The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Amazing Spider-Man Review
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8765		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Numbuk [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Amazing Spider-Man Review
Kotaku liked it.
Author:  Mookhow [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Amazing Spider-Man Review
I liked it too.
Author:  Micheal [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
So did I.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
We're going before our anniversary dinner on Thursday.

I'm not in any way loyal to Sam Raimi's three Spider-Man movies. I found them to be mediocre, good, and utter dreck, respectively. But even the good one still suffered from the biggest flaw of all three films: Tobey Maguire was *** as Spider-Man, playing him with all the wit, cunning, and humor of a doped-up preschooler suffering from a mild mental handicap. I'm hoping for far better things from Andrew Garfield.
Author:  Shelgeyr [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
I liked it too :)
Author:  Raell [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:07 am ]
Post subject: 
This movie had more heart than all three of the Tobey movies combined. It was fantastic. I didn't care for the first person view while he was swinging... Other than that, it was fantastic.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 
It's maybe not the perfect Spider-Man movie (I've some structural quibbles, which I think may have been introduced in the editing process), but it's a damn sight better than any of the Raimi films (well, SM2 may be about equal, but that's a film that works in spite of itself, whereas ASM just has some flaws that hold it back). It's the first time I actually cared about any characters in a Spider-Man film.

Raimi's films were kind of...OK at a fundamental level (excepting numero trés), but were hideously miscast at every. single. conceivable. level. This film gets the casting right, with Garfield, Emma Stone, Sally Field, and (especially) Martin Sheen, and the film's far stronger for it.
Author:  Micheal [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
There is no second Easter Egg in the credits. You may just enjoy the rest of the credits or leave, your choice.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Raimi cast one thing right. J.K. Simmons is brilliant as JJJ.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's true. As much as I love J.K. Simmons, I don't think he'd be right for the reboot's more grounded characters, sadly. :(
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
That's true. As much as I love J.K. Simmons, I don't think he'd be right for the reboot's more grounded characters, sadly. :(

I agree, Stacy was a much better "civilian" antagonist for this movie. Which is why I'm upset that they blew their load on Leary in the first go-around.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
At least they didn't
Spoiler:
off Gwen Stacy right outta the gate.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
At least they didn't
Spoiler:
off Gwen Stacy right outta the gate.

Too true. Though
Spoiler:
I was scared for a few minutes that they were writing her out of the sequel in some epicly moronic move.

In other news, they actually saved (and have laid some groundwork for) the Green Goblin to be the one to do it! Following the comics for major events, what a novel concept!

I don't understand why we couldn't have kept Leary on for another one, done the copycat Spider-Man as a secondary plot in the sequel, and then killed Captain Stacy there. You could even get the same apology/blessing payoff, and then leverage both Gwen's misunderstanding and Stacy's promise from the movie into creating the tension, and let that flow into the last movie, where you kill off Gwen.

As it stands, I don't see Gwen making it through another movie, and that leaves the door open to introduce Mary-Jane into the reboot. Which I'd have been fine without. Plan a trilogy, leave Spider-Man with the extra guilt complex and un-entangled, romantically.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
I will say I didn't care for the dark "eyes" on the new Spider-Man costume (nor the new logo, but that's a smaller quibble). It seemed to unnecessarily add a darkness to Spider-Man that didn't need to be there, especially since the script had him acting a bit more unlikable than the Raimi iterations (which makes sense…everyone keeps blasting the decisions to make Parker a teensy bit of a jerk, because Spider-Man is "supposed to be happy-go-lucky, not-Batman, etc"). No the **** he's not! He was only like that in the comics because they were written in the '60s, before complex psychological profiles were invented, apparently. This is a guy who A) was abandoned by his parents with no explanation, B) is one of the smartest scientists in the world but is stuck in high school with loving but 'normal' 'parents' (who are far older and more out of touch than his peers'), C) had his father figure murdered almost right before his eyes, and directly because of his own (in)action, and D) is now having to deal with these awesome but insane powers that have been dropped into his lap. HE'S NOT OK. He deals with it incredibly well, but he's not without his own problems. Plus, teenager.

And that's even before the whole Gwen Stacy/Green Goblin thing.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
The darker eyes didn't bother me, because it's actually, for once, a reasonable bit of practical costuming.

You can look through dark meshes/screens pretty well. The same doesn't work for light ones. It's something the comics have always treated as rule of cool, with no explanation as to what exactly they're made of (or how a high school do-it-yourselfer managed to craft them), and the movies just kind of did the same and made them look "right" by comic standards in post.

As such, I figured that going with the practical approach would have been something you'd appreciate, 'Skeee. You certainly lament the immediate turn to CG whenever ILM does it these days.

Also, I don't have a WordPress account, so I won't mention it there, but Psifonian2 forgot to mention Nutbeem in describing Ifans' career's trajectory. For that matter, no mention of Nigel the Leg, either.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
They just make him look like Evil Spider-Man, from an alternate dimension. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief of a sunglasses tint through which to see while superheroing pretty easily, particularly if it aids the overall characterization and costume design of the subject.

Speaking of 'high school do-it-yourselfness,' what's the appeal of the mechanical webslingers? I know they're all original canon and stuff, but the organic ones always made more sense to me.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, mechanical webshooters sidestep the uncomfortable questions about why his biological spinnerets aren't placed anotomically anything like a spider's.

In addition, throughout the comics, when they're in effect (as, yes, even the comic has flip-flopped on them), they often get used to escalate dramatic tension as Peter runs out of web fluid mid fight, etc. In fact we saw a deft variation of this at the climactic fight with the Lizard, where Connors crushed them. Can't do that with biological ones.

Finally, they showcase Peter's scientific prowess. For the same reason you don't like origins that seem just utterly by chance and that could've happened to anybody, mechanical webshooters set up that if any other guy had gotten bitten by a radioactive (or bio-engineered) spider, the resulting superhuman would end up drastically different, even discounting what they use their superhuman abilities FOR.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I kind of hate the 'good guy's out of ammo' trope. It has its place in more serious films, but it feels like tedium in escapist fare. That's why I'm perfectly fine with action movies that feature guns with limitless clips (until, y'know, it's a plot point).
Author:  Raell [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Also...in the comics Peter made the web fluid, it wasn't something he ordered from Oscorp... That bugged me a little.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Raell wrote:
Also...in the comics Peter made the web fluid, it wasn't something he ordered from Oscorp... That bugged me a little.

Yeah. It didn't bug me that his dad made it for Oscorp, but I'd rather have seen Peter devise a way to copy it synthetically or something.
Author:  Shelgeyr [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
To be fair, there were a few things that bugged me about this Spider-Man. On the whole, however, I thought it was better than Raimi's - and back then, I didn't think there was much to dislike. This one just turned out better.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Decent movie.

I'd also like to share with you an epiphany that I've had, after watching that movie.

Spiderman's method of travel is aerial parkour. (Peter Parkour?)
Author:  Talya [ Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
I know they're all original canon and stuff, but the organic ones always made more sense to me.


Really? Because spiders shoot webs out of their limbs?

Of course, a spiderman that shot webbing from his *** just wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Amazing Spider-Man Review
http://www.spinnyverse.com/
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/