Reply With QuoteI actually don't believe you. Liar.Originally Posted by Balasarius
And you're certainly entitled to your opinion! I just disagree, because I thought the Avengers was bloody brilliant.
But this thread isn't the place for that conversation, so carry on, all. :-)
I actually don't believe you. Liar.
This is about as close to objectively wrong as an opinion can get. I congratulate you on riding the cutting edge!
It wasn't. According to the actor who played Connors, it was someone employed by Osborn that fans would be familiar with. Considering all the Ultimate Spidey elements in the movie I would guess it's Electro.
Last edited by MattKeil; 07-09-2012 at 03:17 PM.
Which is what IGN reported, but I didn't want to say it, in case someone felt I had spoiled something for them.
Like.
+1
Just saw it. Agree with a lot of the criticisms here such as the overlong intro (though that was made up for by Martin Sheen), the few dropped plot points that are developed and then cast aside, and the godawful adverts for BING! BING BING BING!
Plus the only good fight in the entire movie was the one where Webb has Lizard show up at Parker's high school. In contrast to the finale that fight gives us some actual interplay between the two characters and has a few nice long shots of the action. The finale is instead staid and predictable - "two minutes to detonation." Really?
Also did anyone not roll their eyes when the Oscorp suit decided to go test the serum at the veteran hospital?
Just saw it, really enjoyed the movie. Much better than Raimi's efforts. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was great, and the former is far, far superior casting for the role than McGuire.
The problem with yet another Spider-Man origin story is also that, of all the superheroes I can remember, he's probably the one least needing an origin story.
Actually, on second thought, he probably takes a second place to Hulk. Either way, in medias res seems to be a lost art in superhero movies.
I agree their chemistry was great (I'd hope so, dating in real life and all), but I just am NOT a fan of Garfield in the role of Peter Parker. Even compared to Tobey Maguire, at least circa Spider-Man 1. He just wasn't nerdy enough for me.
Or Superman. But yes, none of them ever need another origin story done. (The proper way to handle it is like they did Hulk's origin in the most recent Hulk movie. That's all you need...five-minute montage, bam, done.)
I'd like to think that origin stories were only necessary to introduce movie audiences to the idea of super heroes, and that now that they're well established, even new heroes will have to spend less time on them.
Thor wasn't really an origin story per se, and a Hawkeye and Black Widow never got much beyond "here's a guy, he has a bow, deal with it", so I have hope that it's the direction we're going in.
Supposedly we're going to get a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and I can't imagine them doing origins for that, but it might be easier because their origins are all "he's an alien".
Well, Thor was BASICALLY an origin story, as that's how we got to know him in the comics as well, wasn't it? That's my understanding anyway. It really feels like it was more about setting Loki up, anyway.
As for the introduction to Black Widow, that came back in Iron Man 2, and we got the glimpse of Hawkeye...but the succinctness of their intros in Avengers is due, I think to Joss Whedon. He knows how to briefly but effectively introduce anyone -- see the opening shot on the ship in Serenity. That's how an intro sequence is done.
But I'm with you. I hope future directors learn from that.
Thor's origin story was that a lame doctor finds a wooden stick while on vacation in Norway. When he strikes the stick down he turns into the mighty Thor and does his thing.
That might have been somewhat retconned in later comics, though.
I remember that guy. Can't remember his name though.
Donald Blake.
Oh my bad. I never heard that take. I like this version better, lol. Alright, maybe it wasn't a true origin story then. Didn't suffer at all for it.
Yeah, I wonder what the story was there? I guess he was just an unpopular hidden identity. Peter Parker is a wise ass and Clark Kent was what? Mild mannered. Bruce Wayne was a mild mannered playboy with a dark background. Tony Stark was a flamboyant playboy.
I guess old Donald Blake just couldn't cut the mustard. All I remember about him was that his hair was graying at the temples and he had a cane.
One thing I'll say for this Spiderman is that he worked really well as a high school kid. That wasn't in the comics was it? I always thought Parker was a twenty something struggling college kid, trying to pay the rent as a photographer for the Daily Bugle.
IIRC, Blake could only be Thor with certain limitations, like proximity to Mjolnir (60 seconds without it and he'd turn back), and maybe an actual time limit. Also, IIRC, Thor agreed with you, he hated being Donald Blake and was miffed when he had to relinquish control. Some of this might apply to Eric Masterson instead of Blake though, I get them confused.
He started in high school, and eventually (slowly) aged out and became a freelance photographer during college, among other things. I think he then briefly became a high school teacher himself before he was reset recently in One More Day.
Leads were good, story wasn't anything special, wtf was up with the Lizard design (just stick with the brilliant Ditko design), really did not need another Spidey origin so soon (and please, DC, don't give us yet a third Batman origin after the current trilogy).
But, The Flying Nun as his aunt and Shiela ("I may be bad, but I feel good") as his mom?
I did like that he was moved back to high school.
A FB friend was asking about Gwen Stacy being the first girlfriend rather than Mary Jane in Raimi's movies and how that might bode for the infamous bridge scene with a GG (though I think Sony might be reluctant to do GG again so soon). That post reminded me that my first Spider-man issue I bought as a wee lad was #123, with Luke Cage on the cover. It was the first issue right after that famous story, but as a kid it kept throwing me off with all the references to it. It wasn't until years later that I learned the details and their impact on Peter as a character (no internet back then in the early 70s <g>).
The movie podcast slams this movie and they're 100% correct. There's nothing redeemable here. The motivations for Peter Parker are quickly forgotten because the scenes that are supposed to detail his inner struggle do absolutely nothing to justify it. The script for the original at least made Peter's anger at himself reasonable, this movie did nothing of the sort as Andrew Garfield attempts to act through menthol-induced tears.
There was no interesting lead-up to a Lizard Man reveal, none whatsoever. You know he's coming up but then you spot him throwing some cars and snarling, and when he actually reaches his goal the scene just cuts and nothing is resolved with his goal, it's just taken over by a ridiculous attempt at tearjerking where you know what the solution to the problem is but the film takes an extra 3 minutes to get to it after attempting to drum up some half-assed excitement (the kid in the van).
Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborne was at least given a script where he had to struggle internally with his new identity and it transformed a part of his psyche into something uncontrollable... there was nothing given to Rhys Ifan (Curt Connors) for him to do here. The movie spent so much time trying (and failing) to give us some motivation for Peter Parker to be a super hero that he had no villain to go up against. A 10 second segment of a video recording is all this movie gives for Curt's final villainous mission, and it fucking fails.
The "original" Spider Man was leaps and bounds above this crap. Garfield "looks" the part very well (and inexplicably shows ridiculous muscles 3/4 of the way through the movie), but Maguire was given a much better script and a much better director to work with. This movie did not have to be made at all.
Some more retarded-ass shit (SPOILERS):
Connors helps Spider-Man from hanging off a ledge... wow... yeah, because Spider-Man hanging off a ledge is in some deep fucking shit.
Spider-Man magically appears in a car that was so good at locking itself that the thief needs to use some fancy electronic device to hack into the door lock.
Spider-man dodges 5 bullets in succession from 10 feet away, but then gets shot from a bullet fired from 100 feet away by some random SWAT asshole as he's swinging away... OK!
Nothing is shown of the extra mutated Lizard-men. Nothing. Not a single scene of them wreaking havoc or giving us any reason to give a shit that Connors is attempting to hatch this plan on a larger scale. Why should we even care?
Spidey's webs are available on the internet! And he gets them delivered to his house! Because people are ordering this shit all the time and the police can't be arsed to connect the dots between some asshole shooting this out of his wrists and the fact that this futuristic webbing material is available on eBay.
Dennis Leary was given no good snark? Whoever wrote his scenes should be fucking fired. Dennis is more than capable of writing some great off-the-wall (and yet still PG-13) shit (see Rescue Me). I'm amazed they cast him and then didn't use him for what he's best at... being the grumpy know-it-all-asshole. Did I miss where this movie was rated PG or something?
How much suspension of disbelief is too much before you start making the movie-goer feel like he's being treated like a ten year-old, really?
And finally, I feel bad for Emma Stone. I think she's a sweetheart and a good actor, and she did a legitimately good job with what she was handed.
Last edited by Pogo; 07-19-2012 at 08:48 PM.
On the positive side, some pretty good fight scenes and web slinging/swinging - CGI incrementing forward nicely for representing superhero action. Only one or two moments where the characters felt "weightless".
Having just seen it though, I agree there's something a bit wonky with the script, it seems like it's trying to have the gravitas of "Batman Begins", but it's just not working, and it's too long. There's some great acting but it's not enough when the script just ain't right. It's trying hard, but something's just not clicking.
Plus also it has that "made for tv" script thing of people appearing suddenly in the right place at the right time - apart from Spidey's swinging, there's little sense that anybody's anywhere other than in certain rooms where things need to happen.
One just has to ask oneself: why another origin tale? His origin is imprinted on everyone's mind from the Raimi films, why not get on with some different stuff, just do like the Incredible Hulk did and do a potted origin montage at the beginning? Connors was indeed a great choice for an adversary for another Spidey film, but why have him tied to a new origin? Just baffling.
Loved this movie. So much better than the raimi crap. Great looking direction with actual characters instead of charictures.
I still prefer Raimi's take on Spiderman. Spiderman 2 especially since it let Raimi show off his horror pedigree in the surgery room when Doc's arms first come to life.
While I enjoyed the reboot and have the blu ray (it was on sale on black friday, what can i say?), Garfield's Parker just...annoyed me. That's not to say he's a bad actor. I think he's fantastic in the first Red Riding film. But he seemed to "think" too much about being an American High Schooler in some of his scenes in Spiderman. He adds these weird little movements to his character that seemed less like precocious teenager and more like palsy victim. There's one scene, right after his first fight with the Lizard when he races off to Gwen's room that sticks out. I thought Gwen's character was going to have to hold him down and put something in his mouth to prevent him swallowing his tongue.
Also...Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris make a much better Uncle Ben and Aunt May.
Posting Permissions