The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[Carbo]

More faithful then the Rami movies.

No. No it's not. And It astounds me that people still dislike the Raimi movies enough to claim this, because it's flat-out not true.

Frankly I'm convinced that anyone who even makes this claim has never actually payed attention to the franchise's original inception and their stories, because with the exception of changing the initial love interest and bringing back the web-swingers, the reboot goes against it's origin and doesn't even pretend to hide it either. It has far, far more in common with modern Spider-Man.

[KHCast]

Peronally, I found the The Amazing Spider-man more interesting and entertaining then the Rami movies. There was just more life in this one, and I loved Andrews portrayal of Peter/Spiderman much more. So I wouldn't object to seeing this Spider-Man featured in the Avengers.

[AlphaRuby]

One more thing, Hans Zimmer has been confirmed to be doing the score for this movie. 

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Well, at least I know not to expect this score to be very memorable.

 

EDIT: Also, what was wrong with James Horner?

Edited July 20, 2013 by dwibs93

[Tornado]

No. No it's not. And It astounds me that people still dislike the Raimi movies enough to claim this, because it's flat-out not true.

Frankly I'm convinced that anyone who even makes this claim has never actually payed attention to the franchise's original inception and their stories, because with the exception of changing the initial love interest and bringing back the web-swingers, the reboot goes against it's origin and doesn't even pretend to hide it either. It has far, far more in common with modern Spider-Man.

 

Plus "X is more faithful than Y" isn't a rebuttal when no one was saying that "Y" was more faithful to begin with.

 

Should we call on Michael Keaton for the upcoming Justice League movie because Batman was more related to the comics than anything Adam West ever did?

[goku262002]

Wow cool this topic got remembered, thanks guys. I'll make adjustments to the first post isn't reffering to just the first movie anymore.

God no. Keep the crappy non-faithful continuity out of the Cinematic Universe.

Its not that bad I mean this Spider-Man reboot is doing good allot better then that other Spider-Man universe. and its not like MCU was 100% accurate to its source material either, no movie is.

[Toby]

Can we just all agree that both the Raimi and current movies both have their strong and weak points, and are both equally enjoyable in their own rights?

[KHCast]

Can we just all agree that both the Raimi and current movies both have their strong and weak points, and are both equally enjoyable in their own rights?

But...I didn't find the Rami movies all that enjoyable aside from a few parts here and there.:/

[Toby]

Personally, if they made a movie where Spider-Man was personified the way he was in Shattered Dimensions, that's all I'd ever need.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Personally, if they made a movie where Spider-Man was personified the way he was in Shattered Dimensions, that's all I'd ever need.

Honestly, if they put Mysterio in a movie, thats all I would ever need!

[Toby]

Oh man, I remember after Spider-Man 3, my poor teenage brain hoped and dreamed that a Mysterio played by Bruce Campbell would be the villain of the fourth movie! Sadly, dreams never come true.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Oh man, I remember after Spider-Man 3, my poor teenage brain hoped and dreamed that a Mysterio played by Bruce Campbell would be the villain of the fourth movie! Sadly, dreams never come true.

Oh yeah, Bruce Campbell would be perfect, just die his hair blond, and he would be perfect

[turbojet]

^ No, I don't really see that either. The only thing the Raimi movies did that I felt strayed away was that Spidey's personality was less fun and jovial and more just...bland heroicness. Whenever that version tried to wisecrack, it just fell flat on its face ("Here's your change!!!").

 

But all in all that's a really minor nitpick since there's a lot more to this character then just quipping, and the Raimi movies showed off the rest of his personality splendidly. For me, the issue with these two different movie-verses isn't that they're "not faithful". Both versions take different elements from past iterations of the character and do their own thing with them. I don't see one version as being more faithful than the other. I also feel like every new version is a more-or-less a blank slate. They're all allowed to do their own things, so long as they don't outright contradict what the character and mythos is all about. And neither of them have really done that.

Let's do a comparison:

 

The characters:

For one, we never saw the snarky Spider-man in Raimi. We saw the melodramatic constantly troubled Peter Parker who never gets his shit together. Of course, one could blame the overall seriousness of the villains, their relationship to Spider-man, and Peter's situation in the movies, but honestly, that's Raimi's fucking setup.  Green Goblin...yea, I can see Peter Parker not being snarky with him when Mary Jane is being thrown off the bridge, but that is one instance of Peter encountering him and not being snarky that is justified. What makes this completely alien to the comics with the exception of Ultimate is that the interaction between Spider-man and Green Goblin is this constant war with words as it is with punches. These two banter like no other at each other and it always has been for the majority of the Amazing's run. Doctor Octopus is another example of Raimi's setup of the character being the problem. Doc Ock is and always has been an unrepentant dick with no sense of morality other than being a completely selfish character that was bullied by students as a kid and made fun of by his peers. He always had a sense of inflated self-worth with little sense of humor. It doesn't matter the Universe or adaptation, Doc Ock is a dick. Spider-man 2's Doc Ock had this unnecessary sympathetic story of his wife being killed and Peter knowing of him prior to the accident. The interaction between Doc and Spidey in the comics is supposed to be like the internet troll meets hardened academic in which the latter is not putting up with the former's bullshit. I'm not going to bother with Spider-man 3.

Amazing Spider-man fucked up a few times as well with the Lizard as well as Peter Parker. If there ever was a need for a sympathetic villain, it was this one. Sure, the film did shine some light on the fact that Connors wanted to get his arm back that he lost in something, but what made this infuriating was the drastic change from Connors to Lizard. We, the audience, never sees Connors sympathetic side as him having a family that he cares about or wanting to play catch with his boy. We never see Connors, the decent human being, and all we see is a shady man on the onset turned megalomaniac reptile creature. Then we have Peter Parker himself. I, for one, don't see the problem of Peter never catching the guy who murdered Uncle Ben as much a problem as I see few things about his transformation to Spider-man an issue. For one, the meaning of the costume itself in all continuity's is essentially a reminder of Peter's sin. To explain, ask yourself why is he wearing the costume in Amazing Spider-man? Yeah, thought so. What is lacking is the relation between Uncle Ben's death and the costume itself as the costume serves as constant reminder to Peter Parker why he constantly should help people. When Uncle Ben died, Peter was wrestling...in the costume..when he shouldn't have been. Raimi actually did a somewhat decent job showing this and Bendis did a better job with it in Ultimate Spider-man(Peter was given the costume after wrestling a few matches and wanted to keep his identity secret from the promoter because he was underage.). I understand the need to modernize everything as there are no small time wrestler promotions worth mentioning in New York besides ROH, but that tidbit is kind of important to the character of Spider-man.

 

Mary Jane....oh my god. You want to talk about a complete bastardization of a character. I read somewhere that the Raimi movies did a good job of showing the romantic interest's goals were just as important as the heroes. Wait what? Okay, Peter Parker is a superhero that saves people's lives. Mary Jane was an up and coming actress. What fucking bothered me was how fucking uppity she got when Peter was late to shit or no showed things because he was too busy being a fucking hero. Mary Jane was never an entitled character as she was an extremely laid back person. Mary Jane never gave Parker shit for being a shitty boyfriend because she always knew that he was Spider-man even before he revealed it to her. Gwen Stacey did because she did not know what Peter Parker was doing in his alter ego. In fact, Gwen never knew why she was thrown off that bridge. She never knew why she was abducted by the Green Goblin. She just died. What made this more jarring is that in Spider-man 3, she kept up with the petty bullshit and started being jealous of Peter for the attention he was getting for being a hero. Umm...what? I hate this character. I hate this interpretation. I just ugh. Gwen Stacey in Amazing....she is hardly her own character. In fact, she pretty much is Gwen Stacey in name only as she shares more traits with Ultimate Mary Jane.

 

Any characterization of Uncle Ben is a relatively recent thing. In fact, in the main comics continuity, we never meet Uncle Ben prior to his death save for one panel so his importance is never known to the reader as it is to Peter Parker. So meeting Uncle Ben prior to his death is something of an anomaly in itself. In Ultimate Spider-man, we spend a five full issues with the character and Amazing Spider-man got it's Uncle Ben character from that. One can't say that Raimi was inspired by the Ultimate comics as the Ultimate line was just starting at the time of Spider-man 1. Hence why we have a rather shoe horned "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility line" from Uncle Ben compared to the Uncle Ben who never directly says the line and Peter just sums the speech up with 4 words. How he died is something completely different as well because Uncle Ben was murdered while he at home with Aunt May because Peter was out and about doing shit that he wasn't supposed to.He wasn't chasing Peter around nor was he annoyed that Peter did not pick up Aunt May. He was annoyed for Peter because he was slipping on his grades and was partying around and making out with his best friend's,Mary Jane, gal pal at a party. The fascination with Peter's parents is also something that came from Ultimate Spider-man as it is not of any importance to the reader...ever in the main line comics.

 

There is one thing that a super hero movie must do if it is referencing a series like Spider-man: they must keep it in character. It should be relatively easy to do that as the series has had multiple adaptations and  has been around for 50 years. I don't care if you change appearances or even ditched things just keep it together for the character. I don't watch an Iron movie and think that isn't Tony Stark on the screen and I shouldn't have to ask that about characters like Peter Parker, Mary Jane, and Gwen Stacey. Here is something about Raimi's bullshit that annoyed the fuck out of me. When making Spider-man 2, he sent a team of consultants to ask Brian Michael Bendis, who at the time was creator of the most successful Spider-man series, and asked him about a few quips they can use. So BMB writes a few lines that they should have Peter Parker say to Doctor Octopus. What does Raimi say about those lines? "They were immature." Completely missing the point of the character and from that point on, he was in full Tim Burton mode when making Spider-man. The draft of Spider-man 4 had Black Cat renamed to Vulturess and her being the daughter of the Vulture. Instead of being a thief whose sole purpose is to tempt Spider-man from living the mundane life, she becomes this completely different character that reeks of "from Raimi's ass." Not to mention that the movie would have had the Lizard shoehorned in as well as the other two so fuck. So to answer the question which is more faithful to the series...neither is more exponentially more faithful than the other as they take things from the comics without actually making them coherent as they are in the comics. Amazing Spider-man's reason was because it was just a rush job by Sony to retain the rights of Spider-man and was thankful that it had a huge fanboy in Andrew Garfield that was saavy enough to actually put his own input in the movie(any reference to Ultimate comics was from him). Raimi's Spider-man was just a template of the character while taking iconic scenes from the comics(Peter throwing his suit away) after the first two movies. After that, it was Raimi's intentional obliviousness of certain nuances such as a snarky Peter Parker, a not so bitchy Mary Jane, and a pension of sympathetic villains when they need not be sympathetic and constant fucking with things that should not be fucked.

 

And honestly, sometimes it is good to take after modern reinterpretations of Spider-man than classic. Norman Osborn, for example, was nowhere near as complex as a character as he is now.

[Carbo]

Its not that bad I mean this Spider-Man reboot is doing good allot better then that other Spider-Man universe. and its not like MCU was 100% accurate to its source material either, no movie is.

The movies in the MCU, with only rare exceptions, are almost completely faithful in terms of their origin inceptions, and that should always be the most important basis of any sort of adaptation where your goal is to make things come together in a way that can breathe fresh air in a franchise but also satisfy the fans of what made the enterprise so popular to begin with.

To wit; in MCU we have Iron Man - Tony Stark is forced to build a super suit to escape prison after he's held captive by terrorists who want his expertise in crafting weapons of mass destruction, and then uses the suit to fend off threats against the nation, people who want the technology or people out for him due to his worldwide notoriety. Thor - the brash and almighty god of thunder is stripped from his powers and sent down to earth by his father in order to be learnt a lesson in humility, and he recovers his abilities in due time for him to fend off an alien attack on earth. Captain America - a meek but good-hearted American, who doesn't even want to kill or fight any wars as much he just wants to protect the good from the mean-spirited, is offered a chance to enroll in a special serum program to become what is expected to be the first of America's next super soldiers. The situation goes awry and he's the only man who is privileged to be such, and he ends up fighting wars before events transpire that has him frozen for decades until he is recovered in an age where old-fashioned values are passed and the world is mostly at peace, causing an identity crisis and some required soul-searching. The Incredible Hulk - a scientist is exposed to gamma radiation in an accident and transforms into a hulking monster, having to deal with other scientific abominations, military and their top-lieutenant who also happens to be his love interest's father.

Spider-Man has always been similarly comparatively simple to get right. A genius but meek student who is often bullied and disrespected by his peers is miraculously granted super powers through sheer luck by a spider-bite. He ends up abusing this power, inadvertently causing the death of his uncle and father figure, and takes to him the creed of "with great power comes great responsibility", all while having issues balancing his normal life and the life of his alter ego. It was one of the super hero stories teens could relate most to and not hard to pull off at all, along with the inner personal conflicts already selling themselves as causes for some good character development. But that's drastically rewritten in the reboot - Peter is no longer an awkward teen as much as he's just pretty normal and wades between being a cool kid, an emo kid or just a generic kid. His origin is now changed up so that his parents birthed the cause of the spider. The reason he got his powers was because he stuck his face where it doesn't belong while looking for answers about his parents even though it's hinted that he was always meant to get the powers. The death of his uncle loses all the thematic meaning because it wasn't a cause of him abusing his power more than it was just Peter faffing about as his own character, and everything that builds the plot threads of the movie and his origin has been altered in a way to make it seem like he was always set up to be Spider-Man and that he's not just an every-man who could have been anyone else. An adaptation is required to compromise to a certain degree with everything surrounding it, not just because there's a degree of anachronism to be considered and certain archaic and simple themes that might not run through a massive movie audience but there's a difference between adding depth to the common known story by switching and connecting certain events of transpiring in order to create a more compelling character-driven movie, as opposed to completely rewriting it as a new spin simply for the sake of having a new spin, which in TASM's case is something that looks more like it's built around a modern design-by-committee filter, because TASM's origin story has more in common with Batman Begins than it does Spider-Man.

Now obviously that doesn't necessarily have to matter. But the issue with all these "we want Amazing Spider-Man in Avengers" pleas is that what's being asked is that all the extra carry-on baggage that was needlessly added to Spider-Man in the reboot needs to transfer to the MCU, and I could have understood those pleas so much more if the original movie was actually faithful to it's source material because it was simple to the point that there's no reason to question why the character should cross over with other properties. The changes that the MCU did to their original properties in order to establish a timeline were incredibly clever and subtle changes, which are only there for a more cohesive universe and depth, and they removed nothing from the original storylines that would eventually allow the characters to join together. The new Spider-Man movie is trying to be it's completely own thing removed from anything else out there, and that's fine. But there's a massive disconnect that just won't gel in because there's so much to consider. The new series is trying to create it's own new timeline and sprawling story, and that's just a lot of pointless bloat for something that's asked to be put in a universe where individual arcs and events shape the story rather than a thread of mystery.

Of course I wouldn't nearly have as big of an issue with the origin change if the movie wasn't completely inconsistent. The reboot is free to change all the details it wants, but the movie could never settle with exactly what kind of character the antagonist or even the protagonist was. I could barely tell that there was any change in character for Peter. In fact I never noticed "when" the significant character change occurred for him to become Spider-Man. Also for some reason, The Lizard just so happened to work with Peter's dad who both just so happened to work on the spider formula, who just so happened to work for Oscorp. Also Gwen Stacy just so happens to work for The Lizard. The entire narrative plot thread there is needlessly laid out for the protagonist to steamroll through the movie in a much too predictable matter.

That and the movie has too many plot threads and forgets just as many as well, such as the parents stuff, that it leaves the movie completely devoid and lacking of focus. The big end-credits stinger is stupidly shown in the trailer and it blows it's load so much in those trailers, even with the plethora of removed scenes, that it builds up a huge mystery that is completely forgotten about. This is why I'm incredibly wary about the sequel because it looks to, again, have too many plot threads spoiling the mix. It plagued TASM, and it plagued Spider-Man 3 as well. Too many things going on at once and too many villains means the movie ends up thinly spread.

Also the crane scene was and still is completely fucking stupid.

 

For one, we never saw the snarky Spider-man in Raimi.

But we did.

Hell in the original Spider-Man I can count four times that were perfectly timed and had me laughing:

* The Wrestling Scene.

* His two encounters with MJ, even though it was "romantic" snark.

* In the burning building with Goblin.

* At the Daily Bugle squaring off with Goblin.

Separating Peter Parker from Spider-Man was pretty much the entire point in keeping things faithful. He was allowed to be snarky as Spider-Man but could not compromise his normal character for it. Spider-Man 2 had to lessen it significantly because it was going through a significant character arc. In contrast, Spider-Man 3 was chock-full of them. No thanks to the Black Suit.

In contrast how many can I count in the new reboot that at least shows a difference in character between Peter and Spider-Man? Just one. The Small Knives scene. And that's because everyone keeps posting the damn thing as if it's high fucking comedy.

[Sami]

Not in the mood to write an essay right now, so I'll be brief -

 

The Raimi trilogy is more true to Spider-Man's original roots and feels more like an adaptation of the 60's comics.

 

The Amazing movie, ironically, is a lot less like the original Amazing comics and a lot more like the Ultimate comics. As far as tone and characters go, it's a lot more reminiscent of Ultimate than anything else.

 

To me? 60's Spider-Man had his time and place, and Ultimate is completely superior in just about every regard. I like the storytelling better, I like the characters better, and I like the tone better. Similarly, the Raimi trilogy is faithful to the 60's comic in that it keeps a lot of the hamminess and portrays the characters somewhat similarly (fuck Mary Jane, that is a shit character and a huge reason I can't stand those movies), whereas Amazing feels a lot more upbeat and modern, and for that reason, I vastly prefer it.

 

tl;dr - Ultimate >>>>> 60's. Amazing >>>>>> Raimi.

 

Also small knives was funny and the humor in general was way better in Amazing. And Garfield was a far better Peter/Spider-Man. And Gwen Stacy was a far better character and love interest. And Garfield and Stone together have far more chemistry than Maguire and Dunst ever did. And the two of them are far better actors in general. Actually all of the actors are better in the Amazing movie come to think of it. The characters are a hell of a lot more likable, too.

 

that was a long tl;dr.

[Scott]

Not in the mood to write an essay right now, so I'll be brief -

 

The Raimi trilogy is more true to Spider-Man's original roots and feels more like an adaptation of the 60's comics.

 

The Amazing movie, ironically, is a lot less like the original Amazing comics and a lot more like the Ultimate comics. As far as tone and characters go, it's a lot more reminiscent of Ultimate than anything else.

 

To me? 60's Spider-Man had his time and place, and Ultimate is completely superior in just about every regard. I like the storytelling better, I like the characters better, and I like the tone better. Similarly, the Raimi trilogy is faithful to the 60's comic in that it keeps a lot of the hamminess and portrays the characters somewhat similarly (fuck Mary Jane, that is a shit character and a huge reason I can't stand those movies), whereas Amazing feels a lot more upbeat and modern, and for that reason, I vastly prefer it.

 

tl;dr - Ultimate >>>>> 60's. Amazing >>>>>> Raimi.

 

Also small knives was funny and the humor in general was way better in Amazing. And Garfield was a far better Peter/Spider-Man. And Gwen Stacy was a far better character and love interest. And Garfield and Stone together have far more chemistry than Maguire and Dunst ever did. And the two of them are far better actors in general. Actually all of the actors are better in the Amazing movie come to think of it. The characters are a hell of a lot more likable, too.

 

that was a long tl;dr.

^ THIS!!!

 

This nailed my thoughts on Amazing Spider-man in comparison to Raimi's trilogy.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I love all of the Spider-man movies and despite what people say about Spider-man 3, it's one of my favourites.

 

Can't wait to see what The Amazing Spider-man 2 does!

[Chaos Warp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6Nh2OAFbrmk&t=259

 

Leaked footage of ASM 2, looks great and looks like even people who were not fans of the original might like it. Go to 4:19 in the video to see the footage.  

Edited July 29, 2013 by Chaos Warp

[Carbo]

Lol. Electro looks to be about as stupid/ridiculous as his design. Not sure I can take him any more seriously than The Lizard honestly.

Everything else looks okay I suppose. It still looks like it's all design-by-committee.

[Scott]

Love it. The personality is still there, the balance between humor and seriousness, everything! Can't wait!

[Tommy.]

Edit : Nevermind

Edited July 29, 2013 by KoalaPoop

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

Not in the mood to write an essay right now, so I'll be brief -

 

The Raimi trilogy is more true to Spider-Man's original roots and feels more like an adaptation of the 60's comics.

 

The Amazing movie, ironically, is a lot less like the original Amazing comics and a lot more like the Ultimate comics. As far as tone and characters go, it's a lot more reminiscent of Ultimate than anything else.

 

To me? 60's Spider-Man had his time and place, and Ultimate is completely superior in just about every regard. I like the storytelling better, I like the characters better, and I like the tone better. Similarly, the Raimi trilogy is faithful to the 60's comic in that it keeps a lot of the hamminess and portrays the characters somewhat similarly (fuck Mary Jane, that is a shit character and a huge reason I can't stand those movies), whereas Amazing feels a lot more upbeat and modern, and for that reason, I vastly prefer it.

 

With all due respect, this is a bit of a baffling point for two major reasons:

 

1. The reason Carbo was ranting about how close to being Spider-Man both movies were was because of the debate on whether or not this was the proper Spider-Man to stick into the MCU. Is this really the best representative of Spider-Man and his mythos, or is it just riding the modern trend which may or may not stick? Being up-to-date means nothing if it ends up dating or compromising your story for the sake of pandering to fleeting interests. I can't see people years down the line looking at Man of Steel with much fondness once the "put on Dark Knight's clothes and faff about for a few hours" trend lets up. But Superman can always be rebooted. If Amazing makes it into the DCU, then all of its flaws are sealed in with it. Can the current trends that guided Amazing last as long as the MCU? Only time will tell.

 

2. Source material, no matter how good, can be twisted. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream is a great short story, but a terrible video game. Superman the Animated Series is excellent, but serves as the basis for Superman 64. Point being, even if its foundation is the superb Ultimate series, Amazing, just like any adaptation, was entirely capable of screwing that up in execution or revision. Ultimate being great /= Amazing being great, and vice versa.

 

Sorry if that's incoherent, but my circadian rhythm is at its most removed right now.

[Sami]

With all due respect, this is a bit of a baffling point for two major reasons:

 

1. The reason Carbo was ranting about how close to being Spider-Man both movies were was because of the debate on whether or not this was the proper Spider-Man to stick into the MCU. Is this really the best representative of Spider-Man and his mythos, or is it just riding the modern trend which may or may not stick? Being up-to-date means nothing if it ends up dating or compromising your story for the sake of pandering to fleeting interests. I can't see people years down the line looking at Man of Steel with much fondness once the "put on Dark Knight's clothes and faff about for a few hours" trend lets up. But Superman can always be rebooted. If Amazing makes it into the DCU, then all of its flaws are sealed in with it. Can the current trends that guided Amazing last as long as the MCU? Only time will tell.

 

2. Source material, no matter how good, can be twisted. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream is a great short story, but a terrible video game. Superman the Animated Series is excellent, but serves as the basis for Superman 64. Point being, even if its foundation is the superb Ultimate series, Amazing, just like any adaptation, was entirely capable of screwing that up in execution or revision. Ultimate being great /= Amazing being great, and vice versa.

 

Sorry if that's incoherent, but my circadian rhythm is at its most removed right now.

 

I thought the movie was great though. I enjoyed the feel of it, the writing, the characters, and the direction. Only thing I didn't care for was the villain, and I also noticed that the pacing needed some work. Other than that, no complaints here. 

 

I don't necessarily like it specifically because it's like Ultimate, but I like it for the same reasons.

 

I also don't care for any of the MCU movies apart from The Avengers (though I haven't seen Iron Man 3 or Thor), so the "is it good enough for MCU" thing kinda falls on me, sorry.

 

 

EDIT - 

 

OH SHIT I JUST SAW THE NEW TRAILER. LKSDFHKJHSDF YES THIS MOVIE'S GONNA BE FUCKING AWESOME.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Discoid

[Balding Spider]

Yeah I too saw the leaked trailer. I'm not really impressed by what I saw.

[Kuzu]

Aaaaand its gone.

[Chaos Warp]

Aaaaand its gone.

Damn, should have downloaded it for my own reference. 

[Balding Spider]

Aaaaand its gone.

http://www.putlocker.com/file/AD3BB720BD808832

Edited July 30, 2013 by Balding Spider