The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[Sami]

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

Keep in mind that Peter hasn't really been replaced; he's still the star of the Amazing comics, he's still the one in the TV shows, and he's still the one who gets the movies. Nobody's ever going to get the same publicity Peter has, so Bendis used the Ultimate sub-series as an opportunity to present us a very different take on Spider-Man.

After ten years of Ultimate comics, I think it's fair to say that Peter's story has been told. Let it end on a very high note (Ultimate Spider-Man is one of the most popular incarnations of Spider-Man for good reason, after all) rather than dwindle into a pathetic mess that's painful to watch. You said it yourself, The Amazing Spider-Man is dead.

Doesn't Peter deserve a conclusion to his story that's just as epic as his beginning?

[pppp]

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.

Was "One More Day" retconned? If not I don't care.

[Celestia]

Was "One More Day" retconned? If not I don't care.

Not exactly, but some of the damage was undone in last year's "Spider-Island" arc. He's revealed his secret identity again and he and Mary Jane may be getting back together (I don't think that's happened yet but it's likely).

[PeanutButterDimond]

Was "One More Day" retconned? If not I don't care.

No, but he's undone a lot of the damage, writes the characters well and is progressing them. The way he writes the characters are very good. The guy writes really well, I suggest picking up an issue or two and seeing for yourself. There's a kind of 60's vibe to his writing.

He really gets Peter Parker and the other characters and it shows.

Edited May 6, 2012 by PeanutButterDimond

[Badnik Zero]

Hold up, hold up. I'm reading the back and forth in here...

I thought this movie was mostly based on Ultimate continuity. I know nothing about that comic. Richard Parker was a scientist in Ultimate? So was the spider bite intentional or an accident in Ultimate? You mean it's new for the movie?

[pppp]

No, but he's undone a lot of the damage, writes the characters well and is progressing them. The way he writes the characters are very good. The guy writes really well, I suggest picking up an issue or two and seeing for yourself. There's a kind of 60's vibe to his writing.

He really gets Peter Parker and the other characters and it shows.

Even if it is good, I refuse to come back to the series unless Marvel retcons it and apologizes for betraying my loyalty(I even stayed a reader through the Clone Saga) and insulting my intelligence.

[PeanutButterDimond]

They don't have to apologize for anything and they won't. They honestly don't care and honestly by this point, I don't care. it's done and over with and now it's back on it's feet, is very good and is being written by a great writer.

Hold up, hold up. I'm reading the back and forth in here...

I thought this movie was mostly based on Ultimate continuity. I know nothing about that comic. Richard Parker was a scientist in Ultimate? So was the spider bite intentional or an accident in Ultimate? You mean it's new for the movie?

In Ultimate, the spider was made by Oscorp but Peter's dad had nothing to do with it. The bite was an accident(It originally was on Mary Jane) but Osborn knew that Peter was bit and the he was Spider-Man and he did a damn good job of making Peter's life a living hell because of it.

Yes, it's(if true. Remember this isn't even confirmed) is new for the movie. Which is good because now comic geeks can actually be surprised instead of knowing everything.

On another note, I saw The Avengers in 3D today(The 3D was good. Didn't detract or add anything. Just more depth perception, really). The third trailer for TASM looked jawdropping in 3D. The webswinging looked awesome. Though people didn't seem to care. It aired and ended. Someone said "wow" and someone coughed. Other than that, silence.

Edited May 6, 2012 by PeanutButterDimond

[turbojet]

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

The formula was already broken the moment Peter had college paid for by J. Jonah, had a career lined up at Stark Industries, and became more and more of a super genius. All of this while still a junior in high school. He stopped becoming ordinary and was extraordinary both in and out his alias. Peter being an ordinary high school student wears a little thin when he is smarter than his teachers. This is also why Amazing keeps writing themselves in holes. They have no idea what to do with Peter Parker.This is why he is perpetually broke when he shouldn't be, always having some divine streak of bad luck, and his unnecessary focus on his romantic life. Spider-man's greatest strength is it's biggest contradiction. Bendis noticed this and had to kill off Peter if he wanted the themes of Spider-man in tact. What's more important? The character or what that character represents?

[Balding Spider]

I'm ashamed of you all. So many Spider-Man fans eager to see the movie and nobody even noticed this?

http://www.oscorpindustries.com/animaldynamicslab/

Kinda creepy if you ask me :/

[turbojet]

Screw what Movieblob thinks, this movie will be awesome and I don't why Sony thinks it needs new writers.

[Nepenthe]

The trailer that accompanied The Avengers finally made the movie look like something other than a misguided attempt by Sony to churn something out quick in order to keep the film rights. A lot of action eye-candy and Garfield's inherent differences from Maguire don't annoy the ever-living hell out of me anymore (sorry purists, Maguire is basically my Spider-Man); good decision to show Spider-Man acting like a douche bag to the car jacker. Consider my interests peaked.

[turbojet]

So there will be a 4 minute preview of the movie shown with Dancing with the Stars. Anybody want to watch that shit or will we just wait until someone uploads it to Youtube?

[Chaos Warp]

I'm still worried about the wisecrack factor here....the only snark we've seen from Spidey was during the car jacker scene, and nothing else. The snarkniess is one of the main reasons I like Spider-Man as a character, and the other movies missed that, so I really don't want to see it see it missed again. Not that I want this to be Ultimate Spider-Man (the cartoon), but still.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Chaos Warp

[Chibinuva]

So there will be a 4 minute preview of the movie shown with Dancing with the Stars. Anybody want to watch that shit or will we just wait until someone uploads it to Youtube?

[Sami]

"Put on the mask, it'll make you strong."

I really, really love this line. This movie's looking better and better.

[Carbo]

Wow, the CGI in that entire bridge scene was awful. It's not as bad as the original Spider-Man movie but it'd certainly be reached with a fifteen-foot pole. The fact that it's being made on a relatively low budget kind of shows, also putting "Summer's Most Anticipated Movie" knowing that TDKR is looming around the corner is incredibly self congratulatory.

Not much to say otherwise since we've already seen most of the footage. Still looks rather promising.

[pppp]

Wow, the CGI in that entire bridge scene was awful. It's not as bad as the original Spider-Man movie but it'd certainly be reached with a fifteen-foot pole.

[turbojet]

Another reason why i want Marvel to get the rights. They would at least give it a decent budget.

[Carbo]

Sony as a company is generally having some of it's worst financial crisis to date. With a fiscal year loss of roughly 4 billion and a stock crash of 7%, they've hit an all-time low. They could pour a massive budget the likes of Spider-Man 3 onto the movie but they won't. The reason the reboot exists is not only because of bad financials but also because of a caveat in their movie license stating their rights will be revoked if they stop making movies. Overall, this was the cheapest, quickest solution, and under such circumstances it's no surprise that they'd find the end result disappointing. It's incredibly circumstantial.

[Mono]

Oh man, I never heard so many people bitch about a soon to be released movie. We'll know if it blows or rules the day it comes out.

[Sami]

Another reason why i want Marvel to get the rights. They would at least give it a decent budget.

Considering they're responsible for every Marvel movie that isn't The Avengers as well as that Ultimate Spider-Man show... yeah, no thanks. I like this better.

[PeanutButterDimond]

But the Marvel movies that aren't the Avengers are all really good if not great./opinions

Eh, I don't care who's making the film as long as it's well made and I like what I'm seeing so far.

[turbojet]

Considering they're responsible for every Marvel movie that isn't The Avengers as well as that Ultimate Spider-Man show... yeah, no thanks. I like this better.

They don't own Fantastic 4 and X-Men.

[Carbo]

Considering they're responsible for every Marvel movie that isn't The Avengers as well as that Ultimate Spider-Man show... yeah, no thanks. I like this better.

The only movies Marvel's movie studio made are Captain America, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and The Avengers; not a single one of which was a critical failure or a box office bust. All of them were well-made movies that were well-received by audiences, and it's the most consistent streak a comic-book developer has ever had in regards to movies.

As for every other Marvel related movie, the only thing Marvel gets out of those are profit cuts due to holding the property the movie is being based off of. Sony made Spider-Man, 20th Century Fox made X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil, Columbia made Ghost Rider, New Line Cinema/Warner Bros. made Blade, Lionsgate made The Punisher and Universal made Ang Lee's Hulk. All of them still own their respective movie licenses, brands and generally concepts (i.e in X-Men's case Fox are the only ones who are allowed to make movies that have mutants), except for Universal who sold back their rights once Ang Lee's Hulk was a spectacular failure, and the previously mentioned caveat applies to most of the companies, which is exactly the reason why Sony, Fox and Columbia all made quick-buck movies of Spider-Man, X-Men and Ghost Rider. Hell, Fox in particular are already planning to make a new Fantastic Four and Daredevil movie even though no one wants one.

As for the Ultimate Spider-Man show, it's a completely different internal studio within Marvel with completely different kinds of people working so yeah.

[Sami]

The only movies Marvel's movie studio made are Captain America, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and The Avengers; not a single one of which was a critical failure or a box office bust. All of them were well-made movies that were well-received by audiences, and it's the most consistent streak a comic-book developer has ever had in regards to movies.

As for every other Marvel related movie, the only thing Marvel gets out of those are profit cuts due to holding the property the movie is being based off of. Sony made Spider-Man, 20th Century Fox made X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil, Columbia made Ghost Rider, New Line Cinema/Warner Bros. made Blade, Lionsgate made The Punisher and Universal made Ang Lee's Hulk. All of them still own their respective movie licenses, brands and generally concepts (i.e in X-Men's case Fox are the only ones who are allowed to make movies that have mutants), except for Universal who sold back their rights once Ang Lee's Hulk was a spectacular failure, and the previously mentioned caveat applies to most of the companies, which is exactly the reason why Sony, Fox and Columbia all made quick-buck movies of Spider-Man, X-Men and Ghost Rider. Hell, Fox in particular are already planning to make a new Fantastic Four and Daredevil movie even though no one wants one.