Did The mistakes of The Amazing Spider-Man Actually Make It Better?

Find out how the mistakes of The Amazing Spider-Man gave the character more attention, and made the film better.

Follow CaptainDC:
By CaptainDC - 7/7/2012
Did The mistakes of The Amazing Spider-Man Actually Make It Better?



I’m sure all of you by now have seen the Amazing Spider-Man. In my opinion, this film is much better than Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man 3 (2007), and just beats out Spider-Man 2 (2004). Andrew Garfield was a great spiderman, and the cast as a whole was very good. But to be completely honest, I am not a huge Spider-Man fan. Before this I thought Spiderman was a p**sy, and I just never really cared about him. However, after this movie I started to go to Netflix and watch the original series, read articles about speculation and reviews, and even looked at various Spiderman characters. In a span of 4 days I grew to love Spiderman, and I cannot wait for the sequel. Interestingly enough, I believe this all happened because of the mistakes of this movie.

If that last sentence confused you, this paragraph will clear things up a bit. As a lot of people did love this movie like I did, people did notice some mistakes. The biggest mistake of the Amazing Spider-Man is that they barely went into the “untold story.” Many things such as his parents, the robber and Osborn were left out. What’s the point of saying you’ll tell the untold story if you don’t even tell it? Critics, fans, and even my friends all asked me the same question. As this is somewhat of a let down, it has actually made the movie and the hype for Spider-Man a lot greater.

Because we don’t know who was in that last scene, what really happened to his parents, who his parents were, and how did he get his power, us fans can now speculate what could and will happen. Go across the web, you’ll see millions of people asking these same exact question. What these mistakes have done is make people WANT a sequel, and people now can talk for hours on what they believe is the truth.

Were his parents CIA agents? Were Peter’s powers activated through the spider bite that his father bred? Only time will tell until we know these answers, and with scenes cut out, and promised information gone missing, Spiderman fans will continue to speculate for months on the truth. I was not expecting to become a Spiderman fan, but this movie and the speculation has driven me to become a huge fan.

To sum this article up, through the mistakes of the Amazing Spider-Man, fans and viewers have devoted more attention, speculation, and criticism of the movie. These chain of events has allowed Spider-Man to expand, and has turned the prior fun trilogy into a new franchise with fans dying to figure out and discuss what will happen.



Again this is my opinion, be sure to leave your own opinion in the comment section below, and don't forget to hit the THUMBS UP (Y) BUTTON if you want this conversation to heat up!

-CaptainDC
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
2
LIKE!
25 Comments
kelethin - 7/7/2012, 12:47 PM
God, who the hell cares about his parents.
2460178 - 7/7/2012, 1:06 PM
If the sequel has plans to be as talk driven as its predecessor, it needs snappier dialogue. I'm not saying I want him working on the sequel, but an Aaron Sorkin-type couldn't hurt. The dramatic scenes weren't boring, but they needed a little more snap. A little more attentiongrabitude.

And for ****'s sake, the sequel doesn't need a scene full of malformed Godzilla references.
ironpool007 - 7/7/2012, 3:22 PM
I don't think these were mistakes. They were purposely introduced, and left unresolved so that they could be elaborated on in the sequel.
Tainted87 - 7/7/2012, 4:40 PM
I'm with BattlinMurdock, the mistakes were sloppy and careless. I just saw it today and I think they teased some bits, but forgot they were teasing them. Or maybe they were inserted because the producers expected them to be there, and just didn't care about elaborating.

Take Flash for instance. He's a bully, then he gets bullied, and Peter's uncle dies. Peter grabs him, shoves him up against a locker, and suddenly Flash is sympathetic to Peter's pain - but it ends there. Next we see, the two are buddies, and Flash is idolizing Spider-man.

Or how about the Lizard and the faux internal struggle that suddenly became "[frick] Peter!" ?

Potential wasted.
lapress - 7/7/2012, 9:34 PM
what happened to the mutated rat that Peter found!?
PIDAMANE62 - 7/7/2012, 10:35 PM
MOST ALL OF WHAT YOU SAW IN THE MOVIE IS NOT A MYSTERY---IT HAS A SOURCE MATERIAL THAT APPARENTLY NO ONE ON THIS SITE KNOWS ABOUT.

First off, the movie is based (in part) in the marvel universe everyone is familiar with and loves. but a lot of the material in the movie comes from the marvel ultimate universe as well. Peter's parents are not secret agents--they are biochemists. next, all this stuff about sloppiness in the movie is the assumption that people are making that all the events take place in a week or a month or whatever. the truth is that the movie takes place over a period of months, possibly a whole school year.
everyone is asking: who's the guy at the end credits??? jesus christ bananas, it's obviously Norman Osborn---the fact was stated that peter's father richard WORKED for osborn and the innuendo his assistant made to connors that he sounded "just like richard just before he died" suggests they were murdered by oscorp because richard refused osborn, just as connors was attempting to.
the only persons who then would be familiar with peter parker AND his parents and connors that was THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IN MOST OF THE MOVIE---it isn't that hard to follow.
i understand the general public isn't that familiar with the ultimate universe version of marvel but they should be. ultimate spider-man is an awesome series that if you like spider-man you should read ultimate spider-man as an updated remix. don't believe me? familiar with spider-man history? get familiar with ultimate spider-man. all the different takes of the movie almost completely come from ultimate spider-man. here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Spider-Man

by the way, this article needed more research. this site is comicbookmovie.com and should be a little more familiar with comicbooks. ultimate spider-man has been a popular title for 12 years.
2460178 - 7/8/2012, 6:32 AM
Familiarity with the source material does not make up for plot holes in a film. You can't assume your audience knows everything about the source, and frankly, you shouldn't.

If you were to adapt The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and left out the Bjurman subplot, then continued the cut subplot in the sequel and get faulted for it, that's not due to audience negligence. What are you going to do, put a little message in the middle of the credits that says, 'Yeah, you probably should've read the book first'?
xStarLordx - 7/8/2012, 7:51 AM
He was caught up in being spiderman and stopping the lizard. Thats why the untold story wasn't completely told.
Tainted87 - 7/8/2012, 8:26 AM
That's like me saying:
"Hi, how may I help you today? Just to let you know, we have our six-piece chicken nuggets on sale today for a dollar, as well as a buy one, get one for a penny sale on our Big Macs and Quarter Pounders. Unfortunately, because I took the time to tell you all of this, I will be unable to take your order at this time, as it is now midnight and the sale is now over."
CaptainAmerica31 - 7/8/2012, 11:56 AM
I think the general audience relieized that a lot of the sub plots are left for the sequel and we just want to know more. I honesty don't mind they left some things out for the sequel because it's clear this is gonna be a series of movies that have one central plot line( parents).
SoulReaver - 7/8/2012, 1:45 PM
@PIDAMANE62: I don't believe that you saw the Rhys Ifans interview. He stated that the character at the end credits definitely WASN'T Norman Osborn. He stated that it was somebody who worked for him.
ineedausername - 7/8/2012, 1:53 PM
the movie had ups and downs and they need to work on not making those mistakes in the sequel
teq151 - 7/8/2012, 5:36 PM
Hey I totally agree with PIDAMANE62. he pretty much said what was on my mind. the guy at the end coulda been octavious
CapFan79 - 7/9/2012, 4:20 PM
I've seen a lot of lame complaints. They clearly are intending to draw it out. If Peter's parents worked for OSCORP then their "untold story" has more to do with Norman than likely even Dr. Connors. This was a set up for bigger sequel.

I thought this movie was better than any of the 3 prior Spidey films and can;t wait to see more...and I was very "MEH" about it prior to seeing it.
ditto4fun - 7/10/2012, 4:12 AM
love the movie but hate the final cut by sony
too many good scenes missing
GodzillaKart - 7/11/2012, 2:12 PM
I think the mistake is calling these unfinished plot points "mistakes". Webb knew what he was doing when he left us hanging. They are not called "cliff-hangers" for nothin'.
JohnCrye - 7/14/2012, 10:30 AM
The "mistakes" you reference were not problems with the film, but with the marketing. If the advertising had never promised to tell the untold story, you'd never have expected it in the first place. Try to view the film - and all films - on their own merits, not on the merits of the marketing. That said, the "teaser" scene that Sony added was a pale imitation of Marvel's similar teasers. The mysterious figure was unrevealed for the same reason that Oscorp has a giant poster of Norman Osbourne in their lobby... with his face shaded out. No company would do that, but a studio that had yet to cast Norman Osbourne would. It's not a mistake, per se, but evidence of Sony's lack of faith that there would be a sequel.
tripttwe - 7/15/2012, 3:02 PM
@JohnCrye- Interesting observation. I think the lightning is used as a nod to Electro, and I believe that's who it is. If not, what'd be the point in the lightning strikes prior to the mystery man's appearance and departure?
SoapDogg - 7/18/2012, 1:38 PM
I've said it before, but I honestly don't believe these are mistakes (or plot-holes) in the movie. I believe questions were left unanswered for a reason and will be answered later on to better tie in the sequels to the first movie. Which I am super stoked about!
Emanuel14 - 8/14/2012, 6:29 PM
YOU COULD MAKE A LIST, LIKE:

1:

2:

3:

BUT no,YOU PUTTED ALl TOGHETER,NOW SHIT'S [frick]ING BORING TO READ
moverdrive - 8/27/2012, 10:53 PM
A fun movie, but not really superior to 2002. Sorry. Garfield did a nice job, but just felt a little too Shia LeBouf...and while a reboot 15 minutes after III came off better than I anticipated, it was hard to get super-inspired...'what!?...a spider bit him?' 'what?...he has angst?' There just wasn't enough time to create a suspension of disbelief (or moments of boredom).
Ym3robot - 10/7/2012, 10:11 PM
Here we get an artical from someone who admits that he was NEVER a spiderman fan but became a huge fan in a span of four hours after reading and watching older spiderman comics and shows. You claim this was better than any of the raimi films? Are you freaken nuts?
Yes Garfield made a good Parker/spiderman, But so was Maguire! they represented their respected versions of spiderman from different decades.
I'm in my forties and have always been a spiderman fan all my life and I have to tip my hat to Stan Raimi who actually loved and cared about the character enough to do it right. Look at the cast of all of his movies and how thay all were perfect for their respected roles.

Sally field for instance is a great actress and I'm fond of her but can you honestly say that she was the perfect person for the role of Aunt May? did she even look like Aunt May?
Other than Garfield in the movie, the rest of the casting was awfull. The Raimi Movies were perfect. Try watching the amazing Spiderman again when the DVD is released in nov 9th and then was the first Raimi film and then compare the two. If you still prefer the new one then your nuts!
redhood8888 - 10/30/2012, 12:39 PM
How is not wrapping up every story line considered a mistake. Im sure they knew there were sequels 2 come & there just telling these stories over a span of time. Not a movie mistake but bad marketing claiming 2 tell the whole story of his parents. Which would've taken the whole movie. Besides the look of the Lizards face I thought it was an absolute brilliant adaptation. They defiantly should've kept him in his lab coat 4 longer then the 8 seconds he was. That was the only time I thought he actually reminded me of the comic version. The cast was amazing & I hope they dont change a thing. The Rami movies r much more like fantasy movies that play as if in a different dimension when Amazing Spider-Man was in our world. I love them playing the threatening side mixed with finally the right sarcastic humor. I hope they continue to show his dark side as well & grow on that. Can't wait 2 see Electro In that world.
OriginalGuardiansPlease - 11/10/2012, 6:36 PM
This movie was basically better than the 3rd movie but not as good as the 2nd movie...

i dont know where they get writers these days but there were too many "stupid" moments. It was a fun movie and i liked it however it could have been better.
Willy249 - 12/10/2012, 7:32 PM
They included the robber (you are right about osborn and his parents).

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.