The Amazing Spider-Man (SPOILERS BEWARE!)

[Richards]

No real need to make this a reboot, though. If Tobey Maguire didn't want to return to the role, simply recast him and carry on with Spider-Man 4. (How long did the James Bond franchise carry on with different actors in the role before finally rebooting with Casino Royale?) That's the part I don't get. Now, instead, we're starting over from scratch, instead of building upon the first three movies. It seems like kind of a weird decision.

Johnathan

 

[RangerWickett]

Because Spider-Man 3 was atrociously bad, and a reboot lets you plan a plot arc across multiple movies.

 

[Desdichado]

Then why the heck did they reboot the franchise?

I had just assumed it was to work Spidey into the larger framework of the Marvel film universe, but if that is not going to happen, why bother?

Take your pick from this buffet of possible options:
1) Sam Raimi had lost it by the time the third movie came out, and screwed the series up so badly that it would have been difficult to figure out where to take it.
2) Tobey was arguably too old for the part way back in 2002 already. He can't convincingly play an early 20s Spiderman. Same for Dunst. Plus, "classic" Spiderman is more of a teenager anyway. And heck, it seems likely that neither one of them would want to reprise those roles after so long either. I think it was a struggle to get them into Spiderman 3 as it was, IIRC.
3) Raimi wasn't interested in doing another one, and nobody was interested in following his vision instead of striking out on their own. Heck, there might have been legal requirements to leave Raimi's stuff alone and not build on it directly for all we know.
4) Reboots seem to work, while "fourth installment" is a less compelling draw for audiences.
5) Great opportunity to write a slightly edgier Spider-man including some of the anti-corporate paranoia that made the Ultimate Spiderman comic books interesting.

In any case, I thought it was by far the best Spiderman movie yet. I enjoyed it immensely and highly recommend it. Especially if you're more a fan of Ultimate Spiderman (before they killed Peter Parker--why does the Ultimate Universe so badly want to just kill off all its main characters and blow itself up all the time, anyway?) than original--I think it had a bit more of the feel of the Ultimate version in many ways than the original.

 

[Mark CMG]

Saw it this morning and enjoyed it. True the villain could have been more convincing and the music was not as evocative as it could have been but overall very good and the casting was 90% excellent.

 

[wingsandsword]

Take your pick from this buffet of possible options:
1) Sam Raimi had lost it by the time the third movie came out, and screwed the series up so badly that it would have been difficult to figure out where to take it.
2) Tobey was arguably too old for the part way back in 2002 already. He can't convincingly play an early 20s Spiderman. Same for Dunst. Plus, "classic" Spiderman is more of a teenager anyway. And heck, it seems likely that neither one of them would want to reprise those roles after so long either. I think it was a struggle to get them into Spiderman 3 as it was, IIRC.
3) Raimi wasn't interested in doing another one, and nobody was interested in following his vision instead of striking out on their own. Heck, there might have been legal requirements to leave Raimi's stuff alone and not build on it directly for all we know.
4) Reboots seem to work, while "fourth installment" is a less compelling draw for audiences.
5) Great opportunity to write a slightly edgier Spider-man including some of the anti-corporate paranoia that made the Ultimate Spiderman comic books interesting.

Eh, to each their own, but to me it's more a matter of why should I go see a Spider Man movie when I already have 3 of them on disc. I liked them at the time, and it's hardly like the first one became hideously dated in the last decade.

I was always a casual fan of superhero comics, so the movies shaped my mental image of the characters just as much, or more, than the original comics. Tobey Maguire is Spider Man to me the way that Christopher Reeve was Superman or Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man: I have trouble seeing anybody else in the part. Can't really say that about Batman, he's been through so many actors over the years that no one actor has really become super-associated with the role (at least serious-Batman, Adam West has campy silver-age Batman all to himself). Lou Ferigno might not be The Incredible Hulk anymore, but he's still so associated with the part they found ways to work cameos into the two Hulk feature films.

I didn't really hear anybody talking about how Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were too old at the time. I remember comic book fans squealing with joy at the movie, especially the first one (with some slight gripes about basically cheating at the end instead of playing the key scene from The Night Gwen Stacy Died straight). The third one was a bit of a dud, but the first two rocked. Spider Man 3 suffered the same "Villain Overload" problem that the later Batman films suffered: trying to cram so many supervillains into one movie that it loses focus. Sandman, Hobgoblin AND Venom in one film was like Batman & Robin having Bane, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze.

I understand from a rational perspective that Sony will churn out a new Spider Man movie at least every 5 or 6 years now ad infinitem to keep the rights, but do we really need/want a new rebooted film series every few years? How many versions of the origin story of Spider Man (or Superman, or Batman or any other iconic superhero) do we need?

 

[Aeolius]

Saw it this morning and enjoyed it. True the villain could have been more convincing and the music was not as evocative as it could have been but overall very good and the casting was 90% excellent.

Music can make or break a movie. To this day, "Batman Returns" is my favorite Batman movie, due in part to Elfman's wondrous soundtrack.

 

[Hand of Evil]

This was not a good movie but was it bad, I think so.

First - did we need a re-boot? There are pros and cons, I just don't think it was needed. Sure, you want to add 'Flash' to the story so you can now have Vemom as a story arc because everyone knows Vemom is cooler than a dino for the nex movie! The target viewers of this movie (those 13 or younger).

Second - Peter Parker, kind of a dick. Did not like. Spiderman has always had a mouth on him but the lines came across wrong.

Third - No J. Johah Jameson!

Forth - Story, this goes back to a re-boot debate but this is very slow to devolop. I thought I was watching a teenager romance movie NOT an action adventure one.

Fifth - CGI, just did not look well done.

Sixth - Music, just did not mix. Not sure why it brother me.

Acting - at least there was some good acting in the movie, I love me some Emma and it did not hurt to see her in boots and short skirts.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Here is one of the reason why they decided to go with a 'reboot'


Marvel exec Avi Arad explains why they nixed Raimi's Spider-Man 4

No real need to make this a reboot, though. If Tobey Maguire didn't want to return to the role, simply recast him and carry on with Spider-Man 4. (How long did the James Bond franchise carry on with different actors in the role before finally rebooting with Casino Royale? That's the part I don't get. Now, instead, we're starting over from scratch, instead of building upon the first three movies. It seems like kind of a weird decision.

Johnathan

 

[The Red King]

I will be taking my kids to see it this week. I wish I was looking forward to it more.

 

[Aeolius]

I saw the movie last night. To be honest, I think I preferred Spider-Man (2002) over The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). The older movie seemed less disjointed, to me. The newer movie was intentionally darker and emo, which is fine for some, but I think the Batman reboot has spoiled an entire generation of films.

In the new movies defense, Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) can act circles around Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson).

But that’s the only positive aspect of the entire movie. I could not empathize with the actor who portrayed the Lizard. In contrast, the actor who played Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 (2004) carried the entire movie.

And then there was the music. I was forewarned that the soundtrack to the new film was dull and uninspiring. That is an understatement, to be sure. Mind you, no one can compete with Danny Elfman, but the soundtrack seemed “canned”, as if it was generic movie music thrown in as an afterthought.