Amazing Spider-Man Thread (New Trailer)

focus

Stopping the runaway train in Spidey 2 is still the best action sequence in any of the Spidey movies.

I say Spider-Man 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man are equals.

With that said, Toby's Spider-Man lost for trying to marry Mary Jane without ever fucking. Their whole relationship <<<< Andrew and Gwen. There was never even a hint of evidence that Tobey was fuckin Mary Jane in the original trilogy. Dude bout to propose, but they still sleeping in separate beds in the third movie? Andrew smashed Gwen like the second time he was in her room, didnt he?

ghost!

blackrain wrote: »

Gwen Stacy wasn't in Spiderman 2 but on the Spiderman 2 dvd extras there's a special called THe Women in Spiderman's life and Stan Lee says the movie version of Mary Jane is a combination of Gwen Stacy (the girl he knew all his life) and Mary Jane (the girl he ends up marrying)...hence why throwing Gwen Stacy into the 3rd movie made no real sense because her and Peter Parker already have an established history....that and the way it was written was just plain terrible

iF you looked back into this thread you would see that i never agreed with spiderman 3, so that point is irreverent because not many will every say spiderman 3 was good. And again, the movie broke records(spiderman one) please bring in any article claiming spiderman one; had huge plot holes, horrible pacing, or went away from the comic book which inturn snowballed the rest of the movie downward???

blackrain wrote: »

I know not everything is going to be exact to the comic book and I wasn't expecting it to. I'm not that fan that expects a 100% recreation, I even said earlier in this thread that I liked how in the Amazing Spiderman they did a twist on the whole Peter/Flash angle on how they start to become cool with each other so you're 100% wrong about that. As for the web shooters, that's not just a small detail, that's a huge detail to what makes Spiderman, and it was something that threw many people off when the first movie came out in 2002. It's not just about big moments because that's a main part of the character and,as shown in The Amazing Spiderman, contributes to Spiderman having to find different ways to beat different villians. It's not just some random shit that happened every now and again or a minute detail to the story of Spiderman, the web shooters and Spiderman's webbing were a consistent thing brought up.

How is Peter and Flash being cool really matters??, how is that relevant to it being good movie or better then the very first??...it was about connors and peter, and peter's parents..now a secondary character done differently was ok by you, but Peter shooting webs from his wrist throw you off? I mean he gets bite by a spider, why should the movie goers not think he can shoot webs from his wriste, he can stick to the wall, so why not?? It's not that far fetch of an idea..given the fact alot of these movies are done with the directors change things up,

the movie (spiderman one) was a huge success with very little (if any) negative comments...so to the masses (which alot of them being comic book fans) actually liked the movie..and the movie actually became the jumping off point; for a rash of comic book movies to come out..plus this movie took some of the aspects of the first movie...i would say...in reality the movie was alot better then you're trying not to give it credit for...

blackrain

ghost! wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

Gwen Stacy wasn't in Spiderman 2 but on the Spiderman 2 dvd extras there's a special called THe Women in Spiderman's life and Stan Lee says the movie version of Mary Jane is a combination of Gwen Stacy (the girl he knew all his life) and Mary Jane (the girl he ends up marrying)...hence why throwing Gwen Stacy into the 3rd movie made no real sense because her and Peter Parker already have an established history....that and the way it was written was just plain terrible

iF you looked back into this thread you would see that i never agreed with spiderman 3, so that point is irreverent because not many will every say spiderman 3 was good. And again, the movie broke records(spiderman one) please bring in any article claiming spiderman one; had huge plot holes, horrible pacing, or went away from the comic book which inturn snowballed the rest of the movie downward???

blackrain wrote: »

I know not everything is going to be exact to the comic book and I wasn't expecting it to. I'm not that fan that expects a 100% recreation, I even said earlier in this thread that I liked how in the Amazing Spiderman they did a twist on the whole Peter/Flash angle on how they start to become cool with each other so you're 100% wrong about that. As for the web shooters, that's not just a small detail, that's a huge detail to what makes Spiderman, and it was something that threw many people off when the first movie came out in 2002. It's not just about big moments because that's a main part of the character and,as shown in The Amazing Spiderman, contributes to Spiderman having to find different ways to beat different villians. It's not just some random shit that happened every now and again or a minute detail to the story of Spiderman, the web shooters and Spiderman's webbing were a consistent thing brought up.

How is Peter and Flash being cool really matters??, how is that relevant to it being good movie or better then the very first??...it was about connors and peter, and peter's parents..now a secondary character done differently was ok by you, but Peter shooting webs from his wrist throw you off? I mean he gets bite by a spider, why should the movie goers not think he can shoot webs from his wriste, he can stick to the wall, so why not?? It's not that far fetch of an idea..given the fact alot of these movies are done with the directors change things up,

the movie (spiderman one) was a huge success with very little (if any) negative comments...so to the masses (which alot of them being comic book fans) actually liked the movie..and the movie actually became the jumping off point; for a rash of comic book movies to come out..plus this movie took some of the aspects of the first movie...i would say...in reality the movie was alot better then you're trying not to give it credit for...

A movie breaking records don't make it good...Transformers broke records too but you won't find many people that say that's a good movie..so did Spiderman 3 and you say that's not a good movie either...and I never said Spiderman 1 or 2 wasn't good, just that I think The Amazing Spiderman has the potential to be a better set of films than the original 3. So you're going off on some defense of a film that I never said was bad to begin with...look back at my post I've said from jump The Amazing Spiderman was a good film so again, you're arguing agaisnt a point I NEVER made..

You talk about me nitpicking, all I was pointed out was a couple small character things thrown in or missing and you reacting like I said "Fuck Spiderman"....never said the relationship with Flash and Peter was a major plot point or that it should be though for you to say it doesn't matter shows you don't know Spiderman because Peter/Flash also had their share of shit too especially seeing as how at some point Flash starts fucking Gwen...and the webbing thing again, may not have been something to notice to you, but contrary to your belief it was something noticed by ALOT of fans...nobody said it ruined the film or killed the movie and why you're taking it like that is beyond me, but it stunted it in a way because it took away something from the character's story...

ghost!

blackrain wrote: »

A movie breaking records don't make it good...Transformers broke records too but you won't find many people that say that's a good movie..so did Spiderman 3 and you say that's not a good movie either...and I never said Spiderman 1 or 2 wasn't good, just that I think The Amazing Spiderman has the potential to be a better set of films than the original 3. So you're going off on some defense of a film that I never said was bad to begin with...look back at my post I've said from jump The Amazing Spiderman was a good film so again, you're arguing agaisnt a point I NEVER made..

Come on fam, let's not start the whole "if R.horry has more rings then *insert player* does that make him better arguement. Cause obviously i know that, but lets not act like the money made by that movie didtn have anything to do with the quality of the movie, which you have said it was good, correct?


And you never said anything about amazing spiderman having any "potential" to be good before, your whole stand point to me was that is was good and it had surpassed the orig....in fact you replied to me because i thought McGuires peter parker was better.

and this movie should be better because it has the first 3 films to go off of and has used the tone of the orig. spiderman in some parts. and "you said amazing spiderman was a good film" huh?...it's obviously you think it's a good film, that's why you are in here.

what point you claim i'm arguing that you never made?

blackrain wrote: »

You talk about me nitpicking, all I was pointed out was a couple small character things thrown in or missing and you reacting like I said "Fuck Spiderman"....never said the relationship with Flash and Peter was a major plot point or that it should be though for you to say it doesn't matter shows you don't know Spiderman because Peter/Flash also had their share of shit too especially seeing as how at some point Flash starts fucking Gwen...and the webbing thing again, may not have been something to notice to you, but contrary to your belief it was something noticed by ALOT of fans...nobody said it ruined the film or killed the movie and why you're taking it like that is beyond me, but it stunted it in a way because it took away something from the character's story...

WRONG..i know plenty of about spiderman...their relationship is minor as oppose to the movie, i never said anything about the mythology. And the web thing is new to me, never read any message board where anyone was complaining about it...and i travel superherohype.com a lot, never heard it brought up, never heard/read any article talking about it..never read any comments about it..so it seems to be a minority(not in color) issue.

and i can bring in an article that review this movie, and they though it was good, just wanted them to not take some of the tone from the orig. spiderman..which i have said this movie did do, but its cool we will have a difference of opinion..i dont think this movie did enough to surpass one or two, but 3 by far it did.

blackrain

ghost! wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

A movie breaking records don't make it good...Transformers broke records too but you won't find many people that say that's a good movie..so did Spiderman 3 and you say that's not a good movie either...and I never said Spiderman 1 or 2 wasn't good, just that I think The Amazing Spiderman has the potential to be a better set of films than the original 3. So you're going off on some defense of a film that I never said was bad to begin with...look back at my post I've said from jump The Amazing Spiderman was a good film so again, you're arguing agaisnt a point I NEVER made..

Come on fam, let's not start the whole "if R.horry has more rings then *insert player* does that make him better arguement. Cause obviously i know that, but lets not act like the money made by that movie didtn have anything to do with the quality of the movie, which you have said it was good, correct?


And you never said anything about amazing spiderman having any "potential" to be good before, your whole stand point to me was that is was good and it had surpassed the orig....in fact you replied to me because i thought McGuires peter parker was better.

and this movie should be better because it has the first 3 films to go off of and has used the tone of the orig. spiderman in some parts. and "you said amazing spiderman was a good film" huh?...it's obviously you think it's a good film, that's why you are in here.

what point you claim i'm arguing that you never made?

blackrain wrote: »

You talk about me nitpicking, all I was pointed out was a couple small character things thrown in or missing and you reacting like I said "Fuck Spiderman"....never said the relationship with Flash and Peter was a major plot point or that it should be though for you to say it doesn't matter shows you don't know Spiderman because Peter/Flash also had their share of shit too especially seeing as how at some point Flash starts fucking Gwen...and the webbing thing again, may not have been something to notice to you, but contrary to your belief it was something noticed by ALOT of fans...nobody said it ruined the film or killed the movie and why you're taking it like that is beyond me, but it stunted it in a way because it took away something from the character's story...

WRONG..i know plenty of about spiderman...their relationship is minor as oppose to the movie, i never said anything about the mythology. And the web thing is new to me, never read any message board where anyone was complaining about it...and i travel superherohype.com a lot, never heard it brought up, never heard/read any article talking about it..never read any comments about it..so it seems to be a minority(not in color) issue.

and i can bring in an article that review this movie, and they though it was good, just wanted them to not take some of the tone from the orig. spiderman..which i have said this movie did do, but its cool we will have a difference of opinion..i dont think this movie did enough to surpass one or two, but 3 by far it did.

That's where the main difference in opinion lies, I look for more things relating to the mythology of the overall Spiderman story...I accept and even like that it isn't a 100% rip from the comic/Marvel Universe because it allowss for a certain creativity...but there's certain shit that taking out to some people just seems odd...and just like you can bring in an article to support your opinion I can find one to support mine like this one here about the web shooters being brought back in and some people not liking that they were originally taken out in teh first 3 films

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/08/01/amazing-spider-man-director-why-the-web-shooters-are-back/ ...

When Sam Raimi took Spider-Man to the screen in 2002, he made a major departure from the classic mythology of the character by portraying the webbing as a organic substance created by Parker’s mutated biology. The move seemed to smartly streamline the origin but some purists complained that it tampered too much with tradition

“I had a meeting with Stan Lee and we talked about the web-shooters,” Webb said. “I was curious about the incarnation of them [because] of course in the previous films [they went away from them] and we wanted to reestablish ourselves. That was one thing but the other thing was the fact that the web-shooters were able to dramatize Peter’s intellect and I thought that was really cool. … It was in the comics and we have a different design but it’s a cool element to have. It’s not something we over-use or over-exploit. To me, it’s something I remember from when I was a kid and thinking ‘It would be cool if I could build those.’

”

There you have from the director himself about his meeting with Stan Lee agreeing that the web shooters show another, small to some, but important part of Peter Parker/Spiderman..that's why I tend to ignore movie reviews and watch shit myself first...somebody else's opinion of what a good movie is may be different from mine so reviews really don't mean shit to me

blackrain

http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/the-great-amazing-spider-man-web-shooter-debate/

Mechanical versus organic web-shooters has been a hot topic of debate for comic book readers for the past decade. When the new movie's co-star Emma Stone first confirmed that there would be mechanical web-shooters in this movie, many fans rejoiced. (At one point, a fan site called No-organic-webshooters.com existed.)

There's another article for you @ghost! and all I did was search "spiderman movie web shooters" on google...the shit wasn't that hard to find

http://www.acidlogic.com/no_organic_webshooters.htm another one...

Spider-Man is probably the most popular superhero not to have a movie based on his comic book exploits. However, after several false starts, it looks like this situation is soon to be rectified, as director Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead I and II", "Army of Darkness", "A Simple Plan") has taken helm of the Spider-Man film project and is casting as we speak. However, he has announced that he will also be carrying over a plot twist found in early Spider-Man film scripts: the replacement of Spider-Man's mechanical web shooters (the product of Peter Parker's scientific acumen) with a physical mutation brought on by Spider-Man's radioactive origin that will enable him to shoot webs directly from his wrists.

"Big deal," most might think. After all, every superhero brought to the big screen has been altered in some fashion or another. But amongst hard-core Spider-Fans, the subject has brought about significant debate, causing words to fly on Spider-Man message boards everywhere. It even prompted several gentlemen to create No-Organic-Webshooters.com and take the cause of mechanical web shooters to the web (pun intended) by creating an Internet-based petition to be forwarded to Sam Raimi and SONY Entertainmen

ghost!

blackrain wrote: »

That's where the main difference in opinion lies, I look for more things relating to the mythology of the overall Spiderman story...I accept and even like that it isn't a 100% rip from the comic/Marvel Universe because it allowss for a certain creativity...but there's certain shit that taking out to some people just seems odd...and just like you can bring in an article to support your opinion I can find one to support mine like this one here about the web shooters being brought back in and some people not liking that they were originally taken out in teh first 3 films

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/08/01/amazing-spider-man-director-why-the-web-shooters-are-back/ ...

When Sam Raimi took Spider-Man to the screen in 2002, he made a major departure from the classic mythology of the character by portraying the webbing as a organic substance created by Parker’s mutated biology. The move seemed to smartly streamline the origin but some purists complained that it tampered too much with tradition

“I had a meeting with Stan Lee and we talked about the web-shooters,” Webb said. “I was curious about the incarnation of them [because] of course in the previous films [they went away from them] and we wanted to reestablish ourselves. That was one thing but the other thing was the fact that the web-shooters were able to dramatize Peter’s intellect and I thought that was really cool. … It was in the comics and we have a different design but it’s a cool element to have. It’s not something we over-use or over-exploit. To me, it’s something I remember from when I was a kid and thinking ‘It would be cool if I could build those.’

”

There you have from the director himself about his meeting with Stan Lee agreeing that the web shooters show another, small to some, but important part of Peter Parker/Spiderman..that's why I tend to ignore movie reviews and watch shit myself first...somebody else's opinion of what a good movie is may be different from mine so reviews really don't mean shit to me

ok to the articles you brought in. Still never heard anything esle about, didnt care much to go looking for it. and the message superhero sites i went to never griped about it...understand other comicbook fans to, that's what they do.

but what's in bold, and underlined makes my point as well. Samething i'm trying to say. 1. you accepted the fact that these movies arent' gonna follow every part of the comic/marvel universe. and you're ok with it, 2. then you turn around and had an issue with one directors taken on the character, you and the purist!! 3. my point you and some of the purist to me nitpicked because...like the article said..."semmed to smartly streamline the origin" echoing again what i said... it didnt make or break the movie, the movie was told pretty well. my overall point.

and i expect the new director to want and go in a new direction. That's the point of making another one, So him going to S.Lee didnt mean he's more intune then S.Rami was about the mythology...so this spiderman has web cartridges, more true to the comicbook...Ok, it didnt matter weather he did or not.....the pace and the story, and action mattered more to me overall.....that does not mean i dont know the mythology or i'm not a true fan...

it means whether every bit of the mythology is in the story or not...if there's no good story telling, or pace...and YES enough of the source material it's a wash for me....


spiderman 1 had all of that to me. like u said...S. Rami gave you his taken on it, this new director should give us his take on it..nothing it could be wrong as long as they do a good movie. and not completely overhaul the origin.

focus

Anybody still talking about this movie after midnight tomorrow loses.

Raging Raven

Confirmed TASM>>>>>>>>>>>>>TDKR

aneed123

focus wrote: »

Anybody still talking about this movie after midnight tomorrow loses.

why cant u like both? everything isnt a competition.
I saw Avengers, Spiderman, and The Dark Knight Rises and I liked all 3 and plan on getting all 3 on Bluray as well...

KeepOnPushing

I liked it , like i said it was good but not great and def. worthy of having a sequal

Sion

thread unsticked