The Amazing Spider-Man

[Xss]

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...

[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.

[Damascus Rose]

Oh. My. God. Not again.

[Bridge]

Oh. My. God. Not again.

What, did a friendly debate kill your family?

[Damascus Rose]

Nah, it's just pretty much this exact thing popped up in another thread. Someone posted an opinion and was responded too with an enormous wall of text bigger than that one. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just it seems like a bit of an overreaction.

Anyway, as for Spiderman, I most likely will go and see it myself at some point. I want to compare this with the Tobey Maguire one.

[MaZiCUT]

I have been a spider-man fan since i was a child! Can't wait until i get to see this


As an inspiration from him when i was younger i was climbing a lot and thanks to that i'm doing freaking parkour now and i guess i can call myself an athletic!

Cool. Lifelong Spider-Man fan here too (though I can't say I've read any of the classic comics; I'm not much into comic books). Parkour is also pretty bad ass, you have any videos you've recorded?

No i've got no friends who can record; that is yet, because i'm all set up for age 18-19 when i'm going to buy all new cameras etc then me and my friends can actually film something good. We don't want it to be cheap-pixel quality.

---

Want to go see this and Xss, I know that the real reason why you won't see it is to look like you care about this stuff, yet I imagine you've seen certain films with more shady backgrounds, and if you do care about this stuff, you'd know which I'm referring too.

P. . . ?

[Xss]

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

Well, you did in some way, for me your message seemed to be the one of the "angry fan" who doesn't tolerate that someone may not like what he loves most in life. And that tends to put me on my nerves but well, excuses accepted.
As I said, I won't prevent you guys from watching it 2, 3 or 10 times but I would gladly pass a viewing of the movie.

It doesn't matter under what circumstances it was made, because it's completely irrelevant to the movie.

Well, it does for me and some other people: http://moviehole.net/201255258superhero-...ider-man-4

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.

Indeed, the last one was Prometheus. Which ended up being for me the worst movie of the year, worst birthday gift ever (I avoided any single picture/trailer/shoot of it to go and watch it on my birthday). Any product of art this days is also a commercial product: I am not against it, it is logical for a movie to make money. But where is the fine line between "we're making this movie for artistic reasons" and "we are making this movie only to make money", sadly most movies coming from that second category are simply "average" to "bad" (I'm not saying ALL movies are).

Why tell the origin story again? I don't know, but I find it interesting

Well, I used to like origin stories at lot, but since Batman Begins came out a lot of movies are "origin stories" movies, created as a TV series pilote episode and you never see the sequel of most of them (Jumper, I am number 4, etc...Now those movies were so utterly bad that I am glad no sequels are being made). As I said, do I want to see a new Casino Royale every 10 years and a origin story every time they change actor for James Bond? Not really...

I'm sorry, I barely understand a word of this paragraph.

Sorry if I didn't express myself properly, English is my third language: well, spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the movie, many sources have said that the end credit scenes is the one with Dr Conors in a cell while someone (Norman Osborn?) asks him "did you tell him the truth about his parents?", scene that is available in the trailer. After credits scenes are suppose to be the "extra plus" you want to see in a movie, why would you show it in an advertisement? It's like showing Thanos in a trailer for the Avengers...

Aimed at Twilight fans? Not at all. There is a prominent romance emphasis but unlike in Twilight it's believable and not forced.

Well, at least I can breathe, thanks for your answer.

Don't know what you are talking about but Peter is the exact same character in this one as in the Raimi movies

Well, the problem is...Of all the reviews I have seen/read you are the among the only ones saying that. What other reviews are saying is that the new Peter Parker is a jerk-asshole-emo-badass-troll-bullier-whatever for whom you have little to no sympathy. Even Andrew Garfield said "well, he acts like an Internet troll".
I don't want to see a Spider-Man movie in which the main character acts like an Internet troll!
Now maybe you like that kind of character but the few sneak-peeks and scenes that were released on the Internet (aka advertisement supposedly made to promote the movie and make the audiences want to watch it...) didn't motivate me at all to watch that movie, I simply found all of that horrendous.
I repeat: I watched the trailer, a few scenes and...I wanted that bloody Peter Parker to die. That's it, the character looked like an asshole to me, 0 connection or even worst: I hated the way the character looked in those advertisement (the same way people hated the Peter Parker portrayed by Tobey Maguire and hence hated the Sam Raimi trilogy...And it's their right not to like it!)
See, that's the problem: not only I don't like all the "politics" surrounding the movie, but on top of that I didn't like trailer, nor the scenes, etc...Should I bother about a movie that, in my opinion, has been looking awful through all of it advertisement campaign?
For months?
Well, obviously no: if you don't even like the trailer of a movie you don't go and watch the final product.

I can't believe you would deprive yourself of probably one of the best movies of the year

Look, most reviews I am seeing about this movie are not that good. Some people here in France are even saying it is horrendous. Why should I care about it? Because just some of you are telling me how amazing it is?
And even if I watched it, chances are I will not enjoy the movie and come back here to say "well, I wasted 2 hours of my life to watch it and I didn't like it, are you happy now?" Of course you won't, and then we could be going on for hours again with you trying to convince me that I am unable to recognize a good movie when I watch one.
The best for me would be to wait a couple of years and watch it with a fresh mind, when I'll no longer bother about why the movie was made.

and Xss, I know that the real reason why you won't see it is to look
like you care about this stuff, yet I imagine you've seen certain films
with more shady backgrounds, and if you do care about this stuff, you'd
know which I'm referring too.

Sorry pal, might be because English is my third language but I didn't understand that paragraph at all.
I should know what?...Er...Sorry, I am really not getting this at all.

I simply said I am boycotting this movie for the reasons I explained. On top of that I have 0 interest in it since I didn't like the trailers/scenes/etc: if I don't like a trailer I don't bother about the movie, it just sounds so obvious.

Now I am a huge movie addict, it is probably one of my biggest pleasures out there. I wrote my thesis on that subject, I went and interviewed actor Javier Botet for that (he plays in the Spanish movies Rec and Rec²). So true, you can say that I have such a passion for movies that I can get a bit too passionate about it.
And recently I have been watching too many bad movies: I think Prometheus had been the end of me, I don't recall being that furious when I walked out a theater.
...
So that's it: I explained my reasons, you explained yours, you didn't manage to change my mind, so let's keep it here. Because if you start insisting on how wrong I am about not watching it, you will look like Christians coming at my door to preach how wrong I am about not reading their Bible.

[Traggey]

I won't watch it, doesn't look like something I'd enjoy.

[Bridge]

wall of text

Well I just watched the trailer and it is indeed horrible. It makes the movie look WAY worse than it is. But remember that a trailer can make anything look better or worse than it really is. And man, it seems like you missed the message I was trying to relay to you in my post, which was: Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

"Most reviews I've read", "people here in France", "critics say"; These are not unequivocal authorities on all things artistic. Hell, I'm of the opinion that professional art critique is completely pointless. Everybody is going to take something different away from this movie and critics are just people that watched it and formed their own opinions. These opinions are not necessarily correct, not even if they went to "film school" (what a joke) to learn how to be pretentious and bigoted. Don't trust what strangers say just because they are ostensibly notable, because no one is.

What I'm telling you is to go decide for yourself, instead of weaseling out of it by saying "well I heard it's bad". Think Peter Parker is an asshole in this one from watching the trailers and listening to people who may or may not have even been watching? Well, I say he isn't, and I say he is one of the most realistic characters portrayed in recent years. Go see it, and you will know what you really think of him. Because a two minute trailer and a scene where he acts like an asshole (which is important to the plot; as I said: power corrupts) are not enough to judge his character.

By the way, I just got back from seeing it a second time and it was even better this time around. I think it is an amazing movie and I urge you to go see it. Don't want to see it? Fine. I'm not an asshole and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the way you reached your conclusions about the movie were wrong.

BTW, if you are a hardcore Spidey fan then you might be sold on the fact that Peter Parker uses web-shooting devices attached to his arm and that the main love interest is Gwen Stacy. So one thing you can't say this movie is is less faithful to the comics (but I only know the main stuff; I grew up on the television show and the Playstation video game).

[spukrian]

I'll see it, but probably wait untill rental.

What, did a friendly debate kill your family?

Many members of this forum seem to be allergic to arguments. As soon as two people start disagreeing, they start get worried about "flame wars". I'm not talking about anyone specific, just in general...