12 Rounds: The Amazing Spider-Man vs. The Spider-Man Trilogy

One new movie better than all the old ones? Let's examine!

Follow RobGrizzly:
By RobGrizzly - 7/18/2012
Better than the old movies. That seems to be the overwhelming response to Marc Webb's The Amazing Spiderman. It's okay to like the movie, I thought it was fine, too- but the current continued trend of dogging on old movies just because something new has arrived is started to get out of control. To say people are overstating ASM as the "better" Spider-Man iteration is an understatement. I wanted to wait for more movies before making the comparisons, but my hand has been forced, and so I bring back 12 Rounds!

Last time, it was Nolan's two movies against Burton's. This time, since the consensus seems to be The Amazing Spider-Man is better than the others, it will be Webb's ONE movie against Raimi's THREE. Let's put this outrageous claim to the test!

As usual, one point is awarded for each round, with 12 total. However this time, overall we’ll be looking at 3 sections, each with sub-categories: Origins, The Superhero, and Personal Life. These are the most definitive aspects of Spider-Man to me. We’ll be strictly looking at comic accuracy, so “filmic’ material like cinematography, fight/action scenes, and even music (Elfman vs Horner?) won’t count. Unless we get a draw, in which case, these will be considered tie-breaking bonus categories. Maybe.

Oh, It's on! and btw, SPOILERS!!!



PART I, Origins



ROUND 1: Raised by Uncle Ben and Aunt May.

The genesis of Spider-man’s tale comes from an orphaned young Peter Parker left to the care of his eldrly aunt and uncle. There is a reason they are supposed to be old enough to be his grandparents, and that’s because Peter feels he has to take care of them. Its a tender relationship that is supposed to evoke how one feels about their grandparents. It’s why he strives to be a perfect student in school. This doesn’t quite come across in ASM, as Ben and May are aged down significantly, and seem very capable and self-dependent. Thankfully, this doesn’t really hurt the movie, but for accuracy, the first point goes to Raimi.



ROUND 2: Bitten by the radioactive Spider.

It’s all in the details. It’s pretty specific that Peter is bitten on the hand, and it’s been in every iteration of the origin, so I don’t know why they didn’t keep that. In Amazing, Parker stumbles upon some hard-working arachnids. (What were they doing anyway? It was like a spider sweat shop, lol) when he’s chomped on the neck. What does it matter, right? A bite’s a bite. Well it’s change for change’s sake and that’s a personal pet peeve of mine. Point to Raimi.



ROUND 3: Donning the costume and stardom.

One of the most believable and down-to-earth things about Spider-Man is that he was originally conceived to make a quick buck. Peter does the most realistic thing anyone would do once they got superpowers- he’d try to make some money! This conceit is a highlight of Raimi’s movies, as he brainstorms ideas and designs, and eventually makes his way into a wrestling ring, a crazy and natural fit for a concept like a “spider-man!” All of that? Omitted from ASM. Peter becomes Spiderman almost instantly after getting his powers, and we don't see the steps that get him there. Points obviously to Raimi.



ROUND 4: Death of Uncle Ben.

Now this varies quite a bit in both versions, but what they have in common is an abridged version that conveniently puts all the characters in the same place for necessity of moving the plot along. In fact, from the comics, Ben is killed at home when a burglar tries to rob the house. Aunt May feels guilty because she argued with Ben not long before the events. In the films, Peter gets to argue with Ben, but the biggest difference is in Raimi’s movie Ben bestows the knowledge of “with great power comes great responsibility” to Peter. Of course, Pete later comes to this understands the epiphany after he confronts Ben’s killer and the man dies.

Since they decided to save that for the sequel of Amazing Spiderman, Peter’s arc never completes in the film. Setting up for sequels is no excuse to not resolve narrative threads in the story you’re telling. It also doesn't help that Ben's death was clumsily handled.Points to Raimi.



PART II, THE SPIDER-MAN


ROUND 5: The Suit.

There was a hell of a hoopla about the outfit change, but honestly, I never understood the uproar. Style flourishes with the gloves and boots, and a different (more bad ass) Spider design don’t change what effectively looks like the same damn thing onscreen. What I did notice was how the suit was used. It is clear this is a more tangible Spider-Man, and Garfield himself spends a great deal of time in the actual suit- a complaint I always had with Maguire, who might have only been in there maybe 20% of the time. The drawback however, is that Andrew does look scrawny in the costume- more like one of us geeks cosplaying at comic con. It is noticeably obvious when they use CG to ‘fill him out’ during some of the action. Secondly, people applaud Garfield for being a Spider-Man that bleeds and bruises, but Maguire got his fair share of battle damage throughout all 3 movies too. This decision is a draw



ROUND 6: Powers and Abilities.

Abilities are basically the same. Wall-crawling and web-slinging are used effectively in both movies, with some creative touches, including playing a bit with visual spider motifs. His increased strength is also notable. The “proportionate strength of a spider” might be taken more to heart in Amazing Spiderman, as I don’t think this version of Spider-Man seems strong enough to stop a speeding train, but the point still comes across. And I liked the discovery of powers in both films. Particularly spider-sense, though I think Raimi gets a little more visual mileage out of the effect. It’s a bit more inconsistent in Amazing; There’s a particular scene in the sewers when The Lizard gets the jump on Spiderman and I wondered why his sense didn’t alert him then- since he was being so “in tune” to his surroundings.

But this all comes down to one specific difference. In ASM, Parker develops the web shooters. Yes this is a big deal. Remember the details? It goes both ways. Shooting webs was never supposed to be one of his powers. This subtle touch goes a long way to continue to highlight Peter’s scientific know-how. Mechanical web shooters might have just been lip service, since running out of webbing never becomes a plot issue (maybe in the sequel?) But at least now it will make sense when it does happen. And it doesn’t look like some organic spunk on his wrists. Webb wins.



ROUND 7: NEW YORK/CITY.

With Batman, he faces a never-ending war on crime, while choosing never to become like the killers he battles. Superman bears the burden of being looked to to protect the entire planet. One could argue the “great power/responsibility” slogan applies even more to him than old Web-Head. But the entire plight of Spider-Man as a whole is two-fold: unlike those other superheroes, he is a hero who actively has to juggle his dual lives, while also being misunderstood and persecuted by the very public that he's trying to protect. Raimi nails this. It is the essence of Spider-Man and it doesn’t quite come across in ASM. Peter never really has to deal with the stress of a secret identity. Outside of one instance, it’s not really having a negative impact on his day-to-day.

There is some vigilantism in the movie with Cpt. Stacy wanting to bring him in, but this subplot never really gets rolling because everything is more focused on The Lizard. And the absence of J. Jonah Jameson leave’s Spidey’s image in the city basically positive. There isn’t a sense of public menace with the people. Only the police captain. This is where it is clear to me Raimi simply has a better understanding of what makes Spider-Man work. From being late to important events (Mary Jane’s show, Thanksgiving, etc) to a conflict of interest at work, this is the heartbeat of the property; This is the character that acknowledges realistically, that being a superhero is a pain in the ass. Raimi wins.



ROUND 8: Villains.

This one probably won’t be fair, but let’s face it- people are declaring this single movie better than the whole of Raimi’s 3 films, so if that’s where we want to go, then we have to put Lizard up against all the badguys we’ve seen from the trilogy. A commonality with some of Spiderman’s rogues is their role of mentor before they turn into monsters/villains. This tends to make things personal for Peter as he battles them, and what’s more personal that fighting a man that is your only connection to your late father? While scenes with Peter and Dr. Connors are pretty great, the scenes with Spiderman vs Lizard are decidedly less so. Even people who like the movie confess the CGI-fest between these two at the end is probably the weakest aspect. Here, Lizard is something of a chatty terrorist, and they straight up rip-off the schizo-duality used in Spider-Man 1 with the Green Goblin.

Comparatively, even to Spider-Man 3, He’s not as sympathetic as Sandman, and not as dangerous as Venom, and what is with all the little lizards running around?

There needed to be more of a sense of Dr Connors coping with the freak he had become. Once he turns into the Lizard, he accepts it immediately, and begins plotting to use gas on the city (Didn’t we see this in Batman Begins?) to make others exactly like him for no reason. Even if it is from the comics, the motivation comes out of nowhere.

But villains has been where Raimi has had trouble, too. I hated the look of Green Goblin, retconning Sandman to kill Uncle Ben is a fail, and Venom was miscast and underused. All he really has is Otto Octavius. Webb would take this category, but Dr. Octopus > The Lizard, so Raimi barely gets by here.



PART III, Personal Life



ROUND 9: Household Responsibilities.

Because of the fragility of her age, Peter Parker’s top priority is taking care of Aunt May. Often her troubles stemmed from falling behind on bills, and Pete would do whatever he could to pitch in. This isn’t really shown in ASM, with the extent of May’s helplessness being that she had to walk home from work. Outside from that, she has NOTHING to do in this movie. Raimi’s films were always good about showing Peter giving up a hard-earned check to help with household debts. It should also be noted May had pretty strong opinions about Spider-Man, and this regularly gave Peter conflicted feelings when he came home. None of this is in ASM. Point Winner: Raimi!



ROUND 10: Taunted by peers.

A fundamental aspect of Peter’s personal life is how he’s treated at school. Which is to say he was taunted by his peers. This is one of the first aspects that comes across well in both movies. There is no shortage of bullying from star athlete Flash Thompson. Where Amazing finally gets an advantage is the establishment that Peter and Flash have known each other since they were kids. Also done well is Flash’s condolences when Ben dies and his Spidey enthusiasm by the end of the movie. This implies that he isn’t just a one-dimensional stereotype, but a person with more to him. I did miss Harry Osborne because it’s weird to see Peter without his best friend, but this is something they are saving for the sequel that is actually a good idea. Points to Webb.



ROUND 11: Love Interests.

One of the great things about Spider-Man compared to other heroes are the many women that have come through his life. But it basically comes down to two: Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy. Thusly, this argument boils down to Kirsten Dunst vs. Emma Stone. I think Raimi made two-times the mistake in his movies by setting up Mary Jane right off the bat, and casting Kirsten Dunst in the role. He’s stated he thinks she is beautiful enough to fit the role, but I think most would agree, by traditional standards, she was never hot enough to be MJ. Put on top of that, an actress who seemed to be increasingly disinterested as the films went on, and you have the recipe for a really bad relationship with the fans you make these movies for. And I won’t even get started on all the rescues!

The great thing about Emma Stone is she could have just as easily played Mary Jane Watson (she’s known to most viewers for her red hair, though she is naturally blonde). Stone brought a warmth to Gwen Stacy, though, and the chemistry between her and Garfield is Amazing Spiderman’s biggest strength. Gwen is brainy, but assured, and actually useful in the 3rd act! She’s the cool every-girl that appeals to most of the target audience. On top of that, Raimi brought in a Gwen Stacy of his own in Bryce Dallas Howard (A choice I couldn’t stand- I don’t like her creepy eyes) and still failed to do anything significant with her.

If I can give Sam credit anywhere, it’s that he offered a few more ladies to think about in Betty Brandt (Elizabeth Banks) and the mousey daughter of Parker’s landlord in Spider-Man 2. Even those two had more of a spark than Pete and MJ! The challenge in future movies will be Webb topping Gwen with his version of Mary Jane. But so far, yes, this relationship is better than the whole of the previous trilogy. Webb wins this one.



ROUND 12: Peter Parker.

The personalities of the two film Peter Parkers is probably the greatest difference between the two movies. First, just looking at the traditional core of the character, Peter Parker is marked with a slight inferiority complex, and a fear of women. He has an identity problem, and is racked with what psychologists would call 'Oedipal guilt.' Before his powers, he had considerably less than average strength, was uncoordinated and clumsy, had no athletic ability, poor eyesight, and a fear of heights- even getting a book from the top shelf gave him severe vertigo. Because of his overall awkwardness and status as an outcast, Peter was also characterized as bit of a day-dreamer, often wishing he was someone else or could be someplace else. This pretty much sounds like what Tobey Maguire played to a T.

People are waxing poetic about Andrew Garfield being the better Peter Parker, but clearly Tobey was the more convincing geek. Garfield, skateboards, showcasing early athletic prowess. He’s more confrontational, arguing a lot with adults, and straight out confronts bullies. By normal standards he’s even a good-looking guy. He’s basically kind of a cool guy- not a Peter Parker I’m familiar with at all. But perhaps if people keep saying this version is more like the Ultimate Spider-Man Parker, they will convince themselves eventually. Arguments usually lay on Maguire’s “emo” turn in Spiderman 3 as the major proof that he sucks, but in ASM, Garfield runs around in his hoodie, and after Ben dies, instead of showing guilt or acknowledging that this all might be his fault, he shuts everyone out and wraps himself up in a vengeance quest (which, again, isn’t resolved).
It’s a tricky case to argue, but this nuance is the difference in lamenting “Why me?” and whining “Poor me”. By definition, this is more emo than some dumb hairstyle in Spidey 3!

Something everyone wanted to see that is a big characteristic of Peter Parker, are the sarcastic quips he makes as Spiderman. Once he dons the costume, Peter can use his crime fighting as an outlet to basically be a smart-ass, since he has to hold his tongue during his normal daily life. An ‘edgier’ Parker leads you to believe this transformation, so I’ll give Webb credit here. It’s always hard to imagine Maguire being tough (even when we see it, lol). Now, personally, Spider-Man’s long-awaited jokey side wasn’t even funny for me, and actually kind of made me cringe, but props for trying.

But while people are clamoring for more jokes, many forget another huge aspect of Spider-Man: The Inner monologue. People underestimate how affective this is in understanding what Peter feels. Most versions of Spiderman I’ve seen and read, from the 90s cartoon and Spectacular Spiderman, to many comics, has had this. This introspective narration is unique to Spidey compared to most other superheroes, and I kind of missed it. This is a tough one. Tobey Maguire made one hell of a pathetic sad-sack. But Andrew Garfield actually brought the scientific genius to life. I’m calling it a draw.




So there it is. After 12 rounds of deliberating the defining aspects of a Spider-Man story, Raimi walks away with 9/12 while Marc Webb leaves with 5/12. Draws notwithstanding, SAM RAIMI WINS 7-3!!!. And I didn't even get into story issues like the Indian villain who disappears half-way through, or the much-touted "untold" backstory, that isn't even really touched upon in the film. It was kind of one-sided, but putting this article together helped to remind me, for all the camp Raimi injects in his movies, there is a clear love for the character; there is a heart that Amazing Spider-Man sort of lacks. It’s a shame, because I was championing a more Batman Begins approach, and I also thought the trailer looked, well...amazing. But the biggest shame is that people have been so dismissive of the first trilogy. It gets a lot more “right” than ASM does, but hey, all fans cared about was no more cheesiness, right?


“Property of Peter Parker”

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
5
LIKE!
29 Comments
BIGBMH - 7/18/2012, 5:39 PM
I only skimmed this, but I think you were pretty reasonable with your decisions. Obviously there are problems with comparing a movie to an entire trilogy, but if we're talking about the overall depiction of Spider-man's world, it your assessment makes sense.
Tainted87 - 7/18/2012, 5:42 PM
Hmmm.
Exercise a bit more self-control, man.

When I read the teaser, I thought for sure that this would be an article on how Webb blew Raimi away with just one movie. I thought it would be too silly to compare ONE movie's achievements to three, but still, you did it.

Listen, I don't think TASM was all that great - in fact I think it wasn't even as a good as Spider-man 3, but I'm among the variety who think that Spider-man 3 wasn't THE WORST CBM in the world - which is odd because I really really like my villains.

But live and let live.
Webhead007 - 7/18/2012, 6:05 PM
I personally think TASM won in all categories
Tainted87 - 7/18/2012, 6:07 PM
I did read this by the way, and truthfully, I do agree with the majority of your points, so please don't take my above comment as me dismissing this as garbage. I just think it's premature.

Two things though....

1)
Willem Dafoe was the best villain, hands down. Alfred Molina - he has some pretty awful lines which he tries to pull off with the utmost sincerity - and it doesn't work, particularly when he's talking to himself. Maybe not his fault, but if I blamed the script, I'd get crucified. There is also a bit less belief in Doc Ock falling from a skyscraper and somehow surviving - not just surviving, but is able to just walk it off like nothing happened. Green Goblin, does a few unnecessary stunts, such as the flip kick at the end, but his body is enhanced to be pretty much equal or even superior to Spider-man's. For Doc Ock, they also did not do the actual character justice. His decisions are made by an artificial intelligence. He is not a villain. In the comics, he is VERY much in control, is extremely intelligent and manipulative, as well as organized - he is the leader of the Sinister Six.

2)
This is where we let bygones be bygones, but I can't help but argue that Martin Sheen was infinitely a better Uncle Ben than the late Cliff Robertson. The scene at the school where he tells Gwen that Peter has a picture of her on his computer - fantastic. The scene where Peter and Ben are in the basement, loved it. Ben shouting at Peter because he forgot to pick up May, Peter's aunt and HIS wife who had to walk 12 blocks at night to get home - that was spirited, and it showed a greater family element than everything being about Peter.
soundwave129 - 7/18/2012, 7:18 PM
This was by far the best argument as to why Raimi still wins. It's the same reason I like The Avengers better than The Dark Knight: it felt like a comic book, cheesiness and all. Oh, and congrats on having probably the best article ending this year.
writerguy1976 - 7/18/2012, 8:39 PM
I thought this was a very good comparison. It actually was very similar to the review I posted the week it came out. (free plug for me, hehe) I think at the end of the day I would rate it like this Raimi's Orgin story vs. the ASM goes to Webb. The movie was not perfect but I did really like Andrew Garfield, and while not 100 percent true to the comics I actually enjoyed seeing a little less geeky Peter Parker on screen than what he is in the comics.

My basic take though is of the Spider Man movies, Spiderman 2 is my favorite. Does it have some cheese? Yes. Was Dr. Octopus different a little then the comics? Yes. Despite the rain scene with the erect nipples could Mary Jane have been better? Yes. But for some reason to me I just really like that movie. It is one of my favorite CBMs to date.

Amazing Spiderman was good, and entertaining and was much better than I had feared it would be, but I think at the end of the day we have yet to see an Epic Spidey film.

Oh and hear is a Anne Hathaway pic just because The Dark Knight Rises comes out in two days:
RobGrizzly - 7/18/2012, 8:44 PM
Thanks, guys! I just needed a forum to break it down.
Almost everyone I've talked to that liked the movie has also said they think this is finally "Spider-man done right", and I was like, whoa- hold on a minute! Are we sure?

Tainted87:
I actually completely agree with both your arguments. I quite loved Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborne. But that's basically whenever he's not in the costume! lol.
Doc Ock on the other hand, while not a purely evil mastermind like the comics, is still more menacing as a villain and more dynamic as a character than Lizard, who was just okay.

And yes, Spider-Man 3 is still better than a lot of CBMs. Like X-Men 3 or both Ghost Riders :)
RobGrizzly - 7/18/2012, 8:51 PM
Oh, and I did think Martin Sheen was a brilliant Uncle Ben. I loved the basement, and the school, and the fight. But that death scene was a mess to me. And ya gotta catch the robber! Spidey's shock when he finds who it is- that's the "Oh sh! This is all my fault!" moment that ya gotta have
Supes17 - 7/18/2012, 9:25 PM
Raimi's Spider-Man is still the best....
My reaction when ppl say TASM was better:

BooYah - 7/18/2012, 9:37 PM
I like Raimi's better too. Webb's movie has potential as a franchise but as of now its not even close to be as good as the original.
GoILL - 7/18/2012, 9:41 PM
This article was spot on IMO, TASM was a good movie it just did not give me that same feeling that I left the theater with after seeing the first or second Raimi film.
Tainted87 - 7/18/2012, 10:06 PM
I think I'm just a sucker for Dafoe. And the dinner scene where he's wearing blue and red, while Peter's wearing green and purple - sizing each other up, having a reverse Bond villain casino confrontation at the dinner table? One of my favorite parts.

The costume design was terrible, but it really didn't bother me as much as most. I mean there are certain things you have to accept - and the Green Goblin dresses up like a goblin, mask and all. Whether it was plastic or fabric, people would still complain. In hindsight, I'm just glad they didn't try to mutate him.
Jollem - 7/19/2012, 1:21 AM
good stuff

ASM is my favorite spider-man movie
it hit all the right notes
spider-man 2 is a close runner up
i liked the raimi movies, not comparing them
i did not grow up on the 90's cartoon
i did not grow up on the raimi movies
i grew up with comics
i could drive before cellphones were available to the public
i liked ASM better than the avengers
MercMatt - 7/19/2012, 8:18 AM
Liked your article, man. But to me, TASM is the better movie. Raimi made one good Spidey film and one great Spidey film. Spidey 3??? No! Webb has made one amazing Spidey film. Having watched it twice, I can honestly say that I came out smiling ear to ear, both times. I will admit, tho, that Molina's Doc Ock is still my favorite Spidey villain, in the films. I enjoyed the Lizard, but Ock's portrayal stands above the rest, imo.

WesleyGibson - 7/19/2012, 10:46 AM
My excitement for Spider-Man came from Raimi's film...sure I was too young to thoroughly understand or know the source material, but it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and Raimi's original Spider-Man is what drew me in to the world of comics, probably had the biggest impact on my life that a film has ever had.

My anticipation for The Amazing Spider-Man? Meh. Not so much of an impact on my life.
writerguy1976 - 7/19/2012, 1:31 PM
@jollum - Better than Avengers?? Your joking right?? Seriously??

@Murdock - yes the scene with the 20 bucks is a great part. Perhaps even the defining moment we have seen of the Spiderman movies. You want realistic? That nailed it.
6of13 - 7/19/2012, 1:55 PM
I agree with your points.

It seemed to me that Connors's actions was more out of a temporary insanity due to the serum. So because he was insane, I don't think he really needs that much motivation.

Also, I think the music from Raimi's trilogy is beteer and more memorable than TASM.
Jollem - 7/19/2012, 2:28 PM
@writerfellow - not joking at all, sir. spider-man has been one of my favorite characters since i discovered comic books. ASM captured spider-man for me and that is why i liked it so much. great relationships and a whole bunch of awesome action and fight scenes.

i never purchased one avengers comic ever. i've paged through a bunch and read many avenger stories with a lot of their many different team iterations.(they've had like, over a hundred different teams if i'm not mistaken)

i've certainly never known anyone to be fan of the avengers themselves in comics. surely not the original team, that's for sure. and there was not ONE fan i knew EVER of iron man before the movie came out.

in my town there is a pretty decent comic shop that gets populated and i have known many geeks that i went to school with. i have known people to like a couple individual team members separate from the avengers. my older brother happens to like the hulk separately from the avengers. just solos. pretty much the same thing with my youngest brother. his favorite is cap. just the solo books.

i liked all the marvel studios movies. went to midnight showings for all of them. they're just not my guys, ya know?

give me the Marvel Knights, those are my guys :)
ralfinader - 7/19/2012, 2:47 PM
Great editorial! I like how you presented it, and agree on almost every point. I thought Spider-Man 1 did a better job, if not so much in line with the comicbooks, of showing the scope of all of Spider-Man's powers, like his Spider-Sense (the power that truly makes Spider-man one of the more powerful superheroes IMO).
Tainted87 - 7/19/2012, 6:55 PM
I refused to accept the "Spider-man" of TASM as an actual Spider-man. Nothing against Andrew Garfield - I liked him well enough, and he has great potential. It's actually more about Peter NOT being Spider-man, not being a hero, but is actually as self-centered as Tony Stark - he just doesn't have the billions to play with.

My argument, and I'm sticking to it, is that Peter doesn't help people just for the hell of it. This is New York City, one of the most dangerous urban cities portrayed on the big screen, and how many people does Peter actually save from the every day criminal? How many rapes averted? How many muggings stopped? How many bank robberies foiled? How many burning buildings evacuated?

The people he saves - they are all in response to what he believes he is responsible for, which is the creation of the Lizard. Some argue that he raced off the bridge not knowing what to find, and they would be half-right. Why does he go to the bridge, however? As I pointed out, there has to be a hundred other crimes he could be preventing...

He races off because Captain Stacy is called to that particular scene, and because he had a debate at the dinner table with Gwen's dad, he felt he had to prove him wrong about Spider-man.

Now that the origin story is out of the way (again), perhaps they can actually show us Spider-man, and not the mutant-hunting vigilante known as Spider-man.
Tainted87 - 7/19/2012, 8:07 PM
@TheWallCrawlingMenace
If you read my first comment on this article, you'd see that I'm against comparing an entire trilogy to one movie.
Jollem - 7/20/2012, 2:36 AM
@SotoJuiceMan - yes. i agree with a lot of what you said there. i'm not putting anyone down by saying that either. i myself have yet to hear one real, decent, valid point or argument as to why ASM is a poo-poo film. i'd rather not debate webb spidey vs. raimi spidey but i can and will. i'd rather hear someones valid point(s) basing the movie on it's own merits for a change.

i loved the raimi spider-man films, but, i wuz already growed up when i saw them in the theaters. i think i was 7 when the first tim burton batman film came out? and ya know what? i had NO qualms at all about this nolan fellow that was going to reboot my burton batman films. cuz you know what? i figured more batman was a good thing.

i know there are a lot of people that grew up with the raimi spider-man movies and they have a connection to them because so, and that is awesome in my book. but, to hate on any new spider-man movie that comes out afterwards because so is kind of silly to me. what, they were never supposed to make another spider-man movie ever again? ever? i think some people get/got really defensive over the new spider-man like the people involved were trying to say that their movie is/will be better. no, that is/was not true at all. no need to be defensive. from all the interviews with the various ASM people, they have let you know they were/are all fans of the raimi spider-man films.

years down the road, when the webb/garfield spider-man movies are all said and done, i hope at some point in time they reboot again. give me more spidey. what's wrong with seeing spider-man on the silver screen? nothing, if i were to be asked.
Tainted87 - 7/20/2012, 6:57 AM
@SotoJuiceMan
Gonna have to cut this short because I have to go to work soon.

Actually, in the first, and second movies, Spider-man is doing the "mundane" things - he stops the robbery of an armored truck, nails a thug robbing a store, rescues a baby from a burning building.... this is just in the first movie. And that's the only comparison I would really make, considering the two are origin stories.

It actually makes a lot of sense.

So I'm a manager at McDonald's. I haven't even clocked in yet. I'm walking to the office to get my checklist when I see that there's a bunch of food about to burn in the fry vats, with the machines beeping rapidly and everyone has their hands full - they can't respond immediately. So I pull them up. Easy.

Anyway, off to work.
DanteSparda - 7/20/2012, 10:18 AM
When I saw The Amazing Spider-man I wasn't thinking "hmm is this best than Raimi's movies? There are a lot of changes..", I was actually thinking "This is a much more needed change", I mean sure Spider-man 3 sucked, but even if it wasn't so bad I'm sure people would start noticing how the franchise was starting to become stale, I like Raimi movies a lot (not only the Spider-man ones), but seriously I don't think he could make 4 good Spider-man movies without making them too similars or without repeating the same formulas.

@RobGrizzly

I agree with you on those points, except for the fact that you don't take in mind the Ultimate Spider-man comics because TASM had a lot of influence from them, which I liked a lot and I think if Spider-man had to be rebooted then they should try to take him in a different direction than in the first movies.

The only crittical fault I see in TASM is that it's way too similar to the first 2 Spider-man movies (except in tone of course), so I have high hopes for the sequel, but I think they should take a completely different villain formula, my idea for The Amazing Spider-man 2 would be having the Kingpin as the main villain, with one or 2 super villains as evil henchmen that could be Shocker, Rhino or Kraven, but most importantly to have a scene between Spider-man and the Kingpin near the begining that puts the whole plot in motion, an scene like this one but with the Kingpin in place of Tombstone:

6of13 - 7/20/2012, 1:45 PM
In regards to Doc Ock using a built in AI to control the tentacles: Doc Ock does not experience any tactile sensations when using the arms, so there is no way he can control how much force to use when grasping or picking up an object. He could pick up an object and accidently crush it or maybe he could not even pick it up at all. To avoid that he needed the AI make a few judgments of its own i.e it determines grasping force, subtly of movement, proximity etc.
Tainted87 - 7/20/2012, 5:11 PM
Not saying an AI is a bad thing, but having the AI's self-preservation take over Octavius is just bad writing, but I know many will disagree.
Tainted87 - 7/20/2012, 7:28 PM
@TheWallCrawlingMenace
Should have quit while you were still ahead, man.

What is your definition of "pointless characters"?

Do you look at everyone but Peter, the villain, and the love interest as pointless characters? Extras in a movie?

There's this movie - "Closer", it's something of a melodrama, but it's one of my favorites. The cast of four are the only characters (apart from one or two off-screen voices which only serve to move the scene for a second) who have speaking lines. Natalie Portman, Clive Owen, Jude Law, and Julia Roberts.

Spider-man, or any movie with an actual plot - CANNOT have that going on. Simply can't. There has to be a handful of characters that I'll refer to here as atmospheric.

What is the point of Flass in Batman Begins? He is a representation of the corrupt police force.
What is the point of Agent Coulson in Iron Man? He is a representation of a secret organization wise to Stark's transactions.
What is the point of Robbie in Spider-man? He is a foil to Jameson to show that not everyone at the Bugle is out of their mind.
What is the point of the Ice Princess in Batman Returns? She is a comical representation of how embarrassingly ignorant and clueless Gothamites are.

But these characters have a pretty clear, defined purpose in their respective film(s).

Let's talk about the incredibly atmospheric Spider-man 2 - the reason why I regard it as the second best Spider-man movie (not why it is second to the first one, but as a good movie and not average or mediocre).

Spider-man 2, like all the other movies, is set in NYC, an incredibly dense and populated metropolis. NYC, like Chicago, where my family grew up, is a gigantic melting pot of different cultures, different races, different religions, different foods, different nationalities, different finances, etc. While Spider-man 2 explores a bit of what it is like to be Peter Parker in the Big Apple, it honestly doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It does, however, present the audience with a bit more realistic depiction of living in poverty in a big city that doesn't give a damn about you.

The scene in the beginning, which is pure Raimi - where Peter is trying to get out of the janitor closet unnoticed while all of these brooms keep falling out, and he is repeatedly trying to straighten it, and failing quite miserably - while the secretary watches almost amused.... and then he is late, which she announces, as well as the declaration that she's not paying for it.

That is essentially Spider-man without the costume and powers. No matter how hard he tries, he just can't catch a break, but he doesn't give-up.

These characters who the main cast interacts with - they are there to present a theme relevant to the story. The guy in the elevator - awkward moment. Spider-man's powers aren't working - that's weird.

What characters in Spider-man 3 are actually pointless?
CaptainAmerica31 - 7/20/2012, 8:31 PM
Oh my god if you call peters parents useless characters you are pretty dumb, the reason they didn't "go anywhere" was becasue they're saving things for the sequel. Also Peter becomes the real spiderman at the end, remember he wasn't out there to fight crime, he's out getting revenge. Also the lizard was something he felt guilty about becasue he created him so he wanted to stop him before he hurt anyone. This movies character development is great and better then SM by far. We get better reasons as to why Peter becomes spider-man, he isn't just thrusted into heroism after his uncle dies, he goes through much more. He saves a kid, he saves a school, he saves a city, but he can't save Stacy. It took him that long to notice why he needed to use his powers for good. I'm sorry but TASM blew spider-man out of the water, spiderman was so stale and its character development was almost non existint Peter becomes spiderman after one tragedy, he learns only one lesson. It's not very strong, in TASM It took more.
Tainted87 - 7/21/2012, 8:12 AM
@BattlinMurdock
I don't think anyone who has opposing views is really trying to get our points. We're talking to a wall.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.