The Amazing Spider-Man (Spoilery discussion)

How would you rate The Amazing Spider-Man?


  • Total voters
    16
Cap I responded to this in my review.

The film even tries to trick you at the end with Uncle Ben's voice-over about growing up and finding your own identity (more on that in a second) but immediately after we see that Peter has learned absolutely nothing by breaking the promise he made to Captain Stacy.

Had he not done that I would agree with you. Also when did "realistic" mean the person has to be an *******? Man of Steel had that same problem. It's so cynical and it disgusts me because I live every day trying to help people and be kind to everyone I meet (something I learned from Superman (my number #1 role model as a child (and I guess adult as well) because my adoptive father and I didn't really get along too well when I was growing up) and Spider-Man). Does this make me "unrealistic"?
 
Cap I responded to this in my review.



Had he not done that I would agree with you. Also when did "realistic" mean the person has to be an *******? Man of Steel had that same problem. It's so cynical and it disgusts me because I live every day trying to help people and be kind to everyone I meet (something I learned from Superman (my number #1 role model as a child (and I guess adult as well) because my adoptive father and I didn't really get along too well when I was growing up) and Spider-Man). Does this make me "unrealistic"?

First, I'm impressed by the nesting parentheses. Well done. :)

Second, is that quote responding to Peter's character arc? If so, then I would simply ask if the decision to break the unfair promise he was forced to make to a man on his deathbed really negates all of his growth as a character. Maybe he really was wrong to break the promise, maybe it really was a selfish decision. He still grew as a character from an angry vengeful person to someone who tried to help others. He still has room to grow. Guess what, Gwen is going to die b/c she is Spider-Man's girlfriend. That HAS to happen. And, like you said in your review, that pushes Peter's story along. Gwen's death is almost as essential to the Spider-Man mythos (and Peter's growth as a hero) as Uncle Ben's death (which is why I don't like that Sins Past messed with her. It would have been just as upsetting if there was a retcon story that suggested that Uncle Ben really died b/c he slept with the burglar's wife. Gwen and Ben are innocents that Peter loved, but that died because of Peter. If you make them less innocent it messes it up). Anyway, my point is that Peter had to get back together with Gwen so she can die. And that will help him to grow too. He doesn't come to the end of the first movie as a finished product, but as a guy who has completed the first leg of his journey. He's not there yet, but he HAS grown. And that's exactly as it should be.

That's why I like Spider-Man better than Batman, b/c Batman is the world's best everything and has no potential for growth. Spidey is a neurotic mess who is just trying to do his best. He doesn't have it all figured out, he makes mistakes, he isn't superior... But he has a good heart and he's trying to navigate the whole hero thing. He grows. ASM captured that and that's why I liked it so much (and actually, that's why I liked Nolan's Batman movies more than I actually like Batman...and the reason that a lot of real Batman fans didn't love them, especially Rises).

Third, as for what you said about realism not being the same as cynicism, I agree. And I don't think I ever implied otherwise, so I'll assume that statement was aimed at the movie more than at me [EDIT: oh, it was aimed at DiB's statement.] Yes, Peter is a jerk for a good portion of this movie. I don't think that makes him a more realistic character, it just is a different take on his journey that adds some more meat to the bones of the classic "Uncle Ben dies b/c Peter didn't stop the guy when he could have -> Peter becomes a hero" story. It just fills in the details of what it took to get him there. Is it more realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but I certainly find it more interesting.

They didn't have to redo the origin, but since they decided to, I'm glad they went a different direction that Raimi's films did. In Raimi's Spider-Man, the first act was the origin story, and then they moved on to the rest of the movie and focused more on the Green Goblin as the driving force behind the plot. In ASM, the entire movie is Spider-Man's origin. He doesn't become a hero until the third act and even then, he's still struggling with it. I'll freely admit that as a result, the Lizard story is a little bit meh, but that's okay b/c the Lizard story is just another vehicle to drive the REAL story which is Peter's growth into a hero.

I hope the sequel develops the villains better. Harry Osborn is my favourite Spidey villain b/c it sucks so much that Peter's best friend goes crazy and tries to kill him (there's a lot of personal angst there, which, again, is what Spider-Man is about). But even if he's minor and Electro is the main bad guy, I really hope they make him an interesting character and a credible threat, but I still want that to take a back seat to Peter's story.

You mentioned that Superman is your number one role model (and I would therefore assume your favourite super hero too). Superman is super human in every way. He is the quintessential super hero. He isn't flawed. He always does the right thing. He is an ideal. He really is a 'Christ-figure.' Spider-Man isn't that. He never has been. He shouldn't ever be. He's just a dude who got some powers and is trying to do his best. I don't want my Spider-Man comics or movies to try to make him like Superman (or Doc Ock, but that's a whole other rant). Keep him a flawed person, keep him growing in his heroism, keep him learning from his mistakes.

Fourth, good for you for always trying to help people and be kind to everyone (I mean that, good for you!) I try to do that too. But I fail. That's why I don't want a fictional hero who is a Christ-figure and is flawless. A role model like that would be discouraging for me, I think. But I am really thankful for Jesus Christ who not only is a flawless role model but makes up the difference for my failures (see my signature - yeah, I know, I know, I'm blindsiding you with stuff about my faith, but it's pertinent to the discussion for me). I don't think I've ever thought of Spider-Man as a role model, or as someone to look up to. But as fantasy escapism he's awesome b/c I can relate to him. I could probably do what he does if I got powers, because Peter Parker is just some guy. He's the hero that was designed to be relatable. He's anyone that ever got picked on, or who got turned down by a girl, or who wasn't good at sports, or who couldn't figure out how to balance his life, or who couldn't catch a break at work, or who could barely make rent, or who let down his parents. That's what I meant when I said he's the Everyman.
 
Last edited:
Cap I responded to this in my review. Had he not done that I would agree with you. Also when did "realistic" mean the person has to be an *******? Man of Steel had that same problem. It's so cynical and it disgusts me because I live every day trying to help people and be kind to everyone I meet (something I learned from Superman (my number #1 role model as a child (and I guess adult as well) because my adoptive father and I didn't really get along too well when I was growing up) and Spider-Man). Does this make me "unrealistic"?

In terms of the realistic mention I assume you were referring to my post:

Completely agree with Cap. ASM's version of Peter was a much more realistic and fleshed out version of the character than in the Raimi movies.

Him acting like a jerk early on doesn't make him more realistic, but his responses and behavior to what he experiences does, versus Tobey Maguire's bland, one-dimensional version from the Raimi films. I never liked him in that role, nor was the role written especially well or offer much in the way for the actor to make the role truly memorable. In terms of comparing the two film versions of Spider-Man, Garfield's version is better written and far more interesting, least in my opinion.

First, I'm impressed by the nesting parentheses. Well done. :) Second, is that quote responding to Peter's character arc? If so, then I would simply ask if the decision to break the unfair promise he was forced to make to a man on his deathbed really negates all of his growth as a character. Maybe he really was wrong to break the promise, maybe it really was a selfish decision. He still grew as a character from an angry vengeful person to someone who tried to help others. He still has room to grow. Guess what, Gwen is going to die b/c she is Spider-Man's girlfriend. That HAS to happen. And, like you said in your review, that pushes Peter's story along. Gwen's death is almost as essential to the Spider-Man mythos (and Peter's growth as a hero) as Uncle Ben's death (which is why I don't like that Sins Past messed with her. It would have been just as upsetting if there was a retcon story that suggested that Uncle Ben really died b/c he slept with the burglar's wife. Gwen and Ben are innocents that Peter loved, but that died because of Peter. If you make them less innocent it messes it up). Anyway, my point is that Peter had to get back together with Gwen so she can die. And that will help him to grow too. He doesn't come to the end of the first movie as a finished product, but as a guy who has completed the first leg of his journey. He's not there yet, but he HAS grown. And that's exactly as it should be. That's why I like Spider-Man better than Batman, b/c Batman is the world's best everything and has no potential for growth. Spidey is a neurotic mess who is just trying to do his best. He doesn't have it all figured out, he makes mistakes, he isn't superior... But he has a good heart and he's trying to navigate the whole hero thing. He grows. ASM captured that and that's why I liked it so much (and actually, that's why I liked Nolan's Batman movies more than I actually like Batman...and the reason that a lot of real Batman fans didn't love them, especially Rises). Third, as for what you said about realism not being the same as cynicism, I agree. And I don't think I ever implied otherwise, so I'll assume that statement was aimed at the movie more than at me. Yes, Peter is a jerk for a good portion of this movie. I don't think that makes him a more realistic character, it just is a different take on his journey that adds some more meat to the bones of the classic "Uncle Ben dies b/c Peter didn't stop the guy when he could have -> Peter becomes a hero" story. It just fills in the details of what it took to get him there. Is it more realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but I certainly find it more interesting. They didn't have to redo the origin, but since they decided to, I'm glad they went a different direction that Raimi's films did. In Raimi's Spider-Man, the first act was the origin story, and then they moved on to the rest of the movie and focused more on the Green Goblin as here driving force behind the plot. In ASM, the entire movie is Spider-Man's origin. He doesn't become a hero until the third act and even then, he's still struggling with it. I'll freely admit that as a result, the Lizard story is a little bit meh, but that's okay b/c the Lizard story is just another vehicle to drive the REAL story which is Peter's growth into a hero. I hope the sequel develops the villains better. Harry Osborn is my favourite Spidey villain b/c it sucks so much that Peter's best friend goes crazy and tries to kill him (there's a lot of personal angst there, which, again, is what Spider-Man is about). But even if he's minor and Electro is the main bad guy, I really hope they make him an interesting character and a credible threat, but I still want that to take a back seat to Peter's story. You mentioned that Superman is your number one role model (and I would therefore assume your favourite super hero too). Superman is super human in every way. He is the quintessential super hero. He isn't flawed. He always does the right thing. He is an ideal. He really is a 'Christ-figure.' Spider-Man isn't that. He never has been. He shouldn't ever be. He's just a dude who got some powers and is trying to do his best. I don't want my Spider-Man comics or movies to try to make him like Superman (or Doc Ock, but that's a whole other rant). Keep him a flawed person, keep him growing in his heroism, keep him learning from his mistakes. Fourth, good for you for always trying to help people and be kind to everyone (I mean that, good for you!) I try to do that too. But I fail. That's why I don't want a fictional hero who is a Christ-figure and is flawless. A role model like that would be discouraging for me, I think. But I am really thankful for Jesus Christ who not only is a flawless role model but makes up the difference for my failures (see my signature - yeah, I know, I know, I'm blindsiding you with stuff about my faith, but it's pertinent to the discussion for me). I don't think I've ever thought of Spider-Man as a role model, or as someone to look up to. But as fantasy escapism he's awesome b/c I can relate to him. I could probably do what he does if I got powers, because Peter Parker is just some guy. He's the hero that was designed to be relatable. He's anyone that ever got picked on, or who got turned down by a girl, or who wasn't good at sports, or who couldn't figure out how to balance his life, or who couldn't catch a break at work, or who could barely make rent, or who let down his parents. That's what I meant when I said he's the Everyman.

You just created a college thesis, sir. Well done, once again I completely agree, and must say you obviously really "get" the Spider-a Man character.
 
You just created a college thesis, sir. Well done, once again I completely agree, and must say you obviously really "get" the Spider-a Man character.

Haha, well thanks, I am pretty passionate about the subject. But I decided to go to school and learn about Jesus instead (Seriously, I got a BS in Bible and youth ministry and am currently working on Masters of Divinity pastoral track)
 
I'm trying so hard not to compare this to the other films. Also if you're wondering about my opinion of the trailer for the second one all I'm seeing is the exact same thing as the first and who the writers are not helping it's case at all.

First, I'm impressed by the nesting parentheses. Well done. :)

Thank you! It's a talent I picked up in high school that annoyed the hell out of my teachers.

Second, is that quote responding to Peter's character arc? If so, then I would simply ask if the decision to break the unfair promise he was forced to make to a man on his deathbed really negates all of his growth as a character. Maybe he really was wrong to break the promise, maybe it really was a selfish decision. He still grew as a character from an angry vengeful person to someone who tried to help others. He still has room to grow. Guess what, Gwen is going to die b/c she is Spider-Man's girlfriend. That HAS to happen. And, like you said in your review, that pushes Peter's story along. Gwen's death is almost as essential to the Spider-Man mythos (and Peter's growth as a hero) as Uncle Ben's death (which is why I don't like that Sins Past messed with her. It would have been just as upsetting if there was a retcon story that suggested that Uncle Ben really died b/c he slept with the burglar's wife. Gwen and Ben are innocents that Peter loved, but that died because of Peter. If you make them less innocent it messes it up). Anyway, my point is that Peter had to get back together with Gwen so she can die. And that will help him to grow too. He doesn't come to the end of the first movie as a finished product, but as a guy who has completed the first leg of his journey. He's not there yet, but he HAS grown. And that's exactly as it should be.

Third, as for what you said about realism not being the same as cynicism, I agree. And I don't think I ever implied otherwise, so I'll assume that statement was aimed at the movie more than at me [EDIT: oh, it was aimed at DiB's statement.] Yes, Peter is a jerk for a good portion of this movie. I don't think that makes him a more realistic character, it just is a different take on his journey that adds some more meat to the bones of the classic "Uncle Ben dies b/c Peter didn't stop the guy when he could have -> Peter becomes a hero" story. It just fills in the details of what it took to get him there. Is it more realistic? Maybe, maybe not, but I certainly find it more interesting.

It's a movie. It stands alone. It has to stand alone because that is what it is. Saying "it'll be handled in the sequel" is pretty much invalidating your point already. We aren't talking about the sequel, we're talking about this film and this film alone. The character growth in Iron Man isn't the same growth that is in the other two and vice versa. In this film there is no growth. Even by the end he is still a selfish jerk. The selfishness is brought back up by him refusing to keep the promise AND by him obsessing about his Uncle's killer. Growth would have shown him taking the picture down and keeping the promise (would this go against the comics? Yes, and it would be all the better for it. In fact, I probably would have been able to look past all of the other bull this movie has against it if that had happened).

That's why I like Spider-Man better than Batman, b/c Batman is the world's best everything and has no potential for growth. Spidey is a neurotic mess who is just trying to do his best. He doesn't have it all figured out, he makes mistakes, he isn't superior... But he has a good heart and he's trying to navigate the whole hero thing. He grows. ASM captured that and that's why I liked it so much (and actually, that's why I liked Nolan's Batman movies more than I actually like Batman...and the reason that a lot of real Batman fans didn't love them, especially Rises).

I hated Nolan's films because they were crime dramas that were too ashamed of the fact that they were based on comics (same as Man of Steel) and the fact that they weren't Batman...like, at all (where was the Bruce Wayne portions? Where was the detective side? Where was...so much?).

You mentioned that Superman is your number one role model (and I would therefore assume your favourite super hero too). Superman is super human in every way. He is the quintessential super hero. He isn't flawed. He always does the right thing. He is an ideal. He really is a 'Christ-figure.' Spider-Man isn't that. He never has been. He shouldn't ever be. He's just a dude who got some powers and is trying to do his best. I don't want my Spider-Man comics or movies to try to make him like Superman (or Doc Ock, but that's a whole other rant). Keep him a flawed person, keep him growing in his heroism, keep him learning from his mistakes.

Actually my favorite superhero is Daredevil. I agree with what you are saying about Spider-Man, I just think this film did a horrendous job of doing it because I cannot, will not, and will never like an *******.

Fourth, good for you for always trying to help people and be kind to everyone (I mean that, good for you!) I try to do that too. But I fail. That's why I don't want a fictional hero who is a Christ-figure and is flawless. A role model like that would be discouraging for me, I think. But I am really thankful for Jesus Christ who not only is a flawless role model but makes up the difference for my failures (see my signature - yeah, I know, I know, I'm blindsiding you with stuff about my faith, but it's pertinent to the discussion for me). I don't think I've ever thought of Spider-Man as a role model, or as someone to look up to. But as fantasy escapism he's awesome b/c I can relate to him. I could probably do what he does if I got powers, because Peter Parker is just some guy. He's the hero that was designed to be relatable. He's anyone that ever got picked on, or who got turned down by a girl, or who wasn't good at sports, or who couldn't figure out how to balance his life, or who couldn't catch a break at work, or who could barely make rent, or who let down his parents. That's what I meant when I said he's the Everyman.

I'm going to say that as an atheist I respect your religious beliefs and leave it at that. If I got Peter's powers I would NEVER use it for personal gain because I just don't have it in me. I don't resonate with this Peter because for me he's not relatable in the slightest. In fact, I had to defend myself from people like him growing up and seeing one of my idols being turned into something a resent pains me in ways I can't even describe.

See, his post isn't so large when you break it into sections and cut stuff out :p

Spider-Man > Jesus for life.

Superman = Space Jesus
 
Last edited:
It stands alone. It has to stand alone because that is what it is. Saying "it'll be handled in the sequel" is pretty much invalidating your point already. We aren't talking about the sequel, we're talking about this film and this film alone. The character growth in Iron Man isn't the same growth that is in the other two and vice versa. In this film there is no growth. Even by the end he is still a selfish jerk. The selfishness is brought back up by him refusing to keep the promise AND by him obsessing about his Uncle's killer. Growth would have shown him taking the picture down and keeping the promise (would this go against the comics? Yes, and it would be all the better for it. In fact, I probably would have been able to look past all of the other bull this movie has against it if that had happened).

Your reasoning is a bit flawed. If he's a selfish jerk, even by the end, why'd he bother saving people's lives and risk death, speaking in terms of only the first movie? He's a teenager given incredible abilities who was dealt a complicated life even before gaining those powers, let alone afterwards. I'd think you'd take that into account in terms of his behavior, as well as his growth as a character in the movie considering that. When you say "in this film there is no growth", you're wrong, and merely selectively choosing to view it that way to support your dislike of the film. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, and if you don't like the film, that's fine, but it's illogical and weakens your ground to make a blanket statement like that which is inherently untrue.

I hated Nolan's films because they were crime dramas that were too ashamed of the fact that they were based on comics (same as Man of Steel) and the fact that they weren't Batman

What? That's another pretty ridiculous assessment.

...like, at all (where was the Bruce Wayne portions?

The whole first hour or so of Batman Begins? A good 40-60% of the other two films?

Where was the detective side? Where was...so much?).

There was a detective side, though perhaps not enough. But in Begins, it was his discovery of the toxin, having Fox help him analyze it, and discover its addition to the water mains, as well as deducing the theft of the microwave emitter from his company being used to aerosolize the toxin.

In TDK, it was shown in his analyzation of the bullet fragments to obtain fingerprints,

Admittedly there wasn't any that I can think if in TDKR, but I can forgive that since there was so much else going on.
 
It's a movie. It stands alone. It has to stand alone because that is what it is. Saying "it'll be handled in the sequel" is pretty much invalidating your point already. We aren't talking about the sequel, we're talking about this film and this film alone. The character growth in Iron Man isn't the same growth that is in the other two and vice versa. In this film there is no growth. Even by the end he is still a selfish jerk. The selfishness is brought back up by him refusing to keep the promise AND by him obsessing about his Uncle's killer. Growth would have shown him taking the picture down and keeping the promise (would this go against the comics? Yes, and it would be all the better for it. In fact, I probably would have been able to look past all of the other bull this movie has against it if that had happened).

Right, and I'm saying it *does* stand alone. He *does* grow, but he isn't complete at the end. And He'd better not be complete by the end of the sequel either. Spider-Man IS a guy on a journey of growth. He's learning and making mistakes. If he ever finishes that journey, he loses what makes him unique (well, unique isn't quite right, but only b/c other super heroes have been modelled after him since his inception.)

At the end of the first movie, he's no longer a jerk. He understands that the ability to do something good (his power) gives him a responsibility to do so. He didn't get that before - not because he was using his power for evil, but because he was using it selfishly: taking out his anger on Flash and muggers, not helping people that he didn't think deserved it, hunting down Uncle Ben's killer, etc. By the end of the movie he has grown from that to someone who truly wants to use his power selflessly to help people, no strings attached. He hasn't taken down the picture of Uncle Ben's killer b/c he'd still love to catch him, but he's not hunting him the same way he used to be. He's also much more considerate of Aunt May.

Yeah, he broke his promise to Captain Stacy, but I'm glad he did. This movie didn't need to end EXACTLY the same way Spider-Man 1 did. We all know they're getting back together, so drop the cliché of the hero not getting the girl b/c he wants to protect her. I'm glad they went a different route this time around. But that really doesn't show a regression/lack of character growth

Actually my favorite superhero is Daredevil. I agree with what you are saying about Spider-Man, I just think this film did a horrendous job of doing it because I cannot, will not, and will never like an *******.

If I got Peter's powers I would NEVER use it for personal gain because I just don't have it in me. I don't resonate with this Peter because for me he's not relatable in the slightest. In fact, I had to defend myself from people like him growing up and seeing one of my idols being turned into something a resent pains me in ways I can't even describe.

Really? You don't have it in you to be selfish? Ever? To take your anger out on people who have mistreated you? Peter wasn't bullying kids who were smaller than him, he was giving it back to people who bullied kids who were smaller than them. I'm not saying it's right, because it's not. But I have a hard time believing that you've never felt like he did.

Actually, let me try this another way: I hear you saying that you DID feel like he did and had to defend yourself from bullies. If you had the power to get back at those people you despised and make them understand what if feels like, you can honestly say you never would? Not just that you hope you wouldn't, but that you definitely wouldn't because you just don't have it in you? You would always turn the other cheek and be the bigger man and forgive and lead by example? Always?


I'm going to say that as an atheist I respect your religious beliefs and leave it at that.

You don't have to leave it at that. I'm always up for discussing issues of faith whether that's in a God or in naturalism or whatever.
Superman = Space Jesus
Well, not really.

There was a detective side, though perhaps not enough. But in Begins, it was his discovery of the toxin, having Fox help him analyze it, and discover its addition to the water mains, as well as deducing the theft of the microwave emitter from his company being used to aerosolize the toxin.

In TDK, it was shown in his analyzation of the bullet fragments to obtain fingerprints,

Admittedly there wasn't any that I can think if in TDKR, but I can forgive that since there was so much else going on.

He managed to get the prints of a professional cat burglar, find out who she was, find her, and figure out where she lived. That's pretty detectivey.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top