Escape to the Movies: Untangling Spider-Man

[Plinglebob]

Hmmm, I was actually tempted to post in the last video thread that this Friday he would continue. Dam, would have called it exactly.

And everyone who liked it will get told how wrong they are AGAIN when the DVD comes out. Its nice to have some predictability in this random world we live in.

 

[xaszatm]

2. I semi-agree about the "geek" part on Peter Parker but I still don't understand why people are telling me Peter Parker is likable. He isn't. He is passive-aggressive and indecisive without his mask and a pompous jerk who is full of himself with it. What is there to like about his character?

I'm just not seeing what you're saying about him. Now, is he still a bit immature and arrogant at times? Of course! That's part of Spider-man's origin. And I think it would be silly for so important a character flaw to get "wished" away in just one movie (or comic). That's what happened with the original Spider-Man, and I think here they're trying to make things a bit more organic.

Also, as repeated above, the film isn't subtle. It hits us with a brick of obvious foreshadowing and expects us to go to the sequel to see the other shoe drop.

No no no, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the plot is subtle. It's not at all. But that's not the focus of the movie, really. The characters have a lot more subtlety this time around. Not everything is stark black and white (or red and blue, as the case may be). We're not being beat over the head with one-note characters (or one-note characters who suddenly change notes, only to harp on that new note). Even the stereotypical bully gets a moment of compassion at a critical moment.

Some of the updates to the story, I could live without. But the updates to the characters were much needed, and were quite effective in my eyes.

How exactly is Peter Parker subtle? Or any of the characters for that matter? There aren't. A lot of them are sympathetic and a few are more complex but they aren't subtle. Gwen and Peter are similar but don't know it. The Lizard lets power go to his head, though he exerts this madness differently. Gwen herself shows complexity. Peter on the other hand? Acts immature and never grows up OR learns a lesson. I'm not expecting him to do a 180 degree turn of personality, but I wanted him to grow. He didn't.

What I meant about his attitude. He can't make immediate decisions (i.e. when he is stumbling around and acting awkward). He is very full of himself as Spiderman ("I'm doing your job much better than you"), and denies a dying person's last wish in a way this is completely despicable (not that I expected him to keep the promise in the first place because of the plot) I just don't see complexity or likablity from this character.

I didn't exactly hate the movie. I thought that the movie great action scenes but horrible everything else. So, in the end, the movie moved up to "barely okay" or "popcorn film." I just don't see what people loved aside from the action.

 

[Sejborg]

How is it a problem that Peter Parker is a guy teenagers can relate to?

Some of Bobs arguments in these reviews seems to be pulled out of thin air in a desperate attempt to convince people not to watch the movie.

Just get over your self already, movie Bob.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Its kinda disheartening that Sony plans 2 more movies so that they can make another trilogy.

Unfortunately Bob, even though this movie is as bad as you say it is it won't stop it being a box-office hit.

You gotta face the unfortunate fact that people(main stream audiences) are sucker for Spiderman.

The only thing we can hope now is that the next 2 movies will bomb so hard that Sony will be finally forced to sell back the rights to its rightful owners Disney/Marvel Studios.

They ceased to be the rightful owners when they sold away the rights in the first place. Sony didn't twist their arm. Marvel didn't plan 10 years into the future and wanted a quick buck. They made the quick buck and now it's biting them in the ass.

Good.

 

[Kmadden2004]

Untangling Spider-Man

MovieBob gives us a more detailed look into The Amazing Spider-Man.

Watch Video

I still get this feeling that you're going out of your way to hate this movie. Like, far out of your way. And I think you're allowing your (totally justified) hatred of Sony cash-in to color your perception of the folks that actually worked on the movie.

1. The "dangling plot threads" you've mentioned are a result of this movie not being conceived as a one-off. If the movie had introduced and resolved every thread, you'd be complaining that it's too cluttered. Believe me, I'm not a fan of the Parker-Parent-Conspiracy storyline as a whole... but I can see that they're laying out breadcrumbs to lead down that road later. Connors is one of those, in some ways.

2. I'm really, really not seeing your problem with Peter Parker. He's still an outcast geek here. He's just not the 60's "lie down and take it" kind of geek. If you get any opportunity to interact with high schoolers (and recent graduates, who aren't much different), you'll see that in this modern age, geeks don't feel quite so powerless. They're more likely to react with a bit of anger, and to fight back even knowing they don't physically stand a chance. They're also more likely to hide any fear or embarrassment behind sarcasm, and to start slacking off in academics. You're wanting Parker to be a sort of nerd or geek that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

3. The lesson he learned was the same power/responsibility spiel, just played out differently. Instead of being explicitly told that, he learns it via consequence -- by acting in a self-serving way he not only got Uncle Ben killed, but he also accidentally created the Lizard (via a failed attempt to resolve his parental abandonment issues), which resulted in a lot of destruction and ultimately a very important death (no spoiler). (See, his spider powers weren't the only powers he was misusing.) The power/responsibility theme is really just a "selfish vs. selfless" dichotomy -- The more you have to give, the more you have to give.

This feeling of characters being unfocused? I really think it's a matter of wanting too much archetype. Consider that, in many countries, candy and soda aren't as extremely sweet as ours in the US... and that can lead us to find their candy or soda "bland." When we're hyper-saturated with hyper-saturated flavors (or characterizations), we can lose our "taste" for subtlety.

In this case, I don't think you're not capable of detecting subtlety, I just think you're very much against assigning any of it to this movie. Perhaps subconsciously, you're dismissing even the possibility that it could be happening.

^^This. 100% this^^

Though I wouldn't necessarily say the film is all too "subtle", it is at least more nuanced than Raimi's films were. The character-based scenes certainly felt a lot more genuine than they were in the original trilogy. Oh, and that "oh my god, worse than dancing-emo-Peter" moment that Bob referred to in Tuesday's review? It's a hell of a lot better (and moving, IMHO) than the "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" moment in the final act of the first Raimi film.

After seeing Bob's latest video (which felt a little like damage control after Tuesday's "special" review), I can't help but feel that the main problem Bob has here is that he's too far removed from high school to understand what schools are actually like these days.

And, seriously Bob, drop the Twilight comparisons. Nobody's buying them, and they're just coming off as flippant fanboyism.

 

[Blueruler182]

I'm sorry, again, I disagree. He may not have been the kind of nerd you were, but I grew up knowing plenty of nerds like Peter Parker. I think they did a great job of modernizing Peter. They managed to keep most, if not all, of the character beats that make peter the way he is. And, in the movie, whenever Peter put on the outfit he became a lot more outgoing. Sure, in the original trilogy they hit the responsibility harder on the head than this one, but in this one they managed to capture Spider-man's personality better.

Spider-man. Quips. It's a massive part of his character. He's loud, and they managed to do that in this one. When Peter was in the suit, he was a quipping loudmouth. Out of the suit he was this withdrawn nerd, except around Gwen, May, and Ben, and less so with the latter two.

And I still think you just didn't pay attention to the Lizard. His motivation was crystal clear, and at no point did they even hint at him wanting to take over the world (as you said on the Tuesday review). I do agree that they didn't explain why he was more aggressive as the Lizard, but there's something to be said for subtext, and I don't think many people would have cared or listened if they explained that the more reptilian part of his brain becoming more dominant and as such giving him a more primitive and predatory set of instincts and behavior would have been important. Nobody needed to be told the Hulk was dumb or the reasoning behind it. Ever.

I still think you got too close to this one before release.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

Yes.
I'm putting good money down that this movie gets mentioned over green lantern in the inevitable TDKR review.

Turns out that much like the whining fanboys/critics that bob chastises, hes pretty much one too. And thats okay, I'll still like to hear his opinion on a movie, but Thor help us his opinion of himself as being 'better than thou' critic is getting a bit too much. I guess thats what internet fame does...

Internet fame hasn't done that to Jim Sterling or Yahtzee. Why do we tolerate it in Bob?
Even if they do behave like Bob sometimes, they do it sarcastically as comedy.

 

[Celi]

Is this going to be another of Bob's "Scott Pilgrim/Expendables/Transformers" personality tests, where if you liked this movie then you're an idiot and you embody everything wrong with movie audiences today and Bob places the degeneration of the movie industry squarely on your shoulders?

Because I liked it.

But...he liked Scott Pilgrim. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1918-Scott-Pilgrim-vs-The-World]

He was talking about how Bob arrogantly sees his opinion of a movie as fact, and anyone who likes a movie he thinks is bad or vice versa is responsible for how well the movie did. In the case of Transformers/Expendables/Amazing Spider-Man, he hates the movies to the point that he thinks they shouldn't exist, and blames the people who liked them for encouraging Hollywood to make more movies he doesn't like. In the case of Scott Pilgrim, it was amazing, and if you saw a brainless action movie instead of it, you're an idiot and directly responsible for stifling creativity in AAA movies. Basically, he ties guilt to what movies you pay to see, rather than just sharing his own personal opinions on them.

 

[Sejborg]

How can there be a reboot of the first Spiderman review so soon after the original review?! This is an outrage!

It's just a cashgrab for our comments and for lots of views. This review was obviously made by accountants, and I will recommend everybody not to view it or comment on it!!!!

Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!

 

[gorfias]

I see it in a couple of hours. I'm hearing from all over the place on this. Entertainment Weekly gives it an A-. The totally rad guys brought up some legit sounding arguments (www.revision3.com). I've heard we don't get to see Spiderman for about the first bloody hour of the movie! But they totally loved Spidey himself, so, inspite of Bob's review, I'm looking forward to this and judging for myself.

 

[Augustine Hart]

I'd have to agree with Dastardly's opinion that Bob is trying very hard to hate the film. I'd have to say that he's forcing the Twilight similarities. The cosmetic similarities are there (Andrew Garfield's hair, Gwen being the daughter of a cop, and the man of the set up has super powers), but Gwen Stacy isn't a completely unlikable useless zombie like Bella, Peter Parker isn't an air headed moron like edward, and Capitan Stacy Actually does things in this story unlike Bella's dad.

Quick note: Bob also mentions that the lizard is randomly fascist and wants to turn all people into lizard men. I'm not incredibly well versed in the comics, but as I recall, that was exactly what the lizard always wanted to do in one of his plot threads.

 

[MB202]

So this is like The Green Lantern, in that this is a movie so bad, it would take several episodes to explain how bad it is? Well that's good, I'd like to hear more.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[shadowstriker86]

bad edward spider man or emo spiderman....i have to choose one of those?

 

[endtherapture]

This entire campaign by bob is fanboy rage.

He wants the film of a 60s comic book that isn't relevant any more - Peter is awkward, skinny and likes science in this film - that's nerdy. Just cos he stands up to bullies and is handsome and dresses well doesn't make him some Robert Pattinson alike. And just cos Gwen likes him doesnt make it some Twilight-esque love story.

The film was better than all 3 other Spiderman films before it, Sony did a great job of capturing the comic book attitude in the films (with the classic poses etc.) and the attitude of Spiderman. Garfield wasn't annoying and whiney like Maguire was in the role...he was spunky and cool like Spiderman should me.



I've never been big on Spiderman really, I've always been more of a Batman guy...but this film is the first time I've walked out of a Spiderman film thinking "YES, THIS IS AWESOME I WANT TO BE SPIDERMAN" so I consider it a success.

 

[Dastardly]

How exactly is Peter Parker subtle? Or any of the characters for that matter? There aren't.

By "subtle," I mean in comparison to previous incarnations. In the past, there has been one particular aspect or "flavor" in each character that is not only dominant, but is also exaggerated. It is an excellent storytelling shortcut -- we know the finger-twiddling, mustache-twirling guy in the top hate is the bad guy, no further explanation needed -- but it makes for pretty inauthentic characters. Basically, each character might as well be wearing a nametag that says, "THE VIRTUOUS ONE," or "THE CUTE ONE," or "THE FUNNY ONE."

The characters is the latest movie are a lot less blatantly allegorical. Dr. Connors is clearly the primary antagonist... but he's not exaggeratedly evil. Gwen Stacy is more than just doting-girlfriend-and-convenient-hostage. Peter is more than a geek, and Spider-Man is more than just "the hero."

But the film doesn't beat us about the head with this complexity. We're left to sort some of it out ourselves. To remember that someone can be an outcast, but maybe doesn't mope about it all the time and instead tries to make that identity his own -- he's outcast, but not downtrodden. Basically, to remember that any person is a cocktail of conflicting aspects, and that identity comes from how they mix, not just which is dominant.

Some folks, particularly long-time comic fans, have too clear and specific a picture developed. Other folks are just used to movies spelling out every bit of a character's innermost workings. The story of this movie is meant to be kid-friendly -- not a lot of confusing plot points to keep track of. The characters are structured around a much more mature audience.

You know what other movie recently had a ton of success with exactly the same mix? The Avengers. The story is as simplistic as it gets. There is little or no explanation for how or why this or that needs done. Because the story doesn't really matter. It's about the characters.

Do I think Sony planned this? No. But I think it's possible they accidentally hired a capable writer that gave them the "popcorn story," and instead turned attention toward creating authentic characters.

Peter on the other hand? Acts immature and never grows up OR learns a lesson. I'm not expecting him to do a 180 degree turn of personality, but I wanted him to grow. He didn't.

Did you watch the movie? He didn't look at the camera and spell out, "Gee, I sure learned a lot about how being selfish with my gifts and powers can really make trouble for other people, and that I really have an obligation to do my part!" But it's clear that he learned and grew. He started out as a vigilante for the wrong reasons -- using his spider powers to find Uncle Ben's killer, and using his scientific knowledge (and found files) to try to impress Dr. Connors (a surrogate father figure) -- and learned quickly how that selfishness caused him to treat his family poorly, but also endangered (and even ended) lives.

 

[Sexy Devil]

*deleted*

 

[Nghtgnt]

I for one can't wait to see this movie on Netflix streaming.

 

[Sovereignty]

Kinda glad he at least said something about Savages at the very end of this segment. I was hoping to see it this weekend.

This, I was actually hoping when the Spiderman review came out early we'd get one about this movie. Good not great, does that mean Bob suggest seeing Savages or not?

 

[Yeager942]

I really don't want to give Hollywood my money by seeing this film, so I think I'll opt to finally get into Ultimate Spiderman instead.