The Amazing Spider-Man - OPEN SPOILERS NOW

[thenammagazine]

No it wouldn't. Not even in the slightest.

It's like James Bond.

That's how a series should be rebooted. Enough of this origins crap. EVERYONE KNOWS Spider-Man's origin.

Everyone. Even kids today know. Know why? Because Spider-Man 2002 is still around. Kids still watched it. Or they watched the cartoon, or they read the wikipedia page.

There was no need for this movie. It was made only to keep the rights. Only for money. It wasn't made because they had a good story, or a good vision, it was created for, and only for money.

Most films, they have a reason to be made, other then money. Batman Begins was made for money, but Nolan had a unique vision. And that worked.

Oxymoronic. The James Bond reboot was all about his origin.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

No it wouldn't. Not even in the slightest.

It's like James Bond.

That's how a series should be rebooted. Enough of this origins crap. EVERYONE KNOWS Spider-Man's origin.

Everyone. Even kids today know. Know why? Because Spider-Man 2002 is still around. Kids still watched it. Or they watched the cartoon, or they read the wikipedia page.

There was no need for this movie. It was made only to keep the rights. Only for money. It wasn't made because they had a good story, or a good vision, it was created for, and only for money.

Most films, they have a reason to be made, other then money. Batman Begins was made for money, but Nolan had a unique vision. And that worked.

I too didn't want the origin again, but if they're making a new canon then that's what has to happen, i accepted and enjoyed the ride, others refused to let it go and get on board (didn't help that Sony heavily markette it as including the untold story when it was only the seeds planted for the untold story)

Marc Webb had a vision too, just because the film was made to retain the rights and retold the origin (in a different manner) doesn't make the film any less good in it's own right as a standalone film.

The FF reboot will probably retell the origin and i'm fine with that, if it's anything like ASM it'll do it better the second time around.

 

[AMAZEN]

No it wouldn't. Not even in the slightest.

It's like James Bond.

That's how a series should be rebooted. Enough of this origins crap. EVERYONE KNOWS Spider-Man's origin.

Everyone. Even kids today know. Know why? Because Spider-Man 2002 is still around. Kids still watched it. Or they watched the cartoon, or they read the wikipedia page.

There was no need for this movie. It was made only to keep the rights. Only for money. It wasn't made because they had a good story, or a good vision, it was created for, and only for money.

Most films, they have a reason to be made, other then money. Batman Begins was made for money, but Nolan had a unique vision. And that worked.

JAMES BOND!!! wow. Passing down the torch because (whatever the hell their names are cause i don't watch bond movies) get to old is not the same as rebooting a movie with a new character playing Peter Parker or Brice Wayne or Clark Kent. We will never stop watching these movies because we always want more. And so what if its about Money, anyone who hates the fact that its about money is jealous they don't that kinda cash'.. period!

 

[CelticPredator]

I too didn't want the origin again, but if they're making a new canon then that's what has to happen, i accepted and enjoyed the ride, others refused to let it go and get on board (didn't help that Sony heavily markette it as including the untold story when it was only the seeds planted for the untold story)

Marc Webb had a vision too, just because the film was made to retain the rights and retold the origin (in a different manner) doesn't make the film any less good in it's own right as a standalone film.

The FF reboot will probably retell the origin and i'm fine with that, if it's anything like ASM it'll do it better the second time around.

I don't think the movie is bad. Just making sure you know that.

And Marc may have had a vision, but the film wasn't made with his vision as the starting off point.

I'm cool with a new canon, but there are better ways of doing that honestly.

Batman Begins worked because no one ever told the origin story. Outside of the parents thing.

The sequel might work, now that the rights are secured, and they might have actual time to make something worthwhile.

I don't want Webb back. Honestly. He didn't do a bad job, but he did nothing that stood out. But then again, they shouldn't resort to generic blockbuster directors like Brett Ratner, or Len Wisemen.

Find someone with a true, unique vision. Like Raimi. That's what will set this series apart from the originals, and anything else out there.

 

[krec9]

I don't think the movie is bad. Just making sure you know that.

And Marc may have had a vision, but the film wasn't made with his vision as the starting off point.

I'm cool with a new canon, but there are better ways of doing that honestly.

Batman Begins worked because no one ever told the origin story. Outside of the parents thing.

The sequel might work, now that the rights are secured, and they might have actual time to make something worthwhile.

I don't want Webb back. Honestly. He didn't do a bad job, but he did nothing that stood out. But then again, they shouldn't resort to generic blockbuster directors like Brett Ratner, or Len Wisemen.

Find someone with a true, unique vision. Like Raimi. That's what will set this series apart from the originals, and anything else out there.

: good post: i agree 100% if Webb is out no big deal.

 

[CelticPredator]

But at the same time, I wouldn't be against if he came back, with a basket of goodies.

 

[AMAZEN]

I don't think the movie is bad. Just making sure you know that.

And Marc may have had a vision, but the film wasn't made with his vision as the starting off point.

I'm cool with a new canon, but there are better ways of doing that honestly.

Batman Begins worked because no one ever told the origin story. Outside of the parents thing.

The sequel might work, now that the rights are secured, and they might have actual time to make something worthwhile.

I don't want Webb back. Honestly. He didn't do a bad job, but he did nothing that stood out. But then again, they shouldn't resort to generic blockbuster directors like Brett Ratner, or Len Wisemen.

Find someone with a true, unique vision. Like Raimi. That's what will set this series apart from the originals, and anything else out there.

I bet of you had a vision to make the best spiderman movie ever created, after legal, and about a million ppl telling you what to do your vision will be diluted to something you never intended in the first place, you cant fart without asking for permission. thats the name of the game, they forced Webb to start from the beginning wether he had a different vision or not

 

[CelticPredator]

Eh?

They hired Webb, because he was cheap, and was interested. They gave him a script, and said make this in this many days or else. And that's it.

 

[AMAZEN]

Eh?

They hired Webb, because he was cheap, and was interested. They gave him a script, and said make this in this many days or else. And that's it.

because you have him on speed dial and asked him this yourself. prove to that this is the case

 

[ironwez20]

lol Celtic are you still bashing this movie. it was good everyone loved it the sequal is being made and it didnt bomb the end lmao. Yea the origin was anoying to have back but hey new start right ?

 

[CelticPredator]

because you have him on speed dial and asked him this yourself. prove to that this is the case

Because this is simple film logic. If you go read anything on making films, or watch any special features, any interviews of any director, you'll know this is pretty much true.

If you follow the events up until the film, you'd see this is likely the case.

Maybe it wasn't. But they didn't make the film because they wanted too. That's for sure.

 

[AMAZEN]

Because this is simple film logic. If you go read anything on making films, or watch any special features, any interviews of any director, you'll know this is pretty much true.

If you follow the events up until the film, you'd see this is likely the case.

Maybe it wasn't. But they didn't make the film because they wanted too. That's for sure.

IMO they made the film because superhero movies are the hottest ticket at the box office, you would have to be brain dead not to want to keep rebooting these movies, granted if it sucked arse I would agree they rushed making it, but the fact is that 5 years later they came out with "The Amazing Spiderman" not to be confused with "Spiderman" and it did a great job. With that being said I cant wait for Spiderman's sequel to Amaze me in a few years.

 

[CelticPredator]

Sam wanted some time to formulate a good story. Sony said ____ you, make it now. Sam walked. Sony whipped up a story real quick, hired a cheap director, made the movie quickly to not lose the license.

That's what happened.

 

[thenammagazine]

Sam wanted some time to formulate a good story. Sony said ____ you, make it now. Sam walked. Sony whipped up a story real quick, hired a cheap director, made the movie quickly to not lose the license.

That's what happened.

I was actually under the impression he was called in and told they were going with someone else and had decided to reboot the franchise (based on the reception of SM3 which was their fault, not his).

 

[CelticPredator]

https://www.deadline.com/2010/01/ur...-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/

From what that says, Sam was supposed to finish the film rather quickly, and Sony wanted a certain story, that Sam hated.

They decided to walk. Which was probably for the best.

 

[ShadowX81]

I was actually under the impression he was called in and told they were going with someone else and had decided to reboot the franchise (based on the reception of SM3 which was their fault, not his).

I wouldn't be so quick to put all the blame on the studios. Sure they made a few creative demands, but let's be honest here. Spiderman 3 had alot of problems. And some of them had nothing at all to do with the forced inclusion of Venom.

 

[CelticPredator]

Uh, everything had to do with that. That killed the entire movie.

Everything that sucks about Spider-Man 3(sans Mary Jane...blah) is all from the suit, the symboite, Venom, ect. All of it.

They wrote a script, then the studio told them to quickly add in Venom. Which meant added characters like Eddie Brock, the Suit storyline, the final battle....you can't change something like that in a short period of time, and have it be good. It's impossible.

 

[thenammagazine]

I wouldn't be so quick to put all the blame on the studios. Sure they made a few creative demands, but let's be honest here. Spiderman 3 had alot of problems. And some of them had nothing at all to do with the forced inclusion of Venom.

Disagree 100%. Remove the symbiote, Topher and Venom and it's an entirely different movie with a great plot, no emo-parker, and a touching villain. The studio's insistence on Venom is what destroyed that movie.

 

[snoop101]

Ive provided plenty of points why I think The Amazing Spiderman wasn't "Amazing." You just choose to sit in a corner and ignore anyones opinion that doesnt praise this film and say its the best movie ever made.
Ill state why I didn't like the film again, for the 5385675 time;

The plot structure is EXACTLY the same. There was no "untold story." The trailers made it seem like we were getting an all-new "fresh" take on the origin story, but what we got wasn't even close. Everything that couldve made this film be unique seemed to be cut out at the last minute, giving us nothing but a not as good rehash of what we have seen before. Sure there were minor changes, but even the "original" villain had the same inner conversations like green goblin did. I guess giving Spidey web shooters and a new costume makes it completely original and the best superhero movie to date.

@Snoop

You said you didn't like it because it wasn't any different from the original. Well hats wrong, end of.

Even still you've provided no points to how it's the same other than the villain's inner mologue in that one scene

Refer to this....

Wheres the same plot you mention???????

______

Guinessfan doesn't like it based on the Actual film itself, not based on a comparison to the original film. That is valid, saying because it's the same plot or film rehashed isn't valid isn't as it's not the same at all

Please, if the movie is exactly the same like you claim, prove it with words explaining how.

Did you not read what I posted? And you expect me to make a list explaining what I felt was the same about ASM and Spiderman? You know what would be a shorter list? The things that were different. Its not about what is in the movie, its about what isn't. Where's the "Untold story?" What happened to the search for Uncle Bens killer? What happened to peters parents? Or what about in the trailers, "If you want the truth about your father, come and get it." or "You think what happened to you was an accident? There seemed to be a HUGE chunk of the story involving peters connection between his father and connors that was cut from the movie. If I wouldve known that the origin wouldve been much of the same as the original film, except with a few MINOR details changed, I wouldve preferred they just skipped it. Top that with average acting at best and a terrible soundtrack, you get a below par film.

Guinessfan doesn't like it based on the Actual film itself, not based on a comparison to the original film. That is valid, saying because it's the same plot or film rehashed isn't valid isn't as it's not the same at all .

And I don't care what guinessfan thinks .(no offense to him) I don't need you to "validate" on whether or not my opinion is correct.

 

[ironwez20]

Like I said venom just needed to be in a movie by himself just him and spiderman ?