spider-Man. The villain saves the day. If you don't have a villain, you have no story. Connors goes crazy once he becomes Lizard, and when he's cured, he goes back to being Connors. But as soon as the Lizard steps on stage, he drives the story until Spidey stops him. Green Goblin worked well, especially when he uses "Norman" as a way to drop Spidey's guard so he can stab him with the glider. But his lack of desire, plus the awful power ranger suit kinda made it hard to take him credibly as a threat. But I suppose the scientist/villain switch worked best in the Goblin if only for the "God bless you, Spider-Man" moment. That was class.

I don't mind when minor hints are left for a sequel (the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, the ending of Back to the Future) but I hate it when plots are introduced and then left for a sequel to resolve. What if you don't even get a sequel? Am I the only one annoyed that the Oscorp guy randomly vanishes? Are they saving that for a sequel too?

I agree entirely. This is why I find it odd: THE AVENGERS sets up its sequel just as much as THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN but you don't seem to mind. Usually, the sequel is teased at the end (in the examples you mention) but THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN teases its sequel in the beginning to get into the story, but it's clear it's not what this story's about. What matters really, is if the story is resolved. The Lizard and Spider-Man stories are completely resolved. The Oscorp thing is left open, just like Thanos is. The difference is the placement of the tease. I wasn't annoyed that Ratha vanishes, because I got he was not the focus of the story, but I was annoyed Thanos never showed up at the climax of THE AVENGERS because the whole film was pushing towards him and THE AVENGERS wasn't the first in a franchise, but the sixth movie in a series that was supposed to pay them all off. But I felt THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was just very clear: The Osborne stuff is going to get to the Lizard, and will be the thematic tentpole for the trilogy, and hey, if we don't get another, the Lizard story is resolved, he becomes Spider-Man, and you know what happened to his parents (mostly) and that Osborne will die. Without a sequel, the stuff Peter didn't find out about just end by themselves; but a sequel allows them to do something with those elements.

I can't remember much about Captain America so I can't disagree with you there but I don't see how The Avengers is just a giant trailer for the sequel. Yes, we know Loki borrowed his army someone but I think we all presumed it was just The Other and not Thanos. We don't even know The Other answers to Thanos until the very end and that's in a scene during the credits. I don't even think Thanos is going to be the villain in the Avengers sequel, but that's a whole other point.

I was convinced it was Thanos, but it wasn't so much Thanos I was expecting, but whoever his boss is. Thanos is teased just as much as Osborne is. In fact, I think more so: Loki is to Thanos was Ratha is to Osborne. If Ratha had become the Lizard and gone all bad-ass, it would've been horrible because that teases Osborne too much and you'd have to deliver. But in THE AVENGERS, Loki shows up, keeps saying he's working for some other guy, and no one seems to care, find out, and the other guy never shows up, and once they catch Loki they just disband, rather than asking Thor to, you know, work out who has a hard-on for Earth. So all that unresolved stuff is not only not sequel-baiting, but perfectly fine. But Ratha being pushed aside for the Lizard who has an agenda separate to Osbrone's is somehow intolerable. It's just not a fair comparison. The problem is you didn't care for Garfield's Spidey, so the flaw became unforgivable. But because you liked the cast of THE AVENGERS, you forgave that flaw if you noticed it at all. But both films share the same flaw, and structurally, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN deals with its sequel-baiting far better than THE AVENGERS because it uses it as a way to drive the opening of the story, rather than as a way to get out of having a climax.

Agog, blech, etc.

I was just wound up in general, not at you.

 

[Bass]

I feel like everyone who likes the Sam Raimi movies dislikes this one and vice versa.

It seems to be the most common, broadest response.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I feel like everyone who likes the Sam Raimi movies dislikes this one and vice versa.

Except me. I still like the Sam Raimi ones. Well, the firs two.

yeah, I'm with Ice. But I did like this one more simply because of the acting and chemistry between the characters.

 

[Ice]

Actually,

Spoiler

Thanos

isn't for the Avengers sequel. It was said s/he'll be in a later movie.

 

[Bass]

Really? That makes it even worse. At least you know Osborne is going to be in the sequel (or threequel), but Thanos might be some villain for some other film? Outrageous.

 

[mike3717]

I didn't think you were being a smart ass.

Sarcasm and smart assery don't always translate well in message boards. :wink:

 

[SSJmole]

I voted 4 stars. I watched it today. I loved it but had some problems. E.g the suit i hated design but lt still looked good. I didn't like Lizards face. But still a good film and spider-man is actually Spider-man in this!

 

[thee great one]

I'm agog at how these criticisms of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are supposedly destructive to the film when I can think of more egregious examples:

"Lizard is a stupid villain who goes has for no reason" - Green Goblin and Doc Ock both went crazy due to science. Doc Ock wanted to destroy Manhattan too, and Green Goblin just wanted his company back. If Lizard is crappy, so are they.

"Everything is left unresolved" - The burglar plot is resolved; Spidey gets that hunting the burglar is an immature, self-gratifying waste of time and decides to be a hero, not out of guilt over his uncle's death, but because he matures and accepts his responsibility by actually doing something heroic: he saves a kid and "gets" it. The parents are resolved from Peter's point of view: they died in a plane crash. They left him to hide the secret of their formula which is terribly destructive. We know there's more but it's clear those answers are for a sequel not this film and they balance it carefully. Contrast this with THE AVENGERS which put the villain off-screen into the post-credit sequence. The whole film is a trailer for AVENGERS 2: THE THANOSING. But apparently, that's okay to leave unresolved, but not Spidey. What's the whole deal with the tesseract in CAPTAIN AMERICA? It's okay we know little because, hey, it'll be in THE AVENGERS (except it isn't) but Parker's parents can't be held for for a sequel?

Blech.

THIS ^

The cast is amazing. The Lizard is just as crappy as any of the other villains. But everything else was solid.

I don't think it was better then The Avengers or most of Marvel Studio films. It was better then Raimi's trilogy combined. It rekindled the love of Spider-Man I lost a long time ago.

I do think this is Batman Begins for Spider-Man. That movie is a little inconsistent also. I would like to see a more polished Director's Cut though.

Plus I am in love with Emma Stone even more. I didn't know it was possible.

 

[Captain Canuck]

as evidenced by us not seeing Osborne's face on the big wall at Oscorp.

I felt Willem DaFoe was great as Osborne, but the Green Goblin was awful.

The Osborne stuff is going to get to the Lizard, and will be the thematic tentpole for the trilogy,

that Osborne will die.

But Ratha being pushed aside for the Lizard who has an agenda separate to Osbrone's is somehow intolerable.

Loki is to Thanos was Ratha is to Osborne.

because that teases Osborne too much

At least you know Osborne is going to be in the sequel

Not to have a Sheldon Cooper moment here, but it's spelled Osborn, not Osborne (and certainly not Osbrone)

 

[Synch]

i dug this movie... what i didn't dig was garfield's take on peter parker. man, he was a total dick, consistently. i didn't like that.

 

[DIrishB]

i dug this movie... what i didn't dig was garfield's take on peter parker. man, he was a total dick, consistently. i didn't like that.

I didn't find him to be a dick. He had a chip on his shoulder, sure, but I think that accurately represented the sense of abandonment he felt from his parents disappearing, also a good (if slightly cliched) reason for his being a loner. Flash was a dick, but the scene after Uncle Ben's murder and Flash trying to tell Peter he was sorry was well done, and was a cool way of showing more depth to the character, if only slightly. Peters attitude early on was also a means of establishing his character arc as a hero, initially succumbing to the shallow and selfish need for vengeance, but overcoming it, at least in part, by the film's end.

The movie had it's problems, but again I much preferred it to Raimi's films (and I liked those... well, the first two anyway).