Almost a year ago I wrote my first article for the Crawlspace, a rather scathing (although light hearted) assessment of what we knew about the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man movie. I then followed that up with a second scathing article further delving into my reservations with the movie and what we had seen of it so far. My 3rd and until now final part of that series however was an attempt to be as positive as I could about the movie and all the things that were in it’s favour.

So here we are, a year later and the movie is finally out. So it is a perfect time to revisit my thoughts and offer my opinions on the final movie. I have decided the best and most honest way to do this is to examine every major point I made and see how right (or wrong) I was.

But before I do that I do not want to beat around the bush and drag this out. I made no bones about the fact that I thought the movie was going to be bad, hell every post that hit the crawlspace about the movie had me bitching about it in the comments. So now that I have seen it can I hold my head up high and say I told you so? Short answer is no. The movie was great and I have a lot of humble pie to eat :)

 

For reference here are links to those original articles.

Why “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie is (probably) going to suck (especially if you’re a fan of the comics).

Why “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie is (probably) going to suck – Cont.

Why “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie is going to be awesome! (maybe)

SPOILERS (Obviously)

Part 1: Reboot? AKA: Didn’t they already make this movie?

This is probably the only point I was right on. This movie did not need to exist, there was no reason that they couldn’t have simply carried on from where Spider-Man 3 left off but with a whole new cast. Or simply reboot without redoing the origin story. Because one of the most legitimate criticisms of this movie is that it feels very familiar to the original 2002 Spider-Man movie. It hits a lot of the same beats and story points. Which is not surprising.

Also in order to differentiate itself from the original it is kinda forced to tell the origin in a slightly different way, which leads it to being less faithful to the comic. However that being said, it is still very faithful to the essence of the comic book and is never disrespectful to the source material (more on this next). Going as far as to include a nice nod to the wrestling plot without including it.


Part 2: No respect for the source material. AKA: The soul of Peter Parker. AKA: I hate Marc Webb

I always said that I was fine with them changing certain things for the sake of it better fitting the medium. But I was convinced that the changes being made for this movie were outright assaults on the core elements that were essential to who these characters were, esspecially Peter Parker.

I argues that the core of who Peter Parker was, was something that was sacred. And I believe that it is, and that you cannot make a good Spider-Man movie without being true to that core. Marc Webb made some very concerning statements about this being a different Peter Parker and how because there were many incarnations of Spider-Man it was his responsibility to “reinvent” him in some ways. But I am very happy to say that in my opinion this was not a reinvention of who Peter Parker was and should be.

Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker is very much the awkward and lovable nerd that should be the core and soul of that character. In many ways he channels Toby Maguire while still putting his own personal uniqueness to the character. Maybe Andrew just understood the character better than Marc Webb, or maybe Marc Webb exagerated how different this Peter Parker is. Maybe he honestly thinks this is  avery different Peter Parker, he certainly said those exact words many times in interview.

But whatever the case may be, to me this was very much my Peter Parker. Sure he skateboards a little. Something which I strongly disagree with, but everything else about him was so perfect I can forgive that. In fact I was so impressed with Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker that I was almost moved to tears in the first 10 minutes of the movie just because I was so overjoyed to see Peter Parker so wonderfully captured in this movie. He is instantly likable, just the right amount of awkward , shy and nerdy. Was he better than Tobey? I know you all have an opinion on this and I guess it simply comes down to personal taste. I think they were both brilliant, but if you put a gun to my head and made my choose I think I would still lean towards Tobey as Peter. Maybe after a few more movies that will change, because there is not much in it.

However Andrew was certainly a better Spider-Man. as much as I complained that Spider-Man came off as too cocky and almost a bully in those early clips. The entire tone of those section are changed not only by the events that immediately proceed them (like Uncle Ben dying and Peter trying to track down the killer), but once you have gotten to know this Peter as the lovable nerd he is it completely changes the tone of his attitude. What before seemed cocky now seems adorable and funny, because we know he’s using the humour as a defense mechanism of sorts. We know he’s trying to act tough and allowing the mask and the costume to give himself reason to act the cocky fool he normally is too shy to be. This nails who Spider-Man is for me.

My only real complaints in regards to faithfulness to the source material, are the skateboard, the costume and the fact that Uncle Ben never says “With great power must also come great responsibility”. Sure he kinda says it in a long winded way, but since he credits the quote to Peter father it undermines the whole speech. A real shame. But a minor complaint.


Part 3: The costume SUCKS! AKA: Basketball head strikes back.

While I warmed up to the costume a little over time. I still think it sucks and that they did a much better job in the previous movies. However the good news is that in the movie, when Spidey is doing his thang, he just looks like Spider-Man. Most of the costumes problems are barely noticeable. His eyes never look yellow and the “webbing” on his face does nto stand out as that bad. The leg stripes are the worst offender closely followed by the blue fingers. Also most of the scenes are at night, so it doesn’t stand out as looking too filthy either.

All in all it’s not too bad. And we can always hope that in the sequel Peter has improved the design, no reason for them not to make fixes to this costume for the next movie. For me just fixing the face webbing, losing the leg stripes and making his fingers red would be enough to make me happy.

 

Part 4: The bad news from Comicon. AKA: Peter Parker on suicide watch.

As I said before, luckily all this stuff was out of context. The clips were described like this  -

After the trailer, the first footage shown at the panel introduces us to Peter Parker’s pre-superpowered life. His teachers complain that he’s tardy. He’s reprimanded for skateboarding in the hallway. He’s constantly bullied. He’s the kid who hides beneath his hoodie in the back of the classroom, the kid who always comes home with a black eye and can say he tripped and fell only so many times. But when he punches one of the boys who hit him in school, he and Uncle Ben are called into the principal’s office.

Pretty much none of this is true. His teachers complains Peter is tardy AFTER he is Spider-Man, him being late is only because he is Spider-Man at that point. He does get told not to skateboard in the hall and as I have said I take issue witht the skateboard, but I can let it slide in light of everything else.

The clip of him hiding beneath his hoody at the back of the class is right after Ben has died, not pre-powers Peter. That makes a big difference!

He is NOT the kid who always comes home with a black eye pre-powers. The parts of the movie when he comes home with bruises are all when he is Spider-Man and nothing to do with bullying. He get’s one black eye from Flash Thompson pre-powers. This footage was clearly poorly shown and poorly chosen. Or at the very least poorly interpreted.


Part 5: Dissecting the trailer. AKA: My god is that web coming out of his neck!?

I think the marketing people on this did a terrible job portraying Peter accurately. The trailers first shot of Peter has him walking down the corridor as most of the other kids turn to look at him as he passes by. It makes it seem like they are afraid of him or he did something that freaked them all out. I joked that he may have brought a gun to school in my original article. They then show him brooding for a second, as if he is some scary outcast that broods around school.

This is shockingly out of context. Both these scenes are after Uncle Ben dies, in the movie the corridor scene it is clear that the others kids have heard about Peter’s loss and it is pity that lead them to look at him this way. The following brooding shot is also immediately after Ben’s death., But the trailer show’s these shots as establishing shots of Peter’s character. Terrible choice and very misrepresentative of the character.

Still don’t like the fact the spider bites his neck as apposed to his hand, but that’s very nit picky so I’ll drop it.

I also complained about the plot line tying Peter parents to his origin. I still am not fond of this but the movie handles it well, although ti saves any resolution for a sequel.


Part 6: Gwen Stacy. AKA: I heart Mary Jane.

Emma Stone is a wonderful Gwen Stacy and although she is a little wasted (would have been a better sassy MJ than the straight laced Gwen), they do a great job capturing the essence of who she was in the comics. While she does not fear Spider-Man like in the comics, she is very much the daddy’s girl that gets all sappy and needy for Peter. And her finding out Peter is Spidey is handled really well and certainly no less faithful to the source material than having Peter be in love with MJ since he was a child and MJ living next door from an early age. All acceptable changes to suit the medium and the story they are telling in my opinion. Especially since it seems they will be telling Gwen’s infamous story! If Gwen does die and they bring in MJ in the sequels I will be overjoyed. Especially if MJ get’s he famous “Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot” line.


In Conclusion I was Wrong

I think that the marketing for the movie did a very poor job of presenting Peter Parker as he appears in the movie. However I am not going to shy away from the fact that I was wrong. OK I said it, big slices of humble pie for me :)

However I have never been happier to be wrong in my entire life!

 

Why “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie is going to be awesome! (maybe)

I was right about a few things in my follow up positive article. The cast were all great, especially Andrew Garfield and Martin Sheen. Vic Armsrong did a wonderful job with the stunts which all looked great (although some of the CGI was not perfect).

And I clearly owe Mark Webb an apology, not only did he direct the characters and the romance very well (as I expected) but he made a truly great Spider-Man movie that was very much respectful to the source material. James Vanderbilt did a great job with the story and I was especially happy to see they let the villain live in this movie. Which means the Lizard could return in a hypothetical Sinister Six storyline!

The web shooters were great and Spidey’s wisecracking was fantastic. I especially enjoyed “Crotch!” and “Someone has been a very naughty Lizard”.

 

Or in summary: ROLL ON THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2!

 

35 Responses to “Did “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie suck?!”

  1. #1 crutch says:

    good for you. i loved this movie.

  2. #2 Fred says:

    It was decent, nothing more.

  3. #3 Regless says:

    Personally I thought it was a lot better than decent. Glad you agree Parabolee. Although I missed uncle Ben’s famous line as well. A lot of people still seem to dislike the costume but I find it looks better than Toby’s. I think he has to do with the placing of the eyes on the mask. Or possibly the actors physique. Of course you’re still right about the orgin story. Many cartoons didn’t do it at all and still turned out great. I was finally starting to get worried when I saw the clip of how Peter mocked flash on this site. But that was actually a great scene even if the backboard thing was still a little much. I really enjoyed the fights too. One of the things I remember disliking strongly from the first movie is that slow-motion dodge when the green goblin threw his cutters at Spidey. It was a low point. In this one he could be right up in your face and you still couldn’t get your hands on him. Really looking forward to the next movie. Hope to see JJ, and actually MJ too maybe. Every time I’ve like the MJ character she was introduced slowly so I kinda of hope the same thing happens with this.

  4. #4 Jon says:

    @Parabolee

    Glad you liked the film.

  5. #5 Parabolee says:

    @3 funny that slow motion scene is one of my fabourite bits in the first movie. I agree the backboard was a bit much, and the football throw was the same gag one time too many, but all very minor issues.

    The costume is awful though. But easy to fix with a few tweaks, hopefully there has been enough hate for it that they take the hint.

    ASM 2 needs JJJ and MJ for sure. Those characters are far too import to not to have in the second movie.

  6. #6 Chris says:

    You do realize that Uncle Ben never said “with great power comes great responsibility” in the comics, right? If so, I don’t see the problem with him not saying it in the movie. It actually makes it more faithful to the comic. Regardless glad you liked it! Best Spidey movie to date in my opinion.

  7. #7 jvl1031 says:

    At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, if you go by Amazing Fantasy #15, Uncle Ben never actually said the line himself. It was just something that was told to the reader in the narration box at the end. I think the 90s Spider-man cartoon introduced the concept of Uncle Ben coming up with the line, just as it introduced the concept of the symbiote influencing Peter’s emotions and enhancing his powers.

  8. #8 Doc Folsome says:

    First off, Parabolee, I’m glad to see you stepping up and taking your lumps regarding your initial analysis of these movies.

    Truthfully, you should consider retracting your original articles. They really serve no purpose and contain wild speculation on sparse amounts of information. CS has taken a lot of heat in recent years (by the spider-creators) for being a den of hate. I think that analysis is completely unjustified, but unfortunately your articles kinda proved their point. I know your posts were in regards to movies and not comics, but still they contained an unjustified analysis on a creative work.

    You can fault the marketing people for taking things out of context, but ultimately you were the one who took things out of context by lacking the patience to see the final product before judging. Again, I’m encouraged to see you eating crow now, but I still cannot fathom what compelled you to write such sensationalistic articles without first asking yourself ‘hey, what if I’m missing some context here’…

    I’m not trying to attack you, honestly, its refreshing to see someone own up to their mistakes. But (and I recall saying this after one of your articles), we should ALL practice some restraint from judging a book by its cover or a movie by its trailer.

    FTR, I thought this film was quite good. I’ll take Garfield over Maguire all day and Stone over Dunst for eternity…

    *steps down off soapbox*

  9. #9 boomstick says:

    It suffers Acute Summer Film Hype Syndrome. It was a decent film, on par with X-Men First Class, but no masterwork-it’s just hyped to be the best thing since sliced bread, so invariably, some buy into the hype. Certainly there will be a sequel for the same reason the Hulk had a sequel (even though it tanked): The property is too big a name not to.

    But the film, enjoyable lightweight summer fare though it is, doesn’t quite match the hype and is soon destined to be overshadowed by The Dark Knight Rises anyway. This reboot really happened too soon after Raimi’s movies, and that timing plays a role on how well it’s received.

  10. #10 Parabolee says:

    @6&7 – You are both right of course, but it was so much more powerful when Uncle Ben said it. Even Peter could have said it in a voice over, it just seems odd not to have it. But as I said, very minor quibble.

    @8 – Doc, it would be absurd for me to erase those articles. Like a 1984-esque erasing of history because we don’t like what we said back then. What purpose would it serve other than to try and pretend I never said those things? Plus they are still entertaining to read and fascinating to see how much the movie was being misrepresented.

    And I strongly disagree with any argument that we should not criticize the perceived direction of art. Are we only allowed to say nice things? Everything that was said was based on clips and interviews that had been released. Are you saying we can not critically speculate on things? And there is a BIG difference between judging the perceived direction of the movie based on what they have showed us and told us and actually judging the final movie. I never judged the movie by it’s trailer, I judged the trailer by what it appeared to suggets the movie was going to be like. Which is what a trailer is supposed to show.

    As I said all along, I was keeping an open mind on the actual movie. And that I wanted to like it! Facts I have proven by going to see the movie with an open mind, loving it and being willing to admit that I was wrong.

    I hate it when people try to bully others out of criticizing the direction of something just because it is not complete. The fact that I was wrong about some things does not justify the argument that I should not have been allowed to criticize until I had seen the movie. If we do not speak out about what we don’t like until something is complete then we cannot influence it’s direction.

    The level of criticism in those articles was for the sake of entertainment and controversy. Both things it achieved quite well in my opinion, where it failed to entertain it certainly seemed to succeed in stirring up controversy and get us all debating.

  11. #11 boomstick says:

    First of all, Parabolee, my congrats on your gracious post. It was written with much thought, craft, and skill.

    It’s good to be open minded, better to admit when you feel you were wrong, and better still to stand up for your right to not merely praise art when it’s good, but your right to criticise it when it’s not. Only the current editors at Marvel would disagree with that.

    Doc Folsome, is giving the classic Marvel party Line: Say only nice things about Marvel, erase the bad things as much as possible. Who besides Marvel would want you to remove your prior posts criticizing the film? And why?

    I wonder……..

    Anyway, I may not totally agree with your assessment of the film, Parabolee, but I applaud your writing and gracious acknowedgement of your change of heart. Bravo!

  12. #12 Doc Folsome says:

    “What purpose would it serve other than to try and pretend I never said those things? ”

    As a scientist I’m quite accustomed to retractions and corrections being issued in our journals, and no one ever invokes a Big Brother parallel. I think those articles are useless, misleading, and silly. But it is certainly not my decision to make (thats for you and Brad). I just made a recommendation, do what you please.

    “And I strongly disagree with any argument that we should not criticize the perceived direction of art.”

    Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I absolutely do not share it. As long as you don’t mind writing corrective editorials for the remainder of your career, then knock yourself out. If unfounded speculation is your driving force for writing and critiquing, then you should continue to do so. I just think that it is naive to allow interviews/trailers/teasers to be your foundation in which you base your arguments. Especially when interviews/trailers/teasers are inherently deceptive and incomplete. And yes, I would prefer that we criticize the ‘direction of art’ not the ‘perceived direction of art’ b/c our perceptions often mislead us. And at the end of the day, people are going to remember the MOVIE, not the BUILD-UP for the movie, so if you want to write articles on something that will soon go the way of the dodo, go for it. Its your time, not mine that you’re wasting (IMO).

    “Are we only allowed to say nice things?”

    I don’t know why you would draw that conclusion. If you’ve ever read anything I’ve posted in the comments sections here (usually Osborn-related), you’d see that I rarely shy away from making negative assessments about arcs/etc. The point I’m making is that one should refrain from drawing ridiculous conclusions (ie, Why such-and-such will Suck!) when ‘such-and-such’ doesn’t even exist yet (to clarify, I’m saying that the movie does not exist until YOU have SEEN it). Otherwise, title your articles ‘why the amazing spider-man trailer sucked! or ‘why Marc Webb’s interviews suck’. Look, this is just my opinion, but if you want to earn my respect as a reader (which you may not care to and i can respect that)…give things a fair chance (ie, try them) then judge. And your judgement can be positive or negative at that point and i won’t care, i just want to hear reasonable (fact-based) discussions. Not speculation-filled, biased opinions.

    “And there is a BIG difference between judging the perceived direction of the movie based on what they have showed us and told us and actually judging the final movie. I never judged the movie by it’s trailer, I judged the trailer by what it appeared to suggets the movie was going to be like. Which is what a trailer is supposed to show.”

    Are you saying entitling your articles “Why The Amazing Spider-Man movie will suck” did NOT pass judgement on the movie??? C’mon dude, be honest, you jumped the gun b/c of a few things you ‘thought’ were true. But you were misled, its ok and Im happy to see you changed your mind. Also, how information-poor is the phrase ‘appeared to suggest’?? Wouldn’t you agree that speculation on what something ‘appears to suggest’ has a very good chance of being flat-out wrong? And if somehting has a very good chance of being flat-out wrong, why write it? In my opinion, you didn’t want to like the movie (despite saying that you had an open-mind b/c an open-minded individual would not have composed those articles) and that was at the crux of your argument. So you pulled on any thread that would would ‘justify’ your arguments and you got burned. I guess I’m just very surprised that you didn’t see this coming the whole time. And I disagree about the purpose of a trailer, i don’t think that their main agenda is to give an accurate depiction of what the movie will be like. i think the purpose of a trailer is to ADVERTISE a movie. And advertisements are what (say it with me folks)…inherently deceptive! Many scenes get cut from trailers (which is something thats been going on long before this movie), so how reliable is a trailer as a source of information??

    “The level of criticism in those articles was for the sake of entertainment and controversy.”

    This is where the rubber meets the road. I did not find your articles entertaining or controversial. I thought they were ignorant, biased, and ill-informed considering where that movie was in production at the time your articles were posted. I understand that this is just my opinion and maybe most people don’t agree with me, thats fine. I guess i just don’t understand why there is a need to inject controversy into a discussion on a unreleased movie. The fact that a movie is about to be released creates enough anticipation and drama that theres no need for ‘perceptions’ to knock a movie BEFORE it hits theatres.

    I appreciate this discussion, but we both (obviously) have drastically different views on whats entertaining and whats necessary. I’m really not trying to be disrespectful in any way, shape or form and if i’m offending you, I’m sorry. But i have to give my honest opinion.

  13. #13 Doc Folsome says:

    Boomstick-

    I’m not sure what you’re implying with that statement. I’m certainly not a Marvel-lackey and I would never blindly defend their work without reason. I’m a former Zeta-member turned Delta-member, that probably says enough about my allegiances, but if you’re not convinced you should read what I’ve written about the latest Bendis/Osborn/Avengers arc.

    If you’re in the camp for judging a book by its cover or a movie by its trailer (or what the trailer ‘appears to suggest’ about a movie :) )…then more power to ya!

  14. #14 boomstick says:

    @#12:

    With all respect, I have a hard time imagining why any scientist would, insist that records of previous analyses or opinions-even erroneous ones- be forever expunged just because he or she disagrees or dislikes them.

    Theres a very good reason to have things remain on the record: For good and ill and we learn at least as much from inaccurate predictions as the accurate ones. They provide a record of the climate of the times and an indicator of what mistakes not to make, a track record of analyses that succeeded and those that failed-and how and why.

    Just because you don’t like his previous posts is no reason to insist they be permanently purged from the record. That’s not retraction for accuracy-that’s censorship, and I find it difficult to fathom why anyone outside of Marvel editorial would want find Parabolee’s past commentary so bothersome as to insist on their outright removal.

    Parabolee issued a forthright, gracious, altogether honest retraction, which puts his previous postings about the movie in a new context, one in which he concedes his incorrect predictions about the movie. Surely there’s more to be gained by reading his prior posts in that context than reemoving them because you and certain editors at Marvel find them irksome.

    And it goes without saying that there’s simply no comparing the scientific method and popular, consumer level commentary on mass media. They’re two different things entirely.

    Let that suffice. Seriously,

  15. #15 Doc Folsome says:

    @14
    I don’t want to sound snide but… just b/c you can’t imagine something happening, doesn’t make it impossible. In my field, people don’t always report what they observe, they then publish falsified data and it gets removed from the searchable literature (which makes sense b/c the results would be fictional science). That’s not censorship. Publishing is coupled to grant money and that sometimes brings out the worst in people.

    But I’ll concede that it is not fair to compare these articles with scientific data, our freedom of speech protects that. I was comparing a scientist creating falsified data with a writer using out-of-context interview snippets/trailer scenes to generate sensationalistic outrage. Perhaps that wasn’t the best comparison.

    @Parabolee
    I apologize for suggesting that it should be removed. I still I think it was a ridiculous piece, but say anything you want, b/c its America. That’s a knee-jerk reaction by me b/c honestly I’m still pretty irked by your initial articles and your apology came off a little disingenuous.

    Personally, I’d rather read your work on the ‘Paging Miss Mary Jane Watson’ series as opposed to writing the aforementioned articles.

  16. #16 Ronny Cage says:

    Great article. Only problem is it drum rolled a hatred for this movie b4 it came from others who now either refuse to see it. Or seen it but don’t want to see what u see or can’t in a JJJ like fashion. Lol ,but nothing you can do about that. This actually makes you the expert on reviewing this imo. Although I hated the pre hate hype & ironically appreciated it at the time. it served a purpose because if people r biased if this article can’t turn them around. none can.

    one thing tho: it is suggested in other adaptions b4 this movie that uncle ben had to learn the lesson that with great powers comes great responsibility from somewhere & that somewhere being his brother. peter’s dad. A shield agent/scientist…

  17. #17 Mike 13 says:

    I thought the movie was on par with the first one… they both have their pros & cons…though I still give the nod to the original…it was better than SM3, but nowhere near as good as SM2

    So in order of greatness: I’d go with the following…. much to the disagreements of my fellow posters that will follow…

    1. Spider-Man 2
    2. Spider-Man
    3. The Amazing Spider-Man
    4. Spider-Man 3

    :)

  18. #18 Fish76 says:

    I liked the movie overall. The changes with that they made were tolerable and made sense for the overall story they were telling. However, my one huge complaint is that the commercials for the movie have scenes and conversations in them that were not in the movie. Overall the marketing for this movie sucked. The movie was a lot better than the previews for it led me to believe it would be. Of the 4 spider-man movies this one would be my favorite. That being said if they do not whack Gwen I will be forced to picket the movie studio, I want MJ, Emma Stone should have been MJ not Gwen.

  19. #19 Bryan says:

    I thoroughly enjoyed it! :)

  20. #20 jack brooks says:

    My son Alex saw it the night it opened, and said it was very good. He speaks as a non-reader of comics, though he is a big LOTR and Orson Scott Card fan, so he knows his tastes in fantasy/sci-fi genre. I haven’t seen it yet; I just liked that Spider-Man shows a sense of humor in the ads.

  21. #21 Parabolee says:

    As a pretty good argument as to why things should be criticized before they are released is the fact that it appears the Amazing Spider-Man movie is probably a MUCH better movie due to the fact everyone hated the suggestion of the parents storyline and the fact that it appears to have been dropped.

    YAY for us critics :) -

    http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/

  22. #22 Two-Bit Specialist says:

    @21 Nope.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/marc-webb-the-amazing-spider-man_n_1626287.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Huffington Post: I have heard rumors that you wanted Peter’s parents to be the source of his powers, not the traditional accidental radioactive spider bite. There are rumors of a reshoot to incorporate the more traditional spider bite.

    Marc Webb: I think there was something on the internet.

    Huffington Post: I want to clear that up.

    Marc Webb: It’s completely false.

    Huffington Post: So what we see is the way it was always shot?

    Marc Webb: Yes.

  23. #23 K-Box in the Box says:

    This assumes that Marc Webb is not lying. And given the weight of evidence presented by the Badass Digest article, including the movie’s own trailers and promotional photos, I think the logical conclusion is that he is.

  24. #24 boomstick says:

    Movies often get recut prior to release, usually on the basis of focus groups and preliminaryaudience response to initial test screenings. That’s just drill.

    Given the inconsistencies between the scenes we’ve seen in promos and commercials and what’s clearlly on the screen, it’s obvious that this film underwent a pretty decent sized recutting. The implication in the promos is that there were differences in the origin, which weere deleted in the final cut of the film, but there’s no way to tell for sure unless we see the actual script.

    It’s common for directors, producers to obfuscate a it tocast their film in the best possible light. My thinking is that there wa sindeed a more drastic reboot filmed than what finally made it to the screen-and it may have been the origin, but there’s no way to tell for sure. But the indicators are there.

  25. #25 Max Frankow says:

    Im glad you enjoyed it. I think it’s one of the best, if not the best in the series… The only one I liked in the last trilogy was the first, though jk simmons, the score, and the villain casting was great. I’m hoping sony sizes up and hires jk. Ack for Jonah’s inevitable return to the series.

  26. #26 Jon says:

    I’d hire Bryan Cranston as JJJ.

  27. #27 Jon says:

    And I also enjoyed the film. I really hope Webb returns as the relationship dynamics were especially great (his bread and butter). And the visuals were epic. Unfortunately I don’t think he would be happy with Sony’s apparent intervention (whether it was for the better or not, it should have happened in pre-production, not post). I thought after 30 minutes we had an instant classic, but as the Badass Digest article stated, the points where the film stalled had alot to do with the re-edited sequences in regards to the origin. As a result, something that should/could have been a 10/10 became about an 8.3/10 on the Richter scale of epicness. Doesn’t bode well for the future. So we are probably looking at a new director (again). If so, they better get a HUGE name to avoid a new wave of fallout inevitably to come.

  28. #28 Jay says:

    Actually I saw the movie this past Saturday and I found the Uncle Ben lecture very reminiscent of the version found in Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 1 #5 when Ben drags Peter from a party at Kenny’s house after worrying them both by his disappearance. All in all, in spite of certain aspects of both the suit and the altered origin, it is infinitely better than Spider-Man 3 and Garfield is a worthy successor to Maguire.

  29. #29 Rosie says:

    I thought that “THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN” was a pretty good movie. It had its flaws, but it was still more than decent. I would rate it at the same level as the 2002 movie, “SPIDER-MAN”. But I feel that “SPIDER-MAN 2″ and “SPIDER-MAN 3″ were better.

  30. #30 Parabolee says:

    @22. I think Marc Webb is being intentionally misleading. He is stating that Peter always got biten by the Spider and that was the “source of his powers” rather than the obvious fact (we have all seen the clips and trailers) that the movie originally insinuated there was more to it than that.

  31. #31 Kevin Jay says:

    I was waiting to see TASM in the hope that it would be amazing (as the name suggested) but it turned out to be pretty awful. Acting,edit,music,action, writing and direction was well below the standard and way below the credit everyone is giving it. If I had to give it a score out of 10 it would be a 2/10.

  32. #32 Starkiller says:

    Wow Really!!!, This movie sucked, first 45 min, no action, he gets bitten by the spider, and learns kunfu, and basketball., pitter parker crying face, made me laugh, he looked like abig liped mokey after eating his own poop. It sucked so bad, my girl friend beg me to make it stop. This is the first marvel movie i dont watch, a tootal waste of time!!! i hope not to see spiderman mixed with the avengers!!!!

  33. #33 Ibman says:

    Now that the dust has settled. I have to say it wasn’t good. The Peter Parker portrayal was totally wrong. Garfield looked like Leon Trotski doing a bad impression of James Dean. Not good. The costume looks like a wino peed on it in a back alley.

  34. #34 Marcelo says:

    In the moment you said “the LIZARD could return in a hypothetical SINISTER SIX storyline” i started to doubt about if you actually know something from the comic-book and if all those times you mentioned the movie was “respectful to the source material” you actually knew what you’re talking about or just blind-guided by some fanboy-ish feeling. Although i agree with you most of the points. I wouldn’t say James Vanderbilt work was good. I think it was the actors and the director who struggled for fixing that piece of insult he left to the team. James doesn’t know how to write a comic-book story, and why would he? He is not even a comic-book writer, not even a WRITER for god’s sake.

  35. #35 parabolee says:

    Rather a belated reply from Marcelo but since he took the time to post on such an old article I will take the time to reply :)

    I presume by your Lizard/Sinister Six comment you are insinuating that because the Lizard was never a member of the SS that it would be unfaithful and therefore I don’t know my comics? Well I stated clearly several times that changes of that kind don’t bother me. The movie Sinister Six does not have to be the original line-up from the comics. The Sinister Six has has many line-ups and the Lizard was a member of the Sinister Twelve, which is good enough to include him in the movie line-up for me.

    However it appears we now know who the SS will be in the future movies and the Lizard is not one of them, but it’s still good that he is still alive for a possible future return.

Leave a Reply

Heads up! You are attempting to upload an invalid image. If saved, this image will not display with your comment.