The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[turbojet]

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.

To be fair, Carbo, that movie failed not because the origin, but the lack of clear explanation of the origin within the movie and said origin was settled in a really crappy way(seriously, Gainax could write a better ending). Not only that, but the Hulk looked like an over sized Gerber baby, the plot was a mess, and there was no clear rhyme or reason to just what the fuck was going on.

[PeanutButterDimond]

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".

I never said that it didn't wield ulterior motives or that it was an accident. All i'm saying is that Peter Parker, as a character, and his ideals still stand despite the change.

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 it could.

Circumstances? Yes. Character? No. He still lived a regular life before that spider bit. Whether it was planned or not doesn't changed the fact that he misused them at first and his uncle's death led to him decided to use his powers responsibly. Whether you got your powers by chance or not, to use them to help people instead of your own gain, says a lot about you. Both Peter in the film or the comics could have just not used them at all or just used them for himself. instead, he helps people. He's selfless, kind and determined. His character seems to be completely intact regardless of the change.

Not as much character depth? Not sure how to respond to that. For one, the film isn't out so that really can't be know if it's true.

Now, going from assumptions and info from scenes shown at panels, if the circumstances changed, what would be added in terms of depth? Peter obviously won't know that his powers were planned throughout the whole film. We don't even know if he will find out in this film(Though he likewly will) He will still decide to use them for good after his uncle's death.

I just can't fully grasp how the change of circumstances reduces the character's depth.

[Carbo]

Now, going from assumptions and info from scenes shown at panels, if the circumstances changed, what would be added in terms of depth? Peter obviously won't know that his powers were planned throughout the whole film. We don't even know if he will find out in this film(Though he likewly will) He will still decide to use them for good after his uncle's death.

I just can't fully grasp how the change of circumstances reduces the character's depth.

I'll admit - perhaps those circumstances won't be as beneficial toward character development as they could be in the long run.

But if that's the case, I need to take this discussion the entire other angle and ask why it had to be changed in the first place. Why did they have to change a perfectly fine origin for a character if it's going to do nothing but serve as a cop-out for Peter's parents to have some quickly crafted, predictable new layer of a backstory for them? What ultimately will change in Peter's resolution?

As far as we've been told, Webb intends on making the mystery behind his parents meld into a new line of Spidey movies. The Origin twist seems rather pointless in either case and does nothing but annoy long time fans. As was stated earlier, Peter still went to the lab on his own accord, he still went to Connors, and (as far as we know) is still bitten by the spider through complete accident. What would a cleverly constructed gambit built by Connors and Richard change?

I seriously hope to be proven wrong in some way or another, but in such a scenario a change like that reeks of a cheap writer's trope that no one asked for, especially when the big "twist" of the movie seems to be written all over the trailer. It's not exactly an Iron Man 2 reveal when Tony finds out that his father Howard was one of the chief originators of the Avengers concept, which wasn't a plot point but more of a subtle revelation, and that wasn't a concept which changed origin but rather built upon an adaption.

[turbojet]

I'll admit - perhaps those circumstances won't be as beneficial toward character development as they could be in the long run.

But if that's the case, I need to take this discussion the entire other angle and ask why it had to be changed in the first place. Why did they have to change a perfectly fine origin for a character if it's going to do nothing but serve as a cop-out for Peter's parents to have some quickly crafted, predictable new layer of a backstory for them? What ultimately will change in Peter's resolution?

As far as we've been told, Webb intends on making the mystery behind his parents meld into a new line of Spidey movies. The Origin twist seems rather pointless in either case and does nothing but annoy long time fans. As was stated earlier, Peter still went to the lab on his own accord, he still went to Connors, and (as far as we know) is still bitten by the spider through complete accident. What would a cleverly constructed gambit built by Connors and Richard change?

I seriously hope to be proven wrong in some way or another, but in such a scenario a change like that reeks of a cheap writer's trope that no one asked for, especially when the big "twist" of the movie seems to be written all over the trailer. It's not exactly an Iron Man 2 reveal when Tony finds out that his father Howard was one of the chief originators of the Avengers concept, which wasn't a plot point but more of a subtle revelation, and that wasn't a concept which changed origin but rather built upon an adaption.

I don't do quote dissections so here it goes.

I honestly don't think it is just to add a new and unnecessary layer, but to place emphasis on why Spider-man is able to do what he does and not just any smhuck that Norman decides to get bitten. It is his spiders and if he found out that he indirectly created Spider-man and is trying to create a super-soldier that was effective(something that he has personal investment in because he is an owner of a weapons contractor company), he would mass produce the shit out of it. If he found out that some kid was bitten by a spider and that bite gave powers, why he can't simply recreate the process and falsify it? He is a scientist by trade. He knows the scientific method. He could just hire a bunch of people to be bitten and if they die in the experiments...well the existence of Spider-man shows that it has to work once so lets test this out. Unless there is something off with the dependent variable i.e. Peter Parker which would explain why people don't just do that.

[PeanutButterDimond]

But if that's the case, I need to take this discussion the entire other angle and ask why it had to be changed in the first place. Why did they have to change a perfectly fine origin for a character if it's going to do nothing but serve as a cop-out for Peter's parents to have some quickly crafted, predictable new layer of a backstory for them? What ultimately will change in Peter's resolution?

Why did it have to be changed? It's a new interpretation of the character. One that's coming out not long after the last one. Everyone knows the origin so now it will feel fresher and less like you're seeing the same old thing for the hundredth time.

Now, as for your other questions, who's to say it will be a cop-out? Who's to say that Peter's resolution won't change? Everything so far has been speculation and assumption. We don't know why Peter's father/mother/both experimented on him. Did they do it because they wanted to? Did they do it because they had to? Did they do it because they were desperate? We don't know and will likely not find out until the final film and until then, I find it jumping the gun to say that it's immediately a cop-out.

And predictable? We don't know everything about what happened with Peter's parents. All of this has been assumption and speculation. How does this tie in to Oscorp? Why did they experiment on Peter? Where did they go(or were going)? Unless you can figure that out, how is it predictable? it's way to early to say it's a cop-out or predictable when we haven't even seen the film and know everything surrounding his parent's action and how this ties in with everything else.

As far as we've been told, Webb intends on making the mystery behind his parents meld into a new line of Spidey movies. The Origin twist seems rather pointless in either case and does nothing but annoy long time fans. As was stated earlier, Peter still went to the lab on his own accord, he still went to Connors, and (as far as we know) is still bitten by the spider through complete accident. What would a cleverly constructed gambit built by Connors and Richard change?

You're still jumping the gun. We don't know if it's pointless. For all we know, the change to the origin could be an integral part of the film series and tie a lot of things together. Also, considering what Dr. Ratha(That's who I think it is) is saying, he knows about Peter which probably means that Oscorp, and by extent Osborne, is tied in to all of this.

I seriously hope to be proven wrong in some way or another, but in such a scenario a change like that reeks of a cheap writer's trope that no one asked for, especially when the big "twist" of the movie seems to be written all over the trailer. It's not exactly an Iron Man 2 reveal when Tony finds out that his father Howard was one of the chief originators of the Avengers concept, which wasn't a plot point but more of a subtle revelation, and that wasn't a concept which changed origin but rather built upon an adaption.

It's the twist of the movie? We won't even find out all about his parents in this film. The whole parents thing is supposed to be an overarching story in the series. I hardly doubt that the whole experimentation thing is the biggest part or "the twist of the movie".

[Nintendoga]

Meh, while I liked the original origin better, this won't mess up the movie for me that much. I can see why for some die-hard Spidey fans, but whatever.....

Has anybody else noticed how flexible and acrobatic Spider-man is in this movie? Yeah he did some cool tricks in the old trilogy, but those were too far and too few. Thankfully this movie brings that back, and it makes Spidey look more like a show-off, which is how it should be.

[Carbo]

Why did it have to be changed? It's a new interpretation of the character. One that's coming out not long after the last one. Everyone knows the origin so now it will feel fresher and less like you're seeing the same old thing for the hundredth time.

What's so fresh about a minor revision to a premise plot point to a character who won't have a change in development from it? It's a change that only the supporting cast benefits from, and I don't see how it couldn't have been worked in from another angle.

But really this discussion is pointless and going in circles. I don't feel like repeating myself anymore. I've been real anticipated for this and everything I've seen so far doesn't detract for me that the movie looks great. The cinematography, the direction, the action and the characters look wonderful, but I'm still skeptical over the entire plot. Especially the recent trailer is spelling out to me that the plot itself really not being up to snuff with the whole predetermined outcome gambit, and the whole "origin change" part is really only the tip of the iceberg on my end when the real problem I have is getting the impression that Parker's parents are only going to be involved in a "we used you" Ang Lee style twist.

On the bright side this skeptical cynicism is the best kind of way to prep for a movie. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be leaving the theaters with a pleasant, surprised smile on my face. It's better than leaving disappointed for not having my expectations low enough.

[PeanutButterDimond]

When the minor revision is supposed to expand to an overarching story about characters who you are assuming will be only used for a "Ang Lee styled twist", I would call it fresh. That and we don't know for sure if Peter won't develop differently from it. We haven't seen the film and it's supposed to be and arc for the entire series, so it's likely it will effect his character development(Especially considering how determined he is to find out about his parents).

But, you're right, this discussion is pointless and going in circles(Even if I enjoy it) so I'll stop with that here.

So on another note, have some gifs.

I know others have already said it, but they have NAILED the way Spidey moves. Just look at him crawling on the side of the building. So spider-like. It's like they took the comic pages and put them in motion. It's just beautiful.

This film looks like like a weird mix of a film that embraces the fact that it's a comic book film and a film that doesn't treat itself like a comic book film. The character parts of the trailers are so grounded and serious and realistic while the superhero parts are like spectacles. They're all colourful and and fast and just so Spider-man like. This film will be a joy to watch, that's for sure. The colours are just fantastic.

Edited May 5, 2012 by PeanutButterDimond

[azoo]

After seeing all of this, I just hope that whenever Marvel grabs the rights for making Spiderman and etc movies back, they keep going with the arc currently being made in Amazing since it looks... well, amazing.

[pppp]

Well it's official the sequel is gonna suck:

http://www.bangstyle.com/2012/04/amazing-spider-man-sequel-transformers/

The Bayformers writers are gonna rape the sequel. It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day", The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally, The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be, and now we have this.

He's dead,plain and simple.

[Kuzu]

Well it's official the sequel is gonna suck:

http://www.bangstyle...l-transformers/

The Bayformers writers are gonna rape the sequel. It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day", The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally, The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be, and now we have this.

He's dead,plain and simple.

Jumping the gun much?

[Chaos Warp]

So the actual writers are still writing this one right? Well, at least the first one will be good.

[Winston]

It might be good still, as long as Michael Bay doesn't have a part in it...

[Nintendoga]

Well it's official the sequel is gonna suck:

http://www.bangstyle...l-transformers/

The Bayformers writers are gonna rape the sequel. It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day", The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally, The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be, and now we have this.

He's dead,plain and simple.

I'm sorry, but did they just call this movie a sleeper hit?

Really? One of the biggest comic book franchises, which has multiple games, tv shows, and just released 3 movies in the past 10 years, is a sleeper hit. That's like calling the Dark Knight Rises a low budget film.

And since I really hated Transformers 2, (liked the 1st one, haven't seen the 3rd one) I'm....just....damn it.

[PeanutButterDimond]

To be honest, this is about the only place where there's mostly positive thoughts on the film. Everywhere else people seem to be either hating it because of the rumors or because it's a reboot. I might not call it a sleeper hit but Spidey's definitely the underdog this year.

[pppp]

Jumping the gun much?

You think i'm jumping the gun? Remember these are the writers that gave us this:

[Johnny Boy]

Well it's official the sequel is gonna suck:

http://www.bangstyle.com/2012/04/amazing-spider-man-sequel-transformers/

The Bayformers writers are gonna rape the sequel. It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day", The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally, The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be, and now we have this.

He's dead,plain and simple.

Whoa, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Orci And Kutzman are actually very good writers. Don't believe me? Look at Transformers Prime, that is an extremely high quality cartoon which is probably the best show on the hub (and yes I even think it's better than FIM, sorry bronies). And I believe the main reason why the transformers movies aren't as good as they could've been was because of Micheal Bay. Oh and I also heard they're writing the Star Trek sequel. I am really not worried about Spideys future one bit.

[turbojet]

Well it's official the sequel is gonna suck:

http://www.bangstyle...l-transformers/

The Bayformers writers are gonna rape the sequel. It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day", The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally, The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be, and now we have this.

He's dead,plain and simple.

Ultimate Comics Spider-man aka Miles Morales is fucking awesome.

[pppp]

Ultimate Comics Spider-man aka Miles Morales is fucking awesome.

But he's no Peter Parker. Spiderman without Peter Parker is just not Spiderman to me.

[Sami]

Whoa, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Orci And Kutzman are actually very good writers. Don't believe me? Look at Transformers Prime, that is an extremely high quality cartoon which is probably the best show on the hub (and yes I even think it's better than FIM, sorry bronies). And I believe the main reason why the transformers movies aren't as good as they could've been was because of Micheal Bay. Oh and I also heard they're writing the Star Trek sequel. I am really not worried about Spideys future one bit.

They wrote Transformers Prime?

... Whew. Okay, that puts me at ease. I've heard some very, very good things about that show, and I think Webb will do a great job of making sure the movie doesn't suffer from terrible writing.

[PeanutButterDimond]

Well, they're actually executive producers for Prime, not writers like they were for Revenge of the Fallen.

[turbojet]

But he's no Peter Parker. Spiderman without Peter Parker is just not Spiderman to me.

So Miguel O'hara, Ben Reily, Cain just aren't Spider-man

Maybe you missed Stan Lee's and Steve Ditko's point when creating Spider-man. they wanted a superhero who was like their readers. You are right. He is no Peter Parker. He is more familiar to the audience than Peter Parker. He has parents that are actively involved in his life unlike Peter Parker who is in a peculiar situation of having a single parent who did not birth him raising him. He is no super genius unlike Peter who didn't have to go to high school since he already had a scientific mind that rivals Tony Stark. And unlike Peter, his reason for being Spider-man was not started by some tragedy of a loved one's death. When Peter died, he felt it was his fault for not helping him or reaching out to him when he got his Spider powers. He didn't know who Spider-man was and really didn't owe him anything. Hell it seems like he is very anti-Spider-man since his dad hates mutants and everything Miles knows about Spider-man previously is him being beat up. He was inspired by Peter's example to do something right which, let's be honest, is something we all can relate more to than Peter's avenging his lack of action that indirectly caused Ben's demise. It is a more applicable approach to the "With great power, comes great responsibility" motif. Read the damn book before you write him off. Especially since the comic is critically acclaimed and Miles has been named character of the month by USA Today which was the first time a comic book character won such an award.

Edited May 5, 2012 by turbojet

[Balding Spider]

It's official Spiderman is dead: Joe Quesada ruined the Amazing comics with "One More Day"

This is true and then Dan Slott road down from the heavens in a white limousine being pulled by 15 burning Pegasus with the 60's Spider-man theme and made Amazing readable once more.

The Ultimate Comics actually killed him literally

Again true but they killed him off in the best way possible for a hero. Saving his loved ones from a group of villain's after taking a bullet for captain America. It was probably one of if not the best death in the Ultimate Universe.

I mean it's better then say being eaten by the Blob/Sabertooth, blown up by Madrox, shot in the eye with a poison dart by a sentinel, being killed by a remote controlled super-sonic smart bullet, drowned, or dying off panel. You can thank Jeph Loeb for all this kids.

The new cartoon is a souless and shameless cash-in that goes against everything the franchise should be

Yeah, I got nothing to add here.

Anyway I can't say whether or not if this is a good or bad thing without actually viewing the first movie.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Balding Spider

[Sami]

So Miguel O'hara, Ben Reily, Cain just aren't Spider-man

Maybe you missed Stan Lee's and Steve Ditko's point when creating Spider-man. they wanted a superhero who was like their readers. You are right. He is no Peter Parker. He is more familiar to the audience than Peter Parker. He has parents that are actively involved in his life unlike Peter Parker who is in a peculiar situation of having a single parent who did not birth him raising him. He is no super genius unlike Peter who didn't have to go to high school since he already had a scientific mind that rivals Tony Stark. And unlike Peter, his reason for being Spider-man was not started by some tragedy of a loved one's death. When Peter died, he felt it was his fault for not helping him or reaching out to him when he got his Spider powers. He didn't know who Spider-man was and really didn't owe him anything. Hell it seems like he is very anti-Spider-man since his dad hates mutants and everything Miles knows about Spider-man previously is him being beat up. He was inspired by Peter's example to do something right which, let's be honest, is something we all can relate more to than Peter's avenging his lack of action that indirectly caused Ben's demise. It is a more applicable approach to the "With great power, comes great responsibility" motif. Read the damn book before you write him off. Especially since the comic is critically acclaimed and Miles has been named character of the month by USA Today which was the first time a comic book character won such an award.

Exactly.

pppp, you have to remember that Spider-Man is more than just a character at this point. It isn't about what Spider-Man is, but what he represents. There's a reason why we're posting in a thread for a 2012 movie adaptation of a story that's nearly fifty years old; Spider-Man has become a worldwide cultural icon. He represents the idea that "with great power, comes great responsibility". He doesn't need to do anything for the world that turned its back on him, he just feels obligated to purely because he can.

That is what Spider-Man is, not just Peter Parker. Miles Morales does not betray this idea. In fact, it's arguable that this message is stronger than ever with him. He doesn't need to be Peter Parker to be Spider-Man; he just needs to follow the creed that made Spider-Man who he is.

[pppp]

If the idea behind the main character is still the same why is it even necessary to trade him for another? I'm sorry but damn it I'm stubborn If it ain't broken don't fix it