The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[Chaos Warp]

I like how Spider-Man in this film retains his snark.

"Oh no, you found my one weakness! Small knives! *Web shoots*"

[Balding Spider]

Marvel threw the gauntlet down at DC and said, "Bring it, Bitch."

You mean Sony right?

[turbojet]

You mean Sony right?

Specifics...

[Chibinuva]

Congratulations, Marvel, you've managed to get me even more hyped for the movie than for the video game tie-in. Not only that, but some of the fighting scenes remind me why I've wanted to see a Spidey movie with Lizard so much. (and if he uses that line about clinging to walls being his trademark from Spectacular I'm going to fangasm.) The part about the knives was hilarious as well. I'm actually starting to wonder why everyone (including myself,) didn't think he would be snarky in this movie.

[PeanutButterDimond]

Loved the trailer. It was awesome! I can tell that the fight scenes in this will blow the fight scenes in the Raimi films out of the water. Seriously, THAT is how Spider-Man to move. that is how I've always wanted to see him move. The previous Spider-Man films had some nice action scenes and agility but nothing even near this good. Especially that Scene with Spidey on the wall and Lizard on the roof. Not too mention the ceiling fight. I also love how they are really emphasizing the importance of his parents which Webb wants to make and overall arc of.

Glad to see people here like it. On SSH, I've seen just mostly bitching about how from the trailers, it looks like Lizard's plan is to turn people in to lizards(Like he does in the comics), that the guy talking to Connors is a shit actor(Based off of ONE LINE OF DIALOGUE!) and how it's hinted that Peter's father might of had a hand in making the spider that bit Peter(Because god forbid a new interpretation actually invents some things of it's own while keeping the core components). Will people ever be pleased? Because people are already pissed off about stuff that honestly, in my opinion, sounds fine and isn't even confirmed yet. Serious, what the fuck?

On a happier note, have some amazing shots from the trailer.

Edited May 4, 2012 by PeanutButterDimond

[Eternal EX]

Loved the trailer. It was awesome! I can tell that the fight scenes in this will blow the fight scenes in the Raimi films out of the water. Seriously, THAT is how Spider-Man to move. that is how I've always wanted to see him move. The previous Spider-Man films had some nice action scenes and agility but nothing even near this good. Especially that Scene with Spidey on the wall and Lizard on the roof. Not too mention the ceiling fight. I also love how they are really emphasizing the importance of his parents which Webb wants to make and overall arc of.

Glad to see people here like it. On SSH, I've seen just mostly bitching about how from the trailers, it looks like Lizard's plan is to turn people in to lizards(Like he does in the comics), that the guy talking to Connors is a shit actor(Based off of ONE LINE OF DIALOGUE!) and how it's hinted that Peter's father might of had a hand in making the spider that bit Peter(Because god forbid a new interpretation actually invents some things of it's own while keeping the core components). Will people ever be pleased? Because people are already pissed off about stuff that honestly, in my opinion, sounds fine and isn't even confirmed yet. Serious, what the fuck?

On a happier note, have some amazing shots from the trailer.

Hey....Spidey's webshoot turns red. I didn't notice that til now. Hmmmm

[Celestia]

And I thought I was hyped before! That trailer increased my hype by tenfold, easily.

it's hinted that Peter's father might of had a hand in making the spider that bit Peter

How much importance did his parents have in the comics, anyway? In all the Spider-Man continuities I can think of, they're dead, but in this one, they (might be?) alive somewhere.

In any case, it's pretty cool that in this movie, Peter's father may have had a hand in creating the spider that gave his son superpowers later on.

I'm actually starting to wonder why everyone (including myself,) didn't think he would be snarky in this movie.

Probably because of the Raimi trilogy. I recently rewatched the first movie and I had forgotten how there was barely any of the witty banter I've come to expect due to every other adaptation--Spectacular Spider-Man, for example. Heck, I think Spectacular may have taken a little jab at the movies in a way once when Spidey himself said that his fans expect a certain amount of "quippage" in every battle.

[PeanutButterDimond]

How much importance did his parents have in the comics, anyway? In all the Spider-Man continuities I can think of, they're dead, but in this one, they (might be?) alive somewhere.

In any case, it's pretty cool that in this movie, Peter's father may have had a hand in creating the spider that gave his son superpowers later on.

In Amazing, they were agents of SHIELD who got killed in a plane. In Ultimate, they were also killed in a plane but Peter's dad was a scientist who was working on a cure for cancer with Eddie Brock Sr. . Their Cancer suit turned in to Venom when Eddie Jr got it.

This interpretation of Peter's dad possibly having a hand in the Spider that bit Peter isn't in the comics. I am very grateful for that. This sub plot is supposed to be an arc over the whole trilogy so it would be pretty bad if we all knew what the mystery was from the beginning.But people are bitching because they feel that Richard Parker having a hand in the spider takes away the "everyman" aspect of Spider-Man. I don't see how to be honest. He's still a normal teenager who is gifted with amazing powers but still has everyday problems.

[turbojet]

How much importance did his parents have in the comics, anyway? In all the Spider-Man continuities I can think of, they're dead, but in this one, they (might be?) alive somewhere.

They were spies. There. I saved the trouble of looking it up through Marvel's overly convoluted database.

[PeanutButterDimond]

It really bugs me how people just brush it off when it isn't even confirmed. The time to get pissed is if it's confirmed and executed poorly, not when chasing after stray butterflies. People are already saying that they are "Ang Lee-ing Spider-Man".

On another happier note.

[turbojet]

Loved the trailer. It was awesome! I can tell that the fight scenes in this will blow the fight scenes in the Raimi films out of the water. Seriously, THAT is how Spider-Man to move. that is how I've always wanted to see him move. The previous Spider-Man films had some nice action scenes and agility but nothing even near this good. Especially that Scene with Spidey on the wall and Lizard on the roof. Not too mention the ceiling fight. I also love how they are really emphasizing the importance of his parents which Webb wants to make and overall arc of.

Glad to see people here like it. On SSH, I've seen just mostly bitching about how from the trailers, it looks like Lizard's plan is to turn people in to lizards(Like he does in the comics), that the guy talking to Connors is a shit actor(Based off of ONE LINE OF DIALOGUE!) and how it's hinted that Peter's father might of had a hand in making the spider that bit Peter(Because god forbid a new interpretation actually invents some things of it's own while keeping the core components). Will people ever be pleased? Because people are already pissed off about stuff that honestly, in my opinion, sounds fine and isn't even confirmed yet. Serious, what the fuck?

Yes, because we totally would want the mystical implication that Spider-man was chosen by some Spider-God and that there is inter-dimensional war between beings which explains why a lot of Spidey villains have an animal motif. Or he was bitten by a radioactive Spider which is only prevalent in the mainstream and that just shows just how in need the damn thing is for a reboot. People just can't realize that you just can't make sugar out of shit.

Fuck off, Raimi fanboys. I love Spider-man comics, but there are some things that just need to die.

Edited May 4, 2012 by turbojet

[Patticus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyTdRSZitCk

SOLD on spidey now. They've nailed his web slinging and agility and....wisecracks....YES!

[turbojet]

I still can't really get behind anything I've seen of this, it still looks like Twilight: Web of Spider-Man.

Hopefully he has changed his opinion on the movie.

Edited May 4, 2012 by turbojet

[Kuzu]

Sweet Christmas this looks amazing, its everything you want out of Spider Man movie, but with none of the bullshit from the original trilogy, BRILLIANT.

[Carbo]

Cinematography looks absolutely incredible. I have high hopes for this, and especially hope the plot pans out well.

[Balding Spider]

Really like the wall crawling movements of Spidey. He really moves like a Spider to the point where it's just as creepy to watch.

[Carbo]

http://badassdigest....spideys-origin/

Trailer Confirms: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Changes Spidey’s Origin

POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN BELOW

Three sources have told me this, but I held it. I didn't see the point in running it now, when the movie has been shot and edited and is ready to go. Nothing can be changed. But then the new trailer hits today and all but spells this out, so what the hell, here we go:

Spider-Man's origin has been changed in The Amazing Spider-Man. The spider bite no longer gives Peter powers, it rather activates something already in his genetic structure. Something placed there by his father. Peter Parker is no longer super-powered by chance, but rather by design.

That is, thematically, a large change (if it's true. These sources are trusted, and the trailer pretty much spells it all out anyway). Spider-Man's appeal has always been his regular guy qualities; Peter got his powers through sheer dumb luck. What's more, he misused them at first, something many of us might do in the same situation. Peter Parker never asked for these powers, and you or I could have just as easily have gotten the same powers had we been in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. Stuck with this, Peter must learn to be a hero.

How do you feel about it? Honestly, I'm so worn down by the entire reboot that I can't muster a lot of energy to care either way. I hope for the best, but I'm looking to be happy with a movie that creates a platform for future Spider-Man adventures... ones which might or might not reference this element of his origin,

Other aspects of the origin have been changed as well, by the way. Peter no longer goes into wrestling, for one, and that change creates a small ripple effect of other changes - leading up to changes in Uncle Ben's death. Good news: Uncle Ben's death is well done in the new movie. I won't spoil it any further, but Peter is still involved in the circumstances leading up to his death, and it's a nicely streamlined, semi-modernized way of doing it.

There you have it. And the trailer as well. What do you think? Does the change in the origin bug you, or do you think it's an interesting addition to the mythology?

Okay, I'll be honest. I'm... not sure how to feel about that. Most things I've seen come from the movie so far are rather positive, but if this is true, I seriously think this effectively hurts a good part of the appeal in Spider-Man as a character.

[lounge]

I just wish they slowed down the scenes of him swinging around the city so I can appreciate the beauty of those scenes.

[PeanutButterDimond]

Why slow down those scenes? He's Spider-Man. He's fast, swift and agile. He's supposed to be fast.

As for the origin change, I don't mind it. Again, even if something was in Peter's DNA that the spider activated, he's still a regular high school student before that, who gets bullied and has everyday problems. It's that element, not him being bit by chance, that makes him an every man hero. It's his misuse of his powers at first and his mistakes as a hero who's just beginning, that makes him an every man, not how he got them.

And, as I said, it makes for a neat overarching story for the film series. One that comic fans can't just go "Oh I know that! It's from this comic!". It's a neat mystery that will keep people wanting more. In the end, what has it changed in terms of Peter Parker? Everything we've seen shows that he's just like a regular teen before he got bit by the spider. Even if there's something his father put in his DNA that the spider activated, the core elements of Peter Parker being a regular person before being bit are still in tact.

I, for one, am really invested with this stoyline already. Part of me wonders if Norman Osborne had it set up so that Peter would get bit by the spider.

[Carbo]

The thing is, Spider-Man always lived for his creed, "with great power comes great responsibility". The appeal behind his entire character was the idea of a relatable teen that only by chance, by a single stroke of misfortune managed to change everything around him, and how he decides to structure his entire life around it. The first thing he ever did with those powers was abusing them.

Changing it so that he was always "destined" to be Spider-Man isn't only cliché, it seems counterproductive. Instead of building a damn good story out of a pretty world-known origin, it strikes me as pretty obtuse to have an otherwise solid build with questionable foundation.

"Fate" was never a word in Parker's vocabulary. Spider-Man wasn't conceived by such either. He always had a choice, and his arc was always about melding a solid life, doing both what he wants to do and what he needs to do, not by anyone else's standards but his own. I guess that I shouldn't have ignored the red flag that raised when that poster with the tagline "The Untold Story" appeared.

Don't get me wrong, I have a feeling this is going to be a really good movie, and a good deal of portions look to outshine it's original trilogy by far. But out of all the things they could have changed, I feel this was the least necessary because that concept alone would change a lot of his ideals and circumstances.

EDIT: I actually feel my entire point is better structured by an anonymous user.

If you ask me, Spider-Man's origin is crucial to his character, because the two most significant events - the radioactive spider bite and Uncle Ben's murder - were events that happened by pure chance. We can easily conceive of a scenario in which the spider nearly misses being blasted with radiation or Uncle Ben's murderer finds another victim. It is Peter Parker's good will and legitimate repentance for his Uncle's death that cause him to want to use his powers selflessly. This establishes Peter Parker/Spider-Man as a good person and sympathetic/relatable character right off the bat.

I think that throwing something "predetermined" into the mix completely changes that dynamic. If Peter doesn't make a heartfelt, personal choice to become Spider-Man and fight evil, his character loses that much depth. Stan Lee created Spider-Man with the idea that he would be a "relatable" superhero, and Spider-Man's origin, as it reads in the comics, is completely crucial to that.

[Winston]

I do have a question though, this time around does Curt Connors work for S.H.I.E.L.D., Oscorp or is he a college professor? I have no idea, I haven't really paid much attention to Curt Connors. XP

[Carbo]

Oscorp.

S.H.I.E.L.D. and any other portions that are in Marvel's Cinematic Universe have no play whatsoever in this movie. Sony only owns the rights to make a Spider-Man movie with characters and elements stemming from that universe, and nothing more.

[PeanutButterDimond]

The thing is, Spider-Man always lived for his creed, "with great power comes great responsibility". The appeal behind his entire character was the idea of a relatable teen that only by chance, by a single stroke of misfortune managed to change everything around him, and how he decides to structure his entire life around it. The first thing he ever did with those powers was abusing them.

It's pretty much the exact same here except that it isn't by misfortune but due to something else. Peter is still an ordinary teen who gets incredible powers. Whether it is by accident, by someone else pulling the strings or because his experimented genes were activated by the spider's bite, that still stands. And he still misuses them. As far as I know. From impressions of scenes shown at some panels, he still lets a robber get away because it's not his problem and the robber kills uncle Ben like in the Ultimate version. Even if he was experimented on or has something in his DNA that the spider activated, he's still human and makes mistakes. The core concept of the character stands even with this change.

He's still a relatable character. His parents left him at a young age, he gets bullied, likes a girl and so on. Even id someone planned for him to get powers, he's still a regular teen before the spider activated his powers. Still good ole' geeky Peter Parker.

Changing it so that he was always "destined" to be Spider-Man isn't only cliché, it seems counterproductive. Instead of building a damn good story out of a pretty world-known origin, it strikes me as pretty obtuse to have an otherwise sold build with questionable foundation.

Okay, hold it. Destined? Someone planned it or his experimented genes were activated by the bite. Let's not turn this in to a cliché. Someone planned for him to get powers or he was experimented on or both. It's not like there's some ancient prophecy that goes "And one day, this wimpy geek shall get his experimented and become the hero of the ages..". It's hardly cliché.

It's a neat twist for a new interpretation of a famous character. The biggest complaint from people about this film is that we're getting the widely known origin so soon after Raimi's films and now that they're making it more interesting and different and fresh, it's bad? Why can;t an interpretation put a new spin on something?

"Fate" was never a word in Parker's vocabulary. Spider-Man wasn't conceived by such either. He always had a choice, and his arc was always about melding a solid life, doing both what he wants to do and what he needs to do, not by anyone else's standards but his own.

Fate? What fate? So that spider activated something in his genes? It's not fate. Someone else(Osborne) probably planned it that way. Even if his father experimented on him, it's not fate. It's not a prophecy or anything. It's not like the great spider gods made it happen.

Osborne or someone else had Pete's powers activated on purpose. I'm calling it.

Also, how doesn't he have as much as a choice here as in the comics? What's stopping Peter in this film from saying "You know what, I don't want to use my powers. I want to live a normal life."? He has as much of a choice as always.

Also he still has to balance school and life as a superhero, like the character always had to do. he has a girlfriend, school and problems and he has to balance it with the life of a hero. And as I said and as Marc said in a recent interview, Ben's death affects Peter and makes him to start using his powers responsibly. That's still there. the core elements of the character are still there. the responsibility, the balance of two lives, the everyday problems. It's all still there.

But out of all the things they could have changed, I feel this was the least necessary because it changes a lot of his ideals and circumstances.

Circumstances? Probably. Not a bad thing considering it's a new interpretation. Ideals? no. He still uses his powers irresponsibly at first, he still learns responsibility through his uncle's death, he still lives a regular life until the spider bites him, he still has to balance two sides of his life, he still has as much of a choice to be Spider-Man or not. The circumstances may be different behind how he got his powers but the ideals of the character are all still there.

[turbojet]

The radioactive spider bite was ridiculous by design and I guess that something had to be done to Peter prior to that bite or Osborn who has been known for trying to recreate Spider-man could just stick his hand out and get bitten. Does it reduce who Peter Parker is? I don't think so. Peter may have been genetically restructured as a kid unknowingly, but he had to have that spider-bite which activated his powers. Up to that Spider-bite, he was just a kid like everyone else. He did not have to visit Oscorp or go to that school vacation. He did not have to enter that tube with all the genetically fucked up spiders. If anything, it expands on the bite instead of just basing a premise on it. It answers questions of why Osbourn couldn't just get bitten like Peter or why there aren't more Spider-men. For once, it gives credence to Peter's parents and gives precedence to whom they were.

Edited May 4, 2012 by turbojet

[Carbo]

Your entire quote dissection builds on the assumption that "fate" means it had to be destined 3000 years ago in the stone tablets carved by neanderthal E.T.

Because that's not what the word "fate" means. I'm to assume that Richard Parker injecting Peter with the Spider-Man DNA didn't yield ulterior motives when that same spider that bit him sits on his table during a flashback? Connors stated pretty clearly himself that what happened to him was "no accident". And again, I stress the point that having Peter be a victim of a predetermined course of events be a massive change to the inoffensive character he was known to be and the circumstances surrounding his character. The epiphany of all the scenarios surrounding him doesn't add as much character depth as I feel is gained from the original "accident" scenario. Him accepting his role in Spider-Man can easily be interpreted as considering the character himself a prisoner of fate.

But on second thought when I think about it, perhaps the real reason why I sorely dislike this particular change is that there was another particular Marvel movie that tried this exact same origin reconstruction. And it failed. Badly. And was shit in a basket.