If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SlashFilm)   Photographic locker room evidence that Amazing Spider-Man 2 is stealing some Venom from Spider-Man 3   (slashfilm.com) divider line 9
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

7528 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-12 11:14:12 PM
1 votes:

Gergesa: I am just going to touch on what I disagreed with about the movie.

One Garfield and whoever played Gwen aren't convincing high school students.

The origin story doesn't really need to be redone anyway.  Everyone who is going to see the movie knows who spiderman is.

Garfield just doesn't look right as spiderman(aside from the age issue.)  Toby had that sort of innocent boyish look to him whereas Garfield looks more villainous.


That's okay. In the comic, Peter didn't even meet Gwen until college. He didn't go to high school with her OR Mary Jane. In high school, Peter first girlfriend was Betty Brant (JJJ's secretary). Liz Allen had a crush on him in later years, before graduation, but they never dated.

And that's what really bugs me about the way they put Spider-Man on the screen. They skip huge chunks of his life, skip right to Gwen or MJ, and ignore everything between his being bitten by a radioactive spider and his career as Spider-Man in college. They breeze past his issues with Harry, his being the constant victim of Flash before later becoming his friend, and his whole time as "puny Parker" when he worked REALLY hard to hide his identity (Protip: Bending the football goalpost with an offhand throw is not "low profile". Neither is taking off your mask every five minutes or making a superhuman leap to the basketball hoop when you're supposed to be a puny nerd.)

It's like they think they can't get mainstream viewers if they make Parker the nerd he's supposed to be. The best they ever do is "shy-but-cute hipster geek" and that's not who he was. Parker was a science nerd.

I didn't like Tobey's version either, but at least he didn't come off as a dick, like Garfield did.

And NO, they don't need to re-invent the character or rewrite his origin. The changes they made were unnecessary and kind of insulting.

I realize that at this point Sony's never letting go and Marvel will just have to have a Cinematic Universe without Spider-Man. That sucks, because a Marvel Universe without Spider-Man feels a little more... empty.
2013-02-12 08:09:14 PM
1 votes:

dehehn: ZeroCorpse: Nobody who cares about Spider-Man gives a shiat what Marc Webb does with Sony-Man 2. The first one sucked, and it pissed all over the character. I waited to see it for free with a Vudu credit, and I regretted wasting the credit. I won't waste the money or credit this time.

Give Spider-Man back to Marvel Studios, you Sony Pictures assholes.

And you people-- Stop paying theaters and Sony to see them ruin a character that deserves better.

How did they piss all over the character?  If anything the Peter Parker role was the most spot on in the movie.  He has the look, they did the fights well, the snarky comments, him skateboarding makes his daredevil attitude make sense.  Also Emma Stone is hot as fark as a blonde.

I'm curious where all the hate comes from for this movie.  Care to elaborate?


He's a dick throughout the movie. Not just a slacker, but an outright asshole. That's not Parker.

He's not snarky; He's mean. All his "jokes" were more like the kind of thing a bully would say. He takes it way past snarky comments to "stop hitting yourself" style gags, which is not very Parker, either.

Honestly, I saw it a while ago and there were a lot of very specific things that made me downright pissed at the writers and director (and Garfield), because they totally missed the point of who Peter Parker is, but I can't remember those specifics anymore... I seem to have blocked them from my memory.

Look, I'm a HUGE Spidey fan. I've read every issue of Amazing Spider-Man and Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man. Peter Parker-- not Spider-Man, but Parker-- is one of my heroes in life. He's supposed to be the brilliant science geek who gets picked on, gains great power, and remains humble and decent. The guy in this movie was neither humble nor decent. He was an asshole and a bully. He showed off his powers publicly (and his classmates are idiots for not figuring out his identity), he didn't just make bad jokes when fighting bad guys-- he was cruel and dragged it out, making the encounter feel less like Spidey cracking jokes to settle his own nerves (the reason he does it) and more like he was bullying the criminals, trying to humiliate them AND hurt them.

The skateboarding was way out of character, as was the whole basketball scene. And again, how hard is it for Peter Parker to keep his farking mask on for an entire movie, and NOT reveal his identity to someone? He revealed himself to more people in this one movie than Peter Parker revealed his identity to in the entire first 25 years of the comic.

His whole origin was watered down. His scientific prowess-- while better than in the Raimi pics-- was still lessened for the movie in the interest of making him less of a nerd and more of a "dark loner" character.

He acts out of character so frequently it's maddening.

And I'm sorry, but I really dislike the idea of making Gwen Stacy a high school classmate who also happens to work for OsCorp with Conners. It was just a really awful, clumsy way to smash as many comic elements as possible in one movie.

But if I had to sum up why I hate the movie (aside from the fact that Sony keeping the film rights means that we'll never get a proper Spider-Man movie that takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe), it would be in these clips:

http://youtu.be/l2KSPiTOMR8
http://youtu.be/IKe-HJhWrJc
http://youtu.be/SA-lmZKO4fU
2013-02-12 04:34:16 PM
1 votes:
You know who should have been Eddie Brock in Spider-Man 3?

John Cena.

No, I'm serious. He looks like the real life Eddie Brock, and John Cena being a total dickbag would have been a lot better than Topher Grace. fark, Topher Grace should have been Peter Parker.
2013-02-12 02:52:27 PM
1 votes:
ZeroCorpse: Nobody who cares about Spider-Man gives a shiat what Marc Webb does with Sony-Man 2. The first one sucked, and it pissed all over the character. I waited to see it for free with a Vudu credit, and I regretted wasting the credit. I won't waste the money or credit this time.

Give Spider-Man back to Marvel Studios, you Sony Pictures assholes.

And you people-- Stop paying theaters and Sony to see them ruin a character that deserves better.


i6.photobucket.com
i6.photobucket.com
i6.photobucket.com
i6.photobucket.com
2013-02-12 01:20:27 PM
1 votes:

YodaBlues: , it wasn't bad and they totally got the way Spider-man moves and fights. In the original trilogy, he was waaay too stiff and the lack of smart-ass spidey always annoyed the crap outta me.


The rest of the post as well, but especially THIS.  I'm not a fanboy by any means, and therefore don't carry a hard-on for being explicitly faithful to the source material, but Spidey as such had an attitude that was almost iconic and this new iteration of him made it seem natural, not awkward and forced as with Toby.

Being a remake so soon I had my doubts.  Refreshing to see them get so many things right instead of it being a botched hack-job.

Lizard was a lame villain, however well performed and written.  I pass that off as a poor executive decision though.

yves0010: Mechanical Web Shooters... That is all!


That's the one thing in the Toby suck-fest that I had no problems with at all.  Even as a kid I'd thought it would have made more sense, made him more Spiderman and less Iron Man / Batman.  Making them mechanical was also a Deus ex of sorts, allowing for very contrived circumstances.

When they were a part of his biology it made for easy parallels to impotency and were believable/natural as such.
2013-02-12 01:01:47 PM
1 votes:
Going back to Topher Grace:  Topher Grace would have been a perfect Peter Parker for the first trilogy.  Go back and look at his work as Forman - he had a dry wit but he was also a dweeb.  He got the girl but still had to deal with typical high school stuff.
2013-02-12 11:18:57 AM
1 votes:

scottydoesntknow: Venom wasn't an issue in Spider-Man 3, Eric Forman playing Venom was the issue. He's a great villain (or anti-hero depending on what you've seen), but if the actor who portrays him has only acted in rom-coms/played the dweeb on TV, it's gonna draw the audience out of it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the person needs to be fully committed (like Ledger playing Joker).

And Topher is just not a convincing villain (see also: Predators).


I always felt Thomas Haden Church made more sense playing Brock/Venom for that film.
2013-02-12 11:05:16 AM
1 votes:

yves0010: Am I the only one that is thinking this is an Easter egg on the movie. Like how the Raimi's Spider-Man had Conners in it but never used him. It could be a hint that Venom could be set free but not used as a villain till Amazing Spidy 3.


I don't think that was an easter egg -- more likely they were laying the groundwork in case they wanted to use him as a villan later on.
2013-02-12 10:02:57 AM
1 votes:
Venom wasn't an issue in Spider-Man 3, Eric Forman playing Venom was the issue. He's a great villain (or anti-hero depending on what you've seen), but if the actor who portrays him has only acted in rom-coms/played the dweeb on TV, it's gonna draw the audience out of it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the person needs to be fully committed (like Ledger playing Joker).

And Topher is just not a convincing villain (see also: Predators).
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report