AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The Amazing Spiderman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Amazing Spiderman - Page 4

post #91 of 142
7/8/12 at 8:49am
The whole "parents" storyline is in the newer Ultimate Spider-Man series from the 2000s.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 142
7/8/12 at 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

What does that mean?
You can argue that 3d is not necessary for any 3d movie. In most cases 3d is an option and I would think that by now most people would be able to make up thier own mind as which they prefer (3d or 2d). Its simple. Instead we get people who hate it and try to get others to hate it as well. (not implying that you are). Why can't people just express their opinions good or bad without having to say that 3d must die or 3d must stay. It's much better when we have options and that's what we have at the moment. If you like 3d (good) if you hate 3d (good) just don't say that one should go and one should stay.

I plan on watching it in 3D biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 142
7/9/12 at 8:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

I give this movie a solid 3/5. This is the sensitive, emo Spidey. The first hour had a bit too much brooding (thanks Twilight), but it eventually picked up. Denis Leary was himself as the surly police Captain. But paled in comparison to JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. I do prefer Garfield as Peter Parker over Tobey's. I'm still not convinced we needed a complete reboot of this. We all know Parker gets bitten by a spider and Uncle Ben dies. Unless you're seeing this at an IMAX, the 3D is unnecessary. However, the final shot in 3D is pretty badass. It was a decent romp, but nowhere near as fun as The Avengers.

Mucho truth in this post. I'll add that the new female lead wasn't as good as Kirsten's Dunst's portrayal of Mary Jane in the first Spidey film, but much better than Dunst's character in the third one.

Overall, the movie was too long; they spent too much time on re-telling the origin of Spidey so the movie was lacking in meaningful action until the third act.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 142
7/9/12 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Mucho truth in this post. I'll add that the new female lead wasn't as good as Kirsten's Dunst's portrayal of Mary Jane in the first Spidey film, but much better than Dunst's character in the third one.
Overall, the movie was too long; they spent too much time on re-telling the origin of Spidey so the movie was lacking in meaningful action until the third act.

See..I did not mind the re-telling...in part due to this version sticking a bit more (in most repsects) to the original story - and also tossing in the angle about Pete's parents that came up in Ultimate Spider Man a few years ago. Made me forget the Sam Raimi trilogy...which for me is a very good thing.

My fully inappropriate crush on Emma Stone doesn't help....wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 142
7/9/12 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

they spent too much time on re-telling the origin of Spidey so the movie was lacking in meaningful action until the third act.
A big reason why I hate reboots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post


My fully inappropriate crush on Emma Stone doesn't help....wink.gif
Yes, yes that is totally "inappropriate."tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 142
7/9/12 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
While the parent side-story was an interesting new angle, I'm referring to all the other familiar fat on the bone that took too long to develop:

Minor spoilers (Click to show)
Establishing Parker as a science nerd, him being bullied at school before eventually humiliating the bully with his newfound powers, the clumsy attempts to get attention from the pretty girl, the science lab experiment gone wrong to give him his powers, the argument with the uncle, the random theft by a thug which Parker ignores that leads to his uncle's death, the early failed attempts to control his new powers, the evolution of getting his costume...

...because most of us know the general outcome of these plot points going into the movie, there is absolutely zero suspense. It took a long time to get past Spiderman 101 before the movie got going.

Batman Begins handled the retelling of Wayne's origins a lot better IMHO. They quickly explained his relationship with his dad and how he was killed. However hallf of that initial act was about training and fighting with ninjas in the snowy mountains. Simply put, the first act of The Amazing Spiderman needed more ninjas. Or vikings, or amazons or something.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 142
7/9/12 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

I give this movie a solid 3/5. This is the sensitive, emo Spidey. The first hour had a bit too much brooding (thanks Twilight), but it eventually picked up. Denis Leary was himself as the surly police Captain. But paled in comparison to JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. I do prefer Garfield as Peter Parker over Tobey's. I'm still not convinced we needed a complete reboot of this. We all know Parker gets bitten by a spider and Uncle Ben dies. Unless you're seeing this at an IMAX, the 3D is unnecessary. However, the final shot in 3D is pretty badass. It was a decent romp, but nowhere near as fun as The Avengers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Thanx for that.
I'm still debating whether to buy a ticket...
Oh, since today is July 4...... remember: M-80s and alcohol don't mix...............(except on July 4).
Waboman and I agree. I saw The Amazing Spiderman today and gave it 6 Stars out of 10. Its production values are of the highest order, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were both excellent, and one of my favorite character actors, C. Thomas Howell, showed up in a minor role. The bad news is that, at 136 minutes, the film was far too long, which resulted in too little happening over the course of too much time. Seeing The Amazing Spiderman wasn't a wasted afternoon but it wasn't an especially well spent one, either. As you may recall, I don't much like 3D so I saw the film in 2D.

Not to beat a dead horse but I think most would have predicted that a reboot as premature as The Amazing Spider Man was would likely result in a big budget disappointment. The first sixty percent of the film told a familiar story, so it lacked any suspense whatever.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 142
7/9/12 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Waboman and I agree. I saw The Amazing Spiderman today and gave it 6 Stars out of 10. Its production values are of the highest order, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were both excellent, and one of my favorite character actors, C. Thomas Howell, showed up in a minor role. The bad news is that, at 136 minutes, the film was far too long, which resulted in too little happening over the course of too much time. Seeing The Amazing Spiderman wasn't a wasted afternoon but it wasn't an especially well spent one, either. As you may recall, I don't much like 3D so I saw the film in 2D.
Not to beat a dead horse but I think most would have predicted that a reboot as premature as The Amazing Spider Man was would likely result in a big budget disappointment. The first sixty percent of the film told a familiar story, so it lacked any suspense whatever.
I'm not a big fan of 3D either, but I saw the film today and it was shot in 3D, and really that's the way it should be seen. I saw it in IMAX and the flyover shots of Manhattan in 3D were just stellar.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 142
7/9/12 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

Made me forget the Sam Raimi trilogy...
Same here. Liked this one more than any of the Raimi films.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 142
7/9/12 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

I'm not a big fan of 3D either, but I saw the film today and it was shot in 3D, and really that's the way it should be seen. I saw it in IMAX and the flyover shots of Manhattan in 3D were just stellar.
With one exception, I have hated the 3D version of every movie I have seen in that format. The exception was Avatar, which I understand was filmed with actual 3D cameras. Was The Amazing Spiderman shot with 3D cameras too? If so, I may have to see it again in 3D IMAX.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 142
7/9/12 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

With one exception, I have hated the 3D version of every movie I have seen in that format. The exception was Avatar, which I understand was filmed with actual 3D cameras. Was The Amazing Spiderman shot with 3D cameras too? If so, I may have to see it again in 3D IMAX.
Amazing Spider-man was shot in 3D. But if you intend on seeing it in IMAX 3D you better go quick, Dark Knight will replace it in less than 2 weeks.

Good website to know what movie is native or faux (post-processed) 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 142
7/10/12 at 10:43am
{hand raised}> another one here who silently kept most of my dislike for Raimi's spidey through out the years. I knew from the beg it was dead when they casted uber goober lame duck Tobey. I watched the all of them anyways hoping it would turn around or have other redeeming values but nope.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 142
7/10/12 at 10:45am
Catching it today. If the 3D looks as good as Journey 2's it should look pretty spectacular (although Journey looked horrific in 2D!)! I'm guessing it wouldn't hurt to make it to the show late since its another retelling of the origin...yawn!
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 142
7/13/12 at 11:37am
Wow. I really thought this movie was horrible. It dragged and I almost walked out but I so wanted it to be good. Just awful.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 142
7/16/12 at 10:07am
Saw it yesterday in IMAX 3-D ($17 tix). It's been a long time since I saw Toby's Spidy, but I think I liked this one better. Probably due to another decade of advancement in CGI technology and capability. Some of the web swinging scenes were really breathtaking. Didn't think 3-D added much of anything, and I hate wearing the glasses over my real glasses. I'm about done with the 3-D fad and its related super-sized ticket prices. Let it die and wake me when we have true three dimensional holographic projections that don't require special eyewear.

All in all, a good summertime popcorn flick IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 142
7/16/12 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

With one exception, I have hated the 3D version of every movie I have seen in that format. The exception was Avatar, which I understand was filmed with actual 3D cameras. Was The Amazing Spiderman shot with 3D cameras too? If so, I may have to see it again in 3D IMAX.

gwsat, didn't like the acting of the Lizard. The movie seems juvenile. I should have just watched on my new LG 3D TV. The batman for sure was shot in 3D and with great storyline. A must watch in IMAX 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 142
7/16/12 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing3DTVFan View Post

The batman for sure was shot in 3D and with great storyline. A must watch in IMAX 3D.
If you are talking about The Dark Knight Rises, it was not shot in 3D, just 2d (although 60mins of it was shot in IMAX).
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 142
7/17/12 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

With one exception, I have hated the 3D version of every movie I have seen in that format. The exception was Avatar, which I understand was filmed with actual 3D cameras.

And Prometheus. smile.gif


...I'm seeing The Amazing Spider-Man in IMAX 3D this afternoon, looking forward to it as I was never fond of Raimi's version.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 142
8/2/12 at 7:28am
'Spidey' Marketing Costs Sink Sony Pictures Q2 Fiscal Result

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/sony-pictures/spidey-marketing-costs-sink-sony-pictures-q2-fiscal-result-27972
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 142
8/2/12 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

'Spidey' Marketing Costs Sink Sony Pictures Q2 Fiscal Result
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/sony-pictures/spidey-marketing-costs-sink-sony-pictures-q2-fiscal-result-27972

The movie is doing strong business (656 million worldwide), next quarter will get better results I guess...
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 142
8/9/12 at 12:03pm
I saw the new spidey movie recently and overall I was dissapointed. I agree that Emma was a waaay better actress than that cross-eyed chick. I felt that the story/funny lines weren't as good as Raimi's. The bully scene in the new one was pretty lame. I would take the original one over the new one any day. IMHO.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 142
8/20/12 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

Glad I'm not alone in hating Raimi's "biological" take on Pete's web slingling abilities. Besides, shouldn't have Tobey McGuire's webbing shot from his ass...you know...LIKE A SPIDER?
But I know I get the blashphemy tag when I say I hated The Sam Raimi Spidey flicks. For me, the reboot should have occured in 2003, not 2012.

Love Rami's other work, but have to agree. I thought his trilogy was dreck that just got worse the longer they had to do it.

Saw this the other night. Slightly annoyed at the run time and having to go through an hour and 15 of origin that has been done to death in comics, movies and cartoons. But in the end it was done well, even with way to much teen angst thrown in for todays audiences. A bit overuse in CGI for my tastes, but the action and choreography was excellent. And I'm not sure why stone was wearing knee highs in just about every freaking scene, but that is not one of my complaints!

When Parker was being Spidey it was spot on. There's a good foundation here for a sequel to go somewhere new(ish) with both Parket and a good take on Spiderman.
Edited by TyrantII - 8/20/12 at 10:12am
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 142
8/20/12 at 10:29am
I thought they missed a huge opportunity for Peter to say to the releved father after Spidy had rescued his kid on the bridge: "Who am I? Why, I'm your friendly, neighborhood Spiderman." Talk about an applause line! That scene was perfectly set up for one of the iconic Spiderman catch-phrases. Tobey might have had a tough time pulling it off, but Garfield could have delivered it perfectly.

I've often daydreamed that I'd be perfect for the job of a Hollywood script doctor. How do you apply for one of those? tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 142
8/20/12 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Slightly annoyed at the run time and having to go through an hour and 15 of origin that has been done to death in comics, movies and cartoons. But in the end it was done well, even with way to much teen angst thrown in for todays audiences
Like you, I thought the one hour plus reprisal of the Spiderman backstory was a bore and hurt the film. After that, though, it was a lot of fun. Garfield was outstanding as Peter Parker, as was Emma Stone as Gwen.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 142
8/20/12 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Like you, I thought the one hour plus reprisal of the Spiderman backstory was a bore and hurt the film. After that, though, it was a lot of fun. Garfield was outstanding as Peter Parker, as was Emma Stone as Gwen.

Thing is, if the other trilogy wasn't so new, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

smile.gif

Next flick get over the HS angst, but keep the nerdy and witty humor and you got yourself a perfect Spiderman movie. Garfield really did do a great job owning the role in the second half.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 142
8/22/12 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by strong12345 View Post

Anyway, we have to admit that this is a fantastic and wonderful movie.
Although it had its strong points, I thought that The Amazing Spider Man fell well short of being fantastic and wonderful. I though the boring one hour plus reprisal of the back story at the beginning of the film all but sunk it. I gave it 6 Stars out of 10 when I voted on IMDb. That may be too low and I may raise it to 7 Stars but certainly no more than that.
Edited by gwsat - 8/23/12 at 8:21am
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 142
8/22/12 at 9:18pm
The most important for this movie, is faithful to the original comic.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 142
8/22/12 at 9:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Although it had its strong points, I thought that The Amazing Spider Man fell well short of being fantastic and wonderful. I though the boring one hour plus reprisal of the back story at the beginning of the film all but sunk it. I gave it 6 Stars out of 10 when I voted on IMDb. That may be too low and I may raise it to 7 Stars but certainly no more than that.

Your thoughts gwsat the Amazing Spiderman vs the tobey Maguire version?
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 142
8/23/12 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Although it had its strong points, I thought that The Amazing Spider Man fell well short of being fantastic and wonderful. I though the boring one hour plus reprisal of the back story at the beginning of the film all but sunk it. I gave it 6 Stars out of 10 when I voted on IMDb. That may be too low and I may raise it to 7 Stars but certainly no more than that.

You know, I didn't mind the backstory at all. When they re-make 'Titanic' in a few years (and you know they will), I'm betting they revisit the iceberg too. wink.gif

At least they finally got the mechanical web-shooters right. That bugged me to pieces in the Toby Trilogy (as I've come to call it).
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 142
8/23/12 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Your thoughts gwsat the Amazing Spiderman vs the tobey Maguire version?
In most ways I liked the Maguire films best but that was mostly because they were fresh and new. That said, I think that Andrew Garfield is a better actor than Maguire, so I liked Garfield's performance as Spiderman better than Maguire's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

You know, I didn't mind the backstory at all. When they re-make 'Titanic' in a few years (and you know they will), I'm betting they revisit the iceberg too. wink.gif
At least they finally got the mechanical web-shooters right. That bugged me to pieces in the Toby Trilogy (as I've come to call it).
The backstory reprise bothered me because it took so much time to tell the same story as the first Maguire Spiderman film, which was released only 10 years ago. I was therefore bored because the tale was so familiar. I ended up thinking that it had been a waste of over an hour. After that, though, the film got much better. I am really looking forward to the sequel.
Edited by gwsat - 8/23/12 at 8:49am
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The Amazing Spiderman