The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb)

[Thirdmango]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/)

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d185/thirdmango/amazing-spider-man-movie-poster.jpg

[Thirdmango]

It's not often I go to midnight screenings but I knew I was going to be up until 6 am anyways so I thought why not? It was playing at 3 theaters in my area so I went to the one that was the least likely to have too full a crowd. The theater was about 75% full and the audience though filled with mostly teenagers was actually a good crowd.

This is a great reboot. I like Gwen Stacy a lot more then Mary Jane. Garfield does a great job with Peter.

Some of the cooler stuff:

I really like the POV shots of spiderman flying through the city, they didn't let them last long which was good but it was nice to see that vantage point. Also this is probably the best usage of Stan Lee to date. Does anyone know who they teased at the end?

[Kurosawa Fan]

My dad is treating me and my son to this tonight. Spur of the moment. I'm actually kind of looking forward to it. Not sure why.

[Ivan Drago]

I thought I was going to hate it at first. It's editing was all over the place in the first half, Peter Parker appeared out of character at times, and everything happens way too fast. But it only got better as it went along with great performances, impressive visuals and awesome action sequences. This was also my first time seeing a movie in IMAX, and I absolutely loved the experience.

[Fezzik]

This is carried along by two great lead performances and a good dose of humor.

They (meaning movie-makers in general) finally got Peter Parker right. He's irreverent, trash-talking and nerdy/dorky all at the same time. Garfield was great, as was Stone (she plays dorky cute so well).

My biggest complaint is (surprise!) the villain, especially the climax.

There was a contrivance so horrible during the final action sequence that it almost took me out of the movie.

In all, good flick. So close to being great. The non-hero stuff was much better than the hero stuff in my opinion, and I'm fine with that.

[Pop Trash]

Was this shot in 3D? Or was it 3D'd in post? Either way, I think I'm just going to see it in 2D. I stopped by the movie theater today while running errands and tickets were $17 motherflippin' dollars in 3D.

[Fezzik]

I really like the POV shots of spiderman flying through the city, they didn't let them last long which was good but it was nice to see that vantage point. Also this is probably the best usage of Stan Lee to date. Does anyone know who they teased at the end?


Good question. I think its...

...Mysterio. In the shadows. He was there and then poof, he was gone. The only Spider-Man villain who can do that (I think) is Mysterio.

And yes, the Stan Lee scene was great.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Positive experience overall. Garfield played a great Parker, Stone was very good, and the two of them together, along with a script more intent on delivering in this regard, really sold the youth of the two characters. The movie is corny, and Leary's entire character is a waste. Ifans was kind of wasted (could have used more screen time from him and less showy effects pieces, especially POV). Still, it had a few funny moments and made for an entertaining evening. Not sure I'd care much to watch it again, but I'd rank it ahead of Raimi's first film.

[Morris Schæffer]

Why do I get the feeling dissapointing villains is a recurring theme among superhero flicks? Oh yeah, I know. Because it is a recurring theme!

Bane to the rescue!!

[Thirdmango]

Good question. I think its...



I think you're right, that makes a lot of sense.

[EvilShoe]

Apparently this made a record 35 million dollars during its opening day (yesterday).

I'm quite surprised by the cash this has been raking in so far.

[Pop Trash]

Apparently this made a record 35 million dollars during its opening day (yesterday).

I'm quite surprised by the cash this has been raking in so far.

Considering the cost of movie tix these days, that's about five bucks in 2002 dollars.

[TGM]

I had reservations going in, but every single thing that I thought would bug me about this movie didn't end up bothering me one bit. I really enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Yeah, it's essentially a better version of the first movie, but I already really liked the first movie. Can not wait to see this series continue!

[TGM]

Also this is probably the best usage of Stan Lee to date. Does anyone know who they teased at the end?

Agreed on Stan Lee, I LOVED that scene! And as for the mystery man at the end, my only guess is that it's Norman Osborn.


There was a contrivance so horrible during the final action sequence that it almost took me out of the movie.

I'm curious to know what part you're referring to.

[Watashi]

Agreed on Stan Lee, I LOVED that scene! And as for the mystery man at the end, my only guess is that it's Norman Osborn.



I'm curious to know what part you're referring to.
I assume it's the magical antidote that was whipped up in mere seconds to save the day.

[Thirdmango]

I'm curious to know what part you're referring to.

I thought it was

The Lizard spoiled my brain but now that the Lizard is going away I can reach out my hand and try to save you because I'm not really a mean man.

[Dukefrukem]

Thought this was cool.


http://blastr.com/pics/enhanced-buzz-wide-5433-1341344243-3.jpeg

[Henry Gale]

Wow, I really liked this. The first, mostly action-less half is surprisingly the material I responded to the most, especially since the it's when it launches into the bigger budget setpieces and villain-influenced storylines that it runs into most of its issues. But the main characters stay strong and tangible, both humourous and vulnerable when they need to be, Garfield and Stone are fantastic together (while Sheen and Field do very good work too), and all of them, along with the major choices Webb and the script make, come together to build a world that feels much more grounded in reality and relatable than the one Raimi created for Parker to exist in.

There are some bumpy choices along the way, whether it's some dialogue, pacing, incongruous tone from scene to scene or even music choices like Horner's inconsistent score or the completely awkward use of an otherwise good Coldplay song, and I still think his Spider-Man 2 is the strongest film with the character (and the only one that still holds up), but if Webb getting past the origin story and moving on gives him a similar level freedom and improvement for storytelling as Raimi encountered his second time around, then I honestly think whatever comes next could be even better. The continuing threads here are much more interesting, especially considering certain inevitabilities with one major character, and Webb's universe simply feels like it has more defined stakes and characters worth investing in.

***½ / B+

[Watashi]

After reading this article (http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/), you really get an idea how much was left on the cutting room floor and how a lot of the unanswered questions would have easily been fixed.

[Mal]

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were amazing together. In fact, this whole cast felt very strong. Although the action seemed a bit restrained at times, that's just fine - the emphasis on drama was a much needed change from the campy, comedic attitude of Raimi's picture. Not to say I didn't like those films (2>>>1>>>>3), but it's good to know that Marc Webb is not actually giving us more of the same. I noticed all the missing plot point continuations though and blame Columbia for cutting the film- I can only assume they did it in the interest of time.
Even so, I look forward to seeing this film again.

[Fezzik]

Agreed on Stan Lee, I LOVED that scene! And as for the mystery man at the end, my only guess is that it's Norman Osborn.



I'm curious to know what part you're referring to.

It was:


The guy recognizing Spider-Man as the guy "who saved my kid on the bridge" and then calling all the crane workers to turn the cranes to make Spidey's approach easier. That just felt too on the nose to me...and incredibly convenient that there were THAT many cranes in that one area to be able to pull that off.

[Henry Gale]

It seems like everyone who's disliked this has gone out of their way to point out how unnecessary and retreaded doing another Spider-Man origin after ten years is (even though I don't think anything is similar outside of Peter getting his powers and some Uncle Ben stuff), but I also wonder if they've revisited Raimi's first film recently to how ungracefully it's aged already.

The only real enjoyment I got out of re-watching it this year was the nostalgia factor, remembering how much I saw it as a kid, including in theatres as part of my birthday party that year.

[Pop Trash]

It seems like everyone who's disliked this has gone out of their way to point out how unnecessary and retreaded doing another Spider-Man origin after ten years is (even though I don't think anything is similar outside of Peter getting his powers and some Uncle Ben stuff), but I also wonder if they've revisited Raimi's first film recently to how ungracefully it's aged already.

The only real enjoyment I got out of re-watching it this year was the nostalgia factor, remembering how much I saw it as a kid, including in theatres as part of my birthday party that year.

Goddammit, this isn't true at all.

[Henry Gale]

Goddammit, this isn't true at all.

It might just be that I've seen it too many times, but even looking past some of its problematic, dated production values like the shiny, rubbery CG and bland design behind some of its sets, costumes, major action setpieces, and even its cinematography, there's so much that simply feels goofy about it, and not even in the same sort of heightened comic-book way that the story and characters behave in line with.

It's sometimes funny and light enough not to mind, but the bigger plot points and action sequences don't mesh in particularly exciting ways, and the script feels like it's forcing its characters to develop instead of letting them do so naturally, and that's especially problematic when they're often paired with performances that don't always make certain scenes unfold believably (except for maybe Cliff Robertson as well as Willem Dafoe, who ends up spending most of the second half with his perfect, sharply expressive face hidden). Everything that should resonate emotionally feels way too rushed along, especially now in contrast to Webb's film which lets similar events linger with bigger consequences and unresolved grief, and well as more enjoyable human drama/comedy and visual spectacle in the meantime.

It's not an outright bad movie, it just feels like that since helping to birth a modern era of superhero films, it's just been outdone, letting its flaws become a bit more apparent to me. It's even more odd considering how much of its awkwardness was shaken off with Spider-Man 2 right afterwards.

But I also haven't heard anyone really discuss Raimi's 2002 film in ages so maybe I'm way in the minority.

[Pop Trash]

This was pretty good. It's definitely of it's time as well (the time being 2012) which is why this whole 'Raimi's is dated' argument doesn't hold much water with me. It's clear this is a post-Nolan superhero movie which means it's more down-to-earth, brooding, and less 'ripped from the comics' stylized. I'm also not sure how much I like the skateboardin', skinny jeansin', angsty Peter Parker here. I got the feeling if he didn't become a superhero, he would join an indie rock band in Williamsburg. Garfield is good, but he is almost too mannered at times with his quirky head shakey awkwardness. I like Maguire's almost creepy happy-go-lucky dorky vibe better.

I'll concede the actual in-costume Spider-Man stuff is better here, mostly because there seems to be more of it. There's also some nice set pieces. I especially liked the fight at the school, simply because schools have so much funny ephemera to throw around (and oh man that Stan Lee cameo was so great). Also the subway car scene when he first gets his powers.

The Lizard stuff was kind of awkward, even if the effects/costume were much better than Green Goblin in the first one. Doc Oc still gets best villain with this series. People were (unintentionally) laughing at a lot of it in my audience. Rhys Ifans did what he could, but he's much better in Greenberg.

Oh and Stone was fine, but I still maintain Kirsten Dunst is the better actress.

I also have to say that, oddly, 21 Jump Street is a better portrait of contempo high school life.

[transmogrifier]

Evaporates in the memory as you watch it - there was a moment about halfway through where Emma Stone shows up in a scene and I actually thought to myself "Oh yeah, that's right, she's in this movie too". It's not helped that the main antagonist is a hundred shades of bland, and that the main setpieces are rote and dull. Oh, and horrible songs being used to accompany montages.

However, it is better than Raimi's original, because:
(a) it doesn't have Tobey Maguire
(b) it doesn't have the worst villian constume in the history of man-kind
(c) it has more heart (or at least tries to have)

Still, for much of the running time scenes just sit there, doing what they have to do in order to get to the end in the least offensive way possible so that the next screening can be let in and the process can start all over again.

[Pop Trash]

I'll just be over here working on the Tobey Maguire and Gwyneth Paltrow fanclub newsletter if you need me.

[transmogrifier]

I'll just be over here working on the Tobey Maguire and Gwyneth Paltrow fanclub newsletter if you need me.

Circulation: 1

[Dead & Messed Up]

It might just be that I've seen it too many times, but even looking past some of its problematic, dated production values like the shiny, rubbery CG and bland design behind some of its sets, costumes, major action setpieces, and even its cinematography, there's so much that simply feels goofy about it, and not even in the same sort of heightened comic-book way that the story and characters behave in line with.

It's sometimes funny and light enough not to mind, but the bigger plot points and action sequences don't mesh in particularly exciting ways, and the script feels like it's forcing its characters to develop instead of letting them do so naturally, and that's especially problematic when they're often paired with performances that don't always make certain scenes unfold believably (except for maybe Cliff Robertson as well as Willem Dafoe, who ends up spending most of the second half with his perfect, sharply expressive face hidden). Everything that should resonate emotionally feels way too rushed along, especially now in contrast to Webb's film which lets similar events linger with bigger consequences and unresolved grief, and well as more enjoyable human drama/comedy and visual spectacle in the meantime.

It's not an outright bad movie, it just feels like that since helping to birth a modern era of superhero films, it's just been outdone, letting its flaws become a bit more apparent to me. It's even more odd considering how much of its awkwardness was shaken off with Spider-Man 2 right afterwards.

But I also haven't heard anyone really discuss Raimi's 2002 film in ages so maybe I'm way in the minority.

No, this is about where I am. At the time, I thought it rocked, but it's become harder and harder to stomach as the years have gone by. In some part because of the tone, significantly because of the annoying sponsorships (Dr. Pepper! Macy Gray!), largely because of the costume issues, and mostly because the flick just feels crunched for time. Its two hours don't give the origin and the Goblin threat enough room to breathe. As you point out, it forces developments instead of earning them.

This may be opening a can of worms, but one of the chief things I liked about Batman Begins was how its origin story elements tied right back into the heavy action at the end. We weren't just watching origin, we were seeing the filmmakers set up the third act. Here are the henchmen you'll see again, here is the ethos you'll see again, here is the villain, here is the MacGuffin.

[Skitch]

Holy crap, this was way better than I was expecting. I think it was easily better than any of Raimi's series.

I was one of the vocal ones who thought rebooting and going back to high school was a big mistake, but I felt like it wasn't overdone, the school stuff was barely background, and it was all about the characters. I guess I'm saying it really worked for me this time around, instead of being incredibly annoying. Well done Mr. Webb, and all involved.

[Grouchy]

Completely by the numbers and predictable, but still an entertaining superhero flick. I like Spiderman and this was a faithful representation of the character, touching upon some aspects of his personality (such as his science skills, his condition as an orphan and his jokey behavior when in costume) that the Raimi films had neglected.

Spiderman 2 is still the best comic-book based superhero film I've ever seen (yes, even better than The Dark Knight in my opinion), but considering how flawed the other two Raimi films are, I think this is the second best Spidey movie.

This movie is pretty flawed too, mind you. Some parts are very overwritten, like Peter's fight with Uncle Ben. And some plot threads (like the hunt for Ben's killer) are simply abandoned to make way for the villain fight. But what makes me overlook all that is that it also has a couple of really great moments. The rescue of the kid in the car, for example, that's just classic Spiderman. That is what Peter Parker has always been about.

Post-credits scene is mysterious. The logic of the plot seems to indicate that's Norman Osborn in the cell, but why does he disappear into the air? Like someone said earlier on the thread, that can only make me think about Mysterio.

[Pop Trash]

And some plot threads (like the hunt for Ben's killer) are simply abandoned to make way for the villain fight.


I read that Webb is creating a throughline in the sequels (if they happen?) with both this narrative and what happened to PP's parents. At first I thought both were either flaws or that I missed something in the movie (especially re: his folks) but apparently those omissions are intentional.

[Kiusagi]

Giving this a mild nay. Some nice action scenes and the casting isn't bad, but most of the story did nothing for me. I did like this portrayal of Gwen Stacy, especially compared to Mary Jane from the Raimi films, whose only purpose seemed to be getting captured.

[eternity]

I love Spider-Man, and yet here's another Spidey movie that made me just want to get up and leave. Garfield was much better than Tobey Maguire could have ever dreamed to be, since he had to play a bastardized version of the character. Other than that, it was a badly plotted, formulaic bore. I shouldn't have expected any different. Luckily I didn't pay.

[Dukefrukem]

Meh. Not better than any of Raimis.

[Dukefrukem]

After reading this article (http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/), you really get an idea how much was left on the cutting room floor and how a lot of the unanswered questions would have easily been fixed.

If only viewers of Prometheus were that forgiving. ;)


Good question. I think its...

...Mysterio. In the shadows. He was there and then poof, he was gone. The only Spider-Man villain who can do that (I think) is Mysterio.

And yes, the Stan Lee scene was great.


Also, the mystery man at the end, could it be;


Electro? Lightning strikes and he appears, Lightning strikes and he vanishes.

[transmogrifier]

Meh. Not better than any of Raimis.

Caught the last 5 minutes of the third one just before. Terrible.

[Dukefrukem]

l2KSPiTOMR8

[Dukefrukem]

Caught the last 5 minutes of the third one just before. Terrible.

You have an odd way of watching movies.

[TGM]

l2KSPiTOMR8

Holy crap those are awesome!

[Dukefrukem]

Holy crap those are awesome!

The Avengers and Hunger Games ones are esp good.

[Morris Schæffer]

But what makes me overlook all that is that it also has a couple of really great moments. The rescue of the kid in the car, for example, that's just classic Spiderman. That is what Peter Parker has always been about.

I half expected them to regurgitate some of the same themes - oh my God! Uncle Ben utters the word "responsibility!" Like whoa!! - but what is dissapointing is precisely the scene you describe above because it apes a scene in the original. A really big bridge, modes of transport hanging on a thread (cable car vs. plain car) and kids in peril. Also, daylight!! Do you know of it motherfuckers?!!

First half hour wasn't bad at all, actors are hard to fault except that I've decided Peter Parker's romantic escapades bore me. They always have, but it wasn't so damning in Spader-Man 2.

[Sven]

First half hour wasn't bad at all, actors are hard to fault except that I've decided Peter Parker's romantic escapades bore me. They always have, but it wasn't so damning in Spader-Man 2.

http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Spader-Man.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Aaaaah! Damn Ipad keyboard. :lol:

[EyesWideOpen]

Any scene with Garfield and Stone together was perfect. Loved the final scene with them where she smiles after he whispers about not keeping promises behind her. I would love a Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane style movie with these two characters. I thought the action stuff was ok. The Lizard is kind of a lame villain so they did about the best they could do with him. Agreed with others that this is the best Stan Lee cameo.

[Lucky]

Holy crap, this was way better than I was expecting. I think it was easily better than any of Raimi's series.

My thoughts exactly. I actually enjoyed a Spiderman movie.

[EvilShoe]

I would watch The Amazing Spader-Man.

[megladon8]

This was all right. Liked the leads, the supporting characters were good too. But as to be expected about 95% of it feels incredibly "been there, done that", and the other 5% leaves too many questions unanswered.

Like Prometheus earlier in the year, the film seems to promise the audience some answers (in this case, about Peter's parents) and then the credits roll and...wait...the movie completely forgot to answer anything. In fact it just left me with more questions.

The action felt good despite the inconsistent effects on the Lizard, and I found Garfield's physique really suited the physicality of Spider-Man himself.

While there are elements of it that I liked better than Raimi's films, overall I'd take the first two entries in Raimi's series over this one.

And I'm totally, completely uninterested in Jamie Foxx playing Electro in the sequel.

[Pop Trash]

While there are elements of it that I liked better than Raimi's films, overall I'd take the first two entries in Raimi's series over this one.


Yeah for sure. Garfield did a good job with what was handed to him, but I like Parker as an awkward nerd more than as a brooding/emo James Dean type. Plus anytime I think about this movie all I can remember is that Peter Parker is a skater, and I'm sorry but in no universe does Peter Parker roll on a skateboard. A road bike? Yeah sure, but a skateboard? No way Jose.

[megladon8]

Yeah for sure. Garfield did a good job with what was handed to him, but I like Parker as an awkward nerd more than as a brooding/emo James Dean type. Plus anytime I think about this movie all I can remember is that Peter Parker is a skater, and I'm sorry but in no universe does Peter Parker roll on a skateboard. A road bike? Yeah sure, but a skateboard? No way Jose.


I like what the "Honest Movie Trailer" said about how Peter Parker is a smart, athletic, attractive, well-dressed...loser?

They really didn't give any reason why Parker wouldn't have been a popular kid in school, or why Flash was for that matter.

At least in Raimi's films he was such an awkward dork he was almost creepy.

[number8]

This is like two movies smashed together, a coming of age drama and a superhero movie, but they're competing against each other, not because they don't match up, but because the former is very, very good (I dont need to further add to the universal Garfield praising) while the latter is very, very shitty.

It sucks because the movie got Spidey absolutely right. The postures, the movements, the web shooting, the trash talking. But oh god what an awful plot. Unforgivably bad. Not to mention that it becomes increasingly stupid towards the end.

A terror plot involving biological agent is being released in New York, and fucking local cops are on the case? FBI? White House? Come on.

Great tactic, Captain Stacy. There's a goddamn monster and you go up alone with a shotgun, even though you arrived practically with a motorcade. Brilliant.

The one that makes me face palm the most, though, is the fact that the big thrilling suspenseful climax of the movie is the hero falling off a building and in a strain to be pulled back up. Think about that for a second. HE'S FUCKING SPIDER-MAN. HE STICKS TO BUILDINGS.

[Pop Trash]

I dunno the stuff in Spidey costume in this is pretty great, one of the few things I'm willing to concede is better than Raimi. The look, the quips, it's all pretty spot on.

[Mr. McGibblets]

This movie really suffers from the focus on the Lizard Man in the last third. It has two or three more interesting plots going (What happened to Peter's parents? Looking for his uncle's killer. Relationship with Gwen) and ditches all of them in favor of having a battle with a monster.

[Irish]

Agree with everyone else.

The first act was so much fun and so perfect, but after Ben dies, all the energy dissipates and we're left staring at a CGI lizard.

(Although, I have to say I *loved* the scene in the sewers when Spidey spins his own web & waits. That was clever).

Really bugged me that many questions are raised and not only does the film not answer them, it doesn't even bother to address their open ended nature. Did Peter just forget about Ben's killer after getting a stern talking to from Leary at the dinner table? Who cares! Look! More CGI lizard!

Thought Garfield was great fun, but they could have used a bit more of the sarcasm ("Oh, you've discovered my weakness! Small knives!") in other scenes.

Bored by Stone's Stacey. She's too good a performer to be relegated to the role of "the girlfriend," and the film should have found some more for her to do. Ditto Aunt May, who all but disappears from the film after the first act.

Still better than Raimi's version, which I always found bloated and ridiculous.

I enjoyed this, but I'm also pretty sure that my brain shut off and went into auto pilot after the mad scientist moves intot the sewers and injects himself with green goo. While take YouTubish video (Seriously, who was he planning on showing that too? Who cares! Emma Stone sure is purty!)

Edit: I did think the "web slinging" aspect was amazing, though. Spider-man looked really agile & fast, like he was half Tarzan and half some kind of parkour expert. That added a lot of entertainment to Big Bad fights that were really not much more than CGI'd fisticuffs.

[number8]

I actually didn't mind the dropping of Ben's killer.

It was a conscious decision from Peter to move on. He stopped looking for revenge and started actually being a hero.

[Irish]

I actually didn't mind the dropping of Ben's killer.

It was a conscious decision from Peter to move on. He stopped looking for revenge and started actually being a hero.

In another kind of movie, I'd buy into that. Especially since Leary's last line about the "vigilante" registers on Garfield's face, and the follow up scene has Spidey saving the little boy.

But in a big studio picture, no way. They took pains to resolve the "school bully" storyline (with 3 separate scenes, no less), but not one follow up about the robber that kills Ben.

[[ETM]]

I bought it because the film, especially the final act, had all the characteristics of a TV pilot, with "insert actor here if this goes anywhere" Norman Osborn, the missing parents and other seeds of future plots. It's textbook pilot setup.

[number8]

I don't really know what the difference is? A movie's a movie. And that was clearly this movie's intention.

[EyesWideOpen]

And they resolved the school bully storyline because Flash Thompson is an important character in the Spider-Man universe.

[Irish]

@number8 - What I mean is, these kind of movies play only on the surface; everything about them is explicit. Dialogue doesn't hold entendres, there's no subtly, the camera doesn't linger on moments or at the end of scenes, everything is a mid shot or wider, and most of the performances are perfunctory. They're mostly trying to get from point A to point B without losing the audience.

Amazing Spider-man isn't the kind of movie filled with unspoken understanding, so the omission of a specific resolution to these plot points feels more like a mistake, or just sloppiness, than some kind of higher artistic choice.

[number8]

Ah, so it's another one of these instances where you insist on separating and judging works of fiction by the boundaries of demographics.

In this case, though, it was on the surface. You pointed it out. Dennis Leary gave a pretty direct speech about it, about how a hero wouldn't just chase around a single person for personal reasons and actually help people instead. So the very next scene, Peter is literally forced to choose between chasing the bad guy or saving a little boy. There's nothing subtle about it at all. The only thing missing is for Peter to say out loud that he's not on a vendetta anymore, which would be terrible, and no matter how low-brow the makers of "these movies" are, they probably realized that.

[Irish]

Ah, so it's another one of these instances where you insist on separating and judging works of fiction by the boundaries of demographics.

Well, no. Not at all.

Everything has a specific audience. That's a choice creators make to give the work context.

You judge work by this context all the time, whether you admit or not (unless you're actually claim to measure Star Wars by the same metric as 2001: A Space Odyssey).

Different work has different intentions and goals, and depending on what those are, creatives will use different methods to get the audience where they need to be.

I'm saying that, within the context of The Amazing Spider-man, the low-key dropping of the "Ben" subplot plays as a gaffe.

So does the unanswered questions around Peter's father. Movies aren't television. They're not comics. While you can argue that these subplots work just find on some meta level, while looking at an entire series of films, I think it completely fails when you look at just one film.

Movies should be self contained narratives. That's one of their biggest strengths. When theses structures start to bleed into something more episodic, I think that's a bad thing. It means you're expecting people to pay $15 and make a trip to the theater for an incomplete experience.

This doesn't have anything to do with quality or assessments of anything "low brow," but more about what I regard as a mishandling of some basic narrative tools.

[transmogrifier]

I judge Star Wars and 2001 on the same metric : how much I liked it.

[megladon8]

I judge Star Wars and 2001 on the same metric : how much I liked it.


Pretty much. I don't like going into a movie with those kinds of loaded expectations.

[number8]

Yeah it's kind of my personal manifesto. If it works, it works, I don't care what level it operates on.

Also, that's what I was referring to earlier, that you care about the projected genre, audience, intention, etc and take them into account. I don't. If I think a certain scene in a Pixar movie is conveying something subtle by emulating Antonioni, I'm gonna think its cool, not think about how it flies over children's head and therefore must be unintentional.

Similar reason to why we disagree regarding YA, I imagine.

[Stay Puft]

This is like two movies smashed together, a coming of age drama and a superhero movie, but they're competing against each other, not because they don't match up, but because the former is very, very good (I dont need to further add to the universal Garfield praising) while the latter is very, very shitty.

Nailed it.

I was genuinely surprised by some scenes of the film, and how much they affected me. The casting is excellent. They really got the tone of the thing down. This is way better than anything Raimi put on the screen. There are flashes of a great Spider-Man film in here...

... but then the superhero stuff totally fucking blew. They completely botched The Lizard. The plot is awful. I was howling during that scene with The Lizard grabbing Spider-Man to save him (?) like come on. There's no consistency in logic here.

But my biggest beef is what Irish points out re: the Ben plot. It's not just the Ben plot, either. The stuff with Norman, too. I get that this is the first of an apparent planned trilogy, with the backstory of Parker's parents and whatever, but a movie still has to stand on its own, and this thing keeps dropping plot threads like they're going out of style. As a standalone film it's deeply unsatisfying. I don't have time for that nonsense.