The Amazing Spider-Man

[Bridge]

Bridge said

How about being a little open minded? It's not like "Sony" wrote the
script, directed it and acted in it. Why the hell do you care about
depressing copyright issues when this is art we are talking about?

1) What the fuck being open-minded has to do with anything?...Seems to me you don't really know what you're talking about...
...
Now, this being said, if you really want to go and rewatch it 2, 3, 10 times then go, I am not preventing anyone from doing that. But whether you like it or not, whether this movie may actually be good or not, the whole story surrounding its production disgusted me so much that I don't want to touch it with 10-foot pole.

2) Do some research. Spider-Man = money, Sony has the rights rights were going to go back to Marvel unless a movie was made, Sony decided to do a movie ONLY to keep the rights for some more years and make some money in the process. This has been said a little bit around since day one this project has been launched. From what I heard Marvel actually tried to buy the rights back when they heard another movie was being made for the only purpose to keep the rights. Sony asked them way too much money apparently...

3) While not being a huge fan of Sam Raimi's trilogie, was it really necessary to reboot the movie and tell a story at least 50% similar to the one I saw 10 years go (and boy, does it feel like it was yesterday) ? Sam Raimi was preparing a 4th movie, was even talking about shooting the 5th and 6th at the same time. For some artistic/whatever reasons he left the project : why then not simply changing the director but continuing with his story arc ? Three movies that they've been giving hints about the lizard appearing, two movies that they literally have Dylan Baker playing Doctor Connors all of that for what ? To reboot the franchise with...Another actor playing the Lizard (and I don't have anything against Rhys Ifan, I actually like that actor).
Heck, even if you change the actors go ahead. New director, a new vision ? All right, sure, they do that with James Bond every decade. But continue with a story that everybody knows: why telling the origin stories again?! Just imagine if every time a new actor was hired for James Bond they would do the origin story again and again and again...A Casino Royal every 10 years...
Just imagine what will happen if this movie doesn't work as well as planed...Will we get then "Spider-Man : the Origins" withing 3 years?...With a new crew, new director, new actors?...
This might very well happen again with Batman once Nolan is done with his trilogy, the only reason for which I won't go as ballistic is simply because I am not a fan of Nolan's Batmans.

4) Could you confirm me all of the following? Apparently we should forget all the hype about the "untold story" since it will barely be the center of the movie. I won't spoil the end-credit sequence in here, but is it true that 90% of it is available in the theatrical trailer? I am tired of seeing terrible movies that look like a TV series pilot ("I am number 4" almost gave me a brain damage when I did the mistake of watching it at the theater).

5) Many reviews are already pointing out that this new version is aimed at the Twilight fans...Now I hope those reviews are just trolling, because otherwise this deserves a facepalm.

6) And if all of that wasn't enough, the new Peter Parker is no longer the shy nerdy guy who is being harassed by everybody...Well, if they want to change that why not ? I am not against the idea, but...Why did they feel the need to transform him into some kind of "holier than thou" jerk who will use his powers to feel superior, bully on other persons (I've watched the basketball scene when it was released on youtube...I literally had the feeling the new Peter Parker could have been Flash o_O), and who will not use them to save people but to apparently repair all the mistakes he will do during the movie?! A lot of the first reviews say you just hate that douche. No emotional connection, no nothing. Geez, even the actor compared the new Peter Parker to an Internet troll...So please tell me it is not the case.
...
I won't spend money on that, Prometheus was bad enough, I will wait for this one to be on the TV...Or way before on the Internet. Just praying it will be indeed good because so far all the trailers and promotional pictures didn't make me love this movie...

Oooooh boy, it sure looks like I hit a nerve, because my comment was at most passively critical. Sorry if I offended. Well here goes:

1. Being open-minded means not knocking it 'till you've tried it. Which is what you're doing, I'm afraid. And what I was trying to say was: It doesn't matter under what circumstances it was made, because it's completely irrelevant to the movie. I don't support Sony at all, but I try never to think about any meta-film stuff while I'm watching the movie. Plenty of great movies have been made under far more mysterious and questionable circumstances that you probably don't know about until you look it up after seeing it.

2. Don't want to comment on that but Spider-Man is most certainly not = money. You think in the beginning the comic books were written with big profits in mind?

3. Nothing in life apart from sleep and proper nourishment is necessary. When talking about non-essential activities such as art, you can't think in terms of necessity. This is a completely different director and a completely different (better) cast of actors that wanted to have a stab at Spider-Man. What's wrong with that? It's not like they decided they needed more money and they made another movie. Why tell the origin story again? I don't know, but I find it interesting, and it was handled very well here.

4. I'm sorry, I barely understand a word of this paragraph. No, of course not all of it is available in the trailer. The trailer is what, 2 minutes? This movie is about 2 hours.

5. Aimed at Twilight fans? Not at all. There is a prominent romance emphasis but unlike in Twilight it's believable and not forced. Seriously, if a movie having romantic elements makes you not want to see it, maybe 50% of movies (many of them great) are by your definition bad.

6. Because power corrupts. Don't know what you are talking about but Peter is the exact same character in this one as in the Raimi movies. That Basketball scene was misguided at worst, and the scenes where he is exacting revenge makes up like 2% of the movie. Maybe you should just see it instead of trusting everything the critics say, because they are just people with opinions too. I didn't hate his character at all. That bolded statement is completely untrue btw.

Man, just see it and decide for yourself. I can't believe you would deprive yourself of probably one of the best movies of the year because of prejudices.