Spiderman trilogy vs Amazing Spiderman

Don't lock this thread. This is just going to be friendly debating that will stay in this thread.

Point out all the flaws you can think of for the Raimi spider-man films (these can be nitpicks but if it's deviations from the comics make sure it's important ones) and then we can try our hand at countering each point.


Amazing Spider-man flaws

1. The Untold Story .... nothing revealed. Forgotten about halfway through the film.
2. Uncle Ben's killer; death too abrupt and then the hunt for the killer is ignored.. just dropped without notice.
3. Asian bloke at Oscorp ... who was he? Fuck knows. Another guy just ditched midway.
4. Lizard's master plan... lets turn people into lizards. Wow. And what happened to those SAS people? Did they rampage like him? Did they die? fuck knows.
5. When Spidey strings up all those cars to the side of the bridge why does he only save one person from them all? Lousy cunt.
6. I'll put these all into one: Why is Parker a skateboarding rebel? Why does Spiderman reveal to Stacy his true identity? Why is there so much conflict between Peter's family? Why does Captain Stacy hate Peter?
7. Peter cries and broods waaaay too much. Seriously it makes Spidey 3 look like the most uplifting happy film ever.
8. What was with that awful CGI rat? Shiiit, I could conjure up a better one on MS Paint.

In fact I will.

I think Uncle Ben's death was purposely left out for the next movie.

My problems with Raimi's films:

1. Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker is whiny and annoying. I feel like the screenwriter got inspiration from Kendo's life when designing this version of Peter Parker.
2. Mary Jane Watson is a one-dimensional damsel in distress.
3. In Spider-Man 2, Alfred Molina was just channeling Willem Dafoe but wasn't genuine craziness. Plus Doc Ock has a sudden turnaround at the end of the film and the way he stops the sun thing is just ridiculous.
4. Emo Peter Parker
5. The characters are just plain dumb. In Spider-Man 2, Peter is known as Spider-Man's friend. Did Peter think that being close to Spider-Man but not BEING Spider-Man would keep him safe? Norman Osbourne's butler knows the truth about Norman Osbourne but still lets Harry carry on a self-destructive vendetta. Also when Norman kills that guy when he first goes crazy, there seems to be no follow-up to that guy. Surely you could prove Norman killed him, no?

Now, to the complaint about The Amazing Spider-Man in which you say that the big questions are never answered. Well, the film is not meant to be completely resolved in one film. The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't resolve itself in that time. It will be cleared up by the end of the series.

Teckno wrote:

I think Uncle Ben's death was purposely left out for the next movie.

Ben was killed in The Amazing Spider-Man.

Lykos, why the hell do you have a problem with Parker skateboarding, yet you're perfectly okay with Ang Lee's Hulk being a giant? Also Peter cries way more in Spider-Man 3 than he does in The Amazing Spider-Man.

Yeah, Peter reveals his secret identity to Gwen. So what? I didn't hear people bitch about Tony Stark revealing his secret identity to the entire world.

At the end of TAS you see Peter still has mugshots of various criminals that could be candidates for Ben's killer which I liked, it showed that as a plot thread, it will most likely be resolved in the sequel.

Peter's origin story is much more interesting than in the Raimi films, the acting is also much better, the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was electric, in fact, they are actually dating in the real after meeting on set.

Garfield completely blows Maguire out of the water as Spiderman.

Agreed, Stoney. I never thought Tobey Maguire was a good actor, in anything. There is no chemistry between him and Kirsten Dunst. He's just a sad little puppy going after her. Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker is just a spineless loser. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is funny, clever, and actually goes for what we wants instead of just whining.

Ramzan_Kadyrov wrote:

1. The Untold Story .... nothing revealed. Forgotten about halfway through the film.
I agree on this. No "Untold Story" was told, and that was the whole marketing campaign.

2. Uncle Ben's killer; death too abrupt and then the hunt for the killer is ignored.. just dropped without notice.
At the end they have a scene where he has a drawing of the killer on hanged on his wall. Plus doesn't he kill him when the kill breaks into Aunt May's home?

3. Asian bloke at Oscorp ... who was he? Fuck knows. Another guy just ditched midway.
There was a deleted scene that shows he ends up getting killed by Lizard.

4. Lizard's master plan... lets turn people into lizards. Wow. And what happened to those SAS people? Did they rampage like him? Did they die? fuck knows.
At the end of the fight between Spider-Man and Lizard, it shows all of them are cured and being put into ambulances.

5. When Spidey strings up all those cars to the side of the bridge why does he only save one person from them all? Lousy cunt.
Because that was the only one that caught on fire!

6. I'll put these all into one: Why is Parker a skateboarding rebel? Why does Spiderman reveal to Stacy his true identity? Why is there so much conflict between Peter's family? Why does Captain Stacy hate Peter?
I hated that too. Can't explain that. Because they kept his real parents as a secret of sorts. Because Peter was defending what Spider-Man is doing.

7. Peter cries and broods waaaay too much. Seriously it makes Spidey 3 look like the most uplifting happy film ever.
He did cry a lot in the film.

8. What was with that awful CGI rat? Shiiit, I could conjure up a better one on MS Paint.
I didn't see a CGI rat, but if you're talking about Lizard then, Yes, Lizard was some bad CGI. I hated how he didn't have his snout either.

@Mecha No one got pissed off at Tony reaveling his identity because he reveals his identity in Civil War (or around that time).

Spider-Man revealed his secret identity in Civil War as well. Didn't stop people from bitchin. Besides, Iron Man kept his identity a secret for the past 40 years before the Civil War.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

Teckno wrote:

I think Uncle Ben's death was purposely left out for the next movie.

Ben was killed in The Amazing Spider-Man.

I meant that the story arc of his death would be left out for the next movie. You know, when he finds out the real killer.

@Teckno

The guy that killed Ben in the first movie is the real killer.

Mecha wrote:

@Teckno

The guy that killed Ben in the first movie is the real killer.

No shit. I mean when he actually catches him in the next movie.

I think the whole point of Spider-Man not catching the killer is so that he can continue crime fighting. It kinda does make more sense than the original origin when you think about it.

Teckno wrote:

I think Uncle Ben's death was purposely left out for the next movie.

Can I just say my attacks are not simply about what the film lacks but what it dealt with badly. You can leave strands of narrative for the next film, even major strands of narrative but their presence needs to be enforced, so basically you don't forget about them by the end of the film let alone until the next film. Like the way a tv series like game of thrones will have the an important plot-point at the end of the episode (eg: Bran waking up when its assumed he would die). You are reminded of it and it stays in your mind. I can honestly say the jumbled mess of a plot that Amazing Spider-man had gives you no reason to remember nor care about the narrative.

The movie never forgot it's narrative. Obviously you missed the scene where Connors goes to prison.

Oh really? They cleared that up?
Fantastic, that means there are only three big plot holes left;

The Untold Story, uncle Ben's killer and the Asian bloke at Oscorp.

But who cares about plot holes? The film's good cuz garfield

Better than the Raimi films that's for sure.

The Sam Raimi trilogy was decent, nothing more. Same goes for The Amazing Spider-Man.

Something for Mecha and Lykos.

That was funny.

Still, whoever made the video obviously doesn't know much about the comic books. Yes, Peter wasn't a skater in the comics, but everything else is pretty accurate to how the character should be. Also Peter Parker lives in Queens, not Manhattan.

Mecha wrote:

That was funny.

Still, whoever made the video obviously doesn't know much about the comic books. Yes, Peter wasn't a skater in the comics, but everything else is pretty accurate to how the character should be. Also Peter Parker lives in Queens, not Manhattan.

Wow you really don't know when to give in do ya? When do the comics even come into this trailer?

No, I mean the voice-over doesn't seem to have much knowledge of Spider-Man is all I'm saying.

But he didn't mention the comics at all.
And most of what he said were valid points and whether he has or lacks knowledge of the spider-man comics is neither here nor there because these flaws affect the film as its own medium.

SOME, not most. He made a few good points, but he's obviously exaggerating through out most of video.

Like what he said about Peter Parker, I mean that's how he is in the comics. Yeah, Peter wasn't a skater, but Garfield pretty much played the character more faithfully to the comics.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

My problems with Raimi's films:

1. Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker is whiny and annoying. I feel like the screenwriter got inspiration from Kendo's life when designing this version of Peter Parker.

But doesn't cry or whine half as much as Garfield. In the entire trilogy he probably has as many crying scenes than Amazing Spider-man... just ONE film. I felt the Kendo thing with ASM except it was not done so well. Rebel? Geek? Dafuq.

2. Mary Jane Watson is a one-dimensional damsel in distress. As if this wasn't the case for Gwen Stacy.

3. In Spider-Man 2, Alfred Molina was just channeling Willem Dafoe but wasn't genuine craziness. Plus Doc Ock has a sudden turnaround at the end of the film and the way he stops the sun thing is just ridiculous.

He kills an entire hospital ward, he talks to his snakey claw thingies. Come on man. Different character but there were still elements that suggest insanity. I was not overly keen on the ending either, myself but the rest of the film made up for it.

4. Emo Peter Parker Wait... what? Sure he grows a fringe, otherwise he is less emo and less depressive, whiney and brooding than Garfield. Plus this was your earlier point.

5. The characters are just plain dumb. In Spider-Man 2, Peter is known as Spider-Man's friend. Did Peter think that being close to Spider-Man but not BEING Spider-Man would keep him safe? Norman Osbourne's butler knows the truth about Norman Osbourne but still lets Harry carry on a self-destructive vendetta. Also when Norman kills that guy when he first goes crazy, there seems to be no follow-up to that guy. Surely you could prove Norman killed him, no?

Yeah he claims to be a friend of Spider-man only to people he trusted I believe. And if not, either way that is a kind of nitpick. Knowing the masked spider-man and knowing who he is personally, is a different thing.
The butler did not necessarily know of Harry's plans immediately. It was only when he saw issues arise when he stepped in and decided it was his responsibility to intervene.
No follow-up to guy Goblin kills? Hahha are you serious? How is that even important? He kills a character, the characters dead. Why would there be a follow up? What you expect his zombie to rise up and get revenge? It's simply to show Goblin's rage at the time or something. It is not a whole new plot device that sets up a mysterious aspect to the narrative

Now, to the complaint about The Amazing Spider-Man in which you say that the big questions are never answered. Well, the film is not meant to be completely resolved in one film. The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't resolve itself in that time. It will be cleared up by the end of the series.


Oh please Jack, try to keep up with the most basic of points because I find your lack of understanding disturbing.

I am not criticizing its discontinuity. I am criticizing the WAY it is treated and the standard of which it is executed. Yes, Lotr films end without a conclusion to the narrative strands, much like a number of films with immediate sequels. The difference is that spider-mans plotlines are abandoned pretty early on into the film to be forgotten about with not so much as a mention of them afterwards for the rest of the film. And they are generally so abruptly dealt with and understated that you don't even care or perhaps even acknowledge that there's more to be seen from them. Understand yet or do you want me to repeat it again?

Teckno wrote:

I think Uncle Ben's death was purposely left out for the next movie.

Ben was killed in The Amazing Spider-Man.

It's done so badly that even I forget at times.

Mecha wrote:

SOME, not most. He made a few good points, but he's obviously exaggerating through out most of video.

Like what he said about Peter Parker, I mean that's how he is in the comics. Yeah, Peter wasn't a skater, but Garfield pretty much played the character more faithfully to the comics.

There is no "more faithfully" because both Garfield and Maguire present different sides of the character you see in the comics as well as abandon or alter a few things. This only brings up the ridiculously subjective argument of what aspects are more important.

The fact is, in the greater scheme of things the comics are not a big issue at all. Amazing Spider-Man is in essence a mediocre film and the only reason you are enjoying it seems to be because it has aspects that you prefer in the comics which it stays true to.