Escape to the Movies: Untangling Spider-Man

[Bobic]

See how much better you get your point across when you don't sit there embarrassingly raging at the microphone like Spiderman killed your uncle Ben?

Seriously, stay calm, it makes the video a lot less awkward to watch.

 

[Kimarous]

Instead of going over points that other people have covered better than I can, I want to address the particular point of the "with great power" concept. *ahem*


Am I the only person who feels the iconic line comes COMPLETELY out of left field in that movie?

Seriously. The original comic just had it in a narrative caption, a concept that Spidey learned from experience instead of being explicitly told it. Trying to worm it into dialogue felt stupid then and its absence shouldn't be missed.

 

[Thespian]

Oh lord, he's doing it again.

I find these things cringey to watch. You know, when Bob abandons all of his professionalism because he didn't like a movie and decides to dedicate a week into explaining why that movie is the sole cause for everything bad about Hollywood and also the world.
I mean, Green Lantern was a TERRIBLE movie and even when tearing that apart Bob did so with all the composure and eloquence of a raving Alan Moore seeing Watchmen in the theater. Yeesh, remember when he reviewed the director's cut of that movie?

Anywho, this latest episode has convinced me not to hold his opinion of this movie to any credit. When MovieBob disagrees with me on a movie, generally I can see where he's coming from. Not here, at all.

Yes, Bob, comparing it to Twilight IS cheap, and telling us that you are aware of it does not make it any less cheap. Additionally, the points he used to justify this juvenile opinion were out and out incorrect. He described Gwen showing interest in a dangerous, mysterious guy which is 100% not what happened. Gwen displayed interest in Peter early on, when all she really knew about him was that he was smart, good at science, shy and willing to stand up for a kid who was bullied. A smart girl into in science displaying interest in a nerdy guy, what an unnatural romance. Just because it's two good-looking teenagers doesn't mean it's Twilight-y and I hate how everyone makes that jump now. What, would it be better to do it the way the Raimi films did? A stupid, thoughtless power fantasy where a nerd just gets an utterly helpless hottie to swoon around him? For god's sake, the woman was engaged and Tobey-Pete strolled up to her and said "Oh hey, I'm ready to go out with you again" as if it's his right. She's all primed to go back to him again in a few days. Those people weren't characters, they were caricatures. Hero nerd and damsel. Nothing beyond that.

I'm not going to say Bob is biased or anything because I don't see how he could be. It's not like Marc Webb stole his childhood bike or something. Sure, he hated this movie from the beginning but that's not a bias, per se. No, it's just that he seems to have decided to hate this movie and has been making snide comments on his blog about it for so long at so many inappropriate intervals that it reminds me of an closeted gay man over-compensating at every juncture of a conversation to remind us all how straight he is. I don't see how you could find this movie so damn offensive in the way Bob does. I am a huge, die-hard Spidey fan and I thought that the original Spiderman Movies (even when I saw them as a kid) were lame as all hell, but holy crap I didn't start handing out the pitchforks to my angry mob.

To me, this movie was a gift - I really felt for Peter, I really mourned Uncle Ben, I understood the emotions behind the romance and I even liked Flash Thompson. I though Rhys Ifans was a really cool Curt Connors but the villain certainly could have been handled better and clearly suffered as they attempted to set up the origin story.

But dear god was all this better than the unlikable douche who took the name Peter Parker last time. It's all preferable to the hapless buffoon that was Mary-Jane Watson, shrieking her lungs out at every turn, or Norman Osborn babbling away to his mask in an unintentionally ridiculous vaudeville.

At least I liked the characters and related to them.

 

[DSQ]

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.

I really hope this is the case so we can see Spiderman join the Avengers, it's just met to be dammit! While I've never really got how the Superhero world can really exist with the Xmen world (I think it really takes the punch out of the them or us narrative when there are a hundreds of non mutant but still powerful people flouting around) Spiderman just fits so well and it would be cool for there to be a younger hero on the team.

Anywho great follow up video Bob, while I wasn't convinced by your earlier video you really got your feeling across myuch clearer in this one.

 

[Littaly]

Are you done with this now? Seriously, there are so many more interesting things you could say or do than taking out your bitterness over the new Spider-Man movie for the hundredth time. I don't even disagree with you, it's just getting really, really, really lame.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, at least, emo-spidey is still better than wooden-spidey.

 

[medv4380]

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.

If you're following bread crumbs then you're lost and just don't know it. IF there were something to follow then the sequels scripts wouldn't have been scraped. Once they scraped the sequel the crumbs you're following become irrelevant. It's like trying to say that you can follow the breadcrumbs in Lost. They are there only as plot devices so that a writer can randomly pull one when needed, but aren't actually there as a part of a master plan, or did you not catch onto all the unresolved plot threads in the end?

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.

No Parker is a Main Stream Geek in this monstrosity, and they also paint him as the worst kind of geek. As Jeremy Jahns put it in his POSITIVE review of TASM "If Parker didn't get superpowers he's become a serial killer". That right their to me proves that everyone who thinks that this Parker is like the real Parker or how he should be is Bat S@*! Crazy. Geeks and Nerds that ARE NOT the aggressive nutcases who might go crazy one day a la Columbine do exist. Heck Parker doing nothing to stop a bully would be right in line with him needing to learn "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". Instead we have the kind of Geek that would go out of his way to pick a fight when he has the chance, or opportunity.

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.

No they missed the mark with power and responsibility. They tried to go about it another way. They tried to emulate Ultimates. They tried and Failed. His "learning" only made him worse not better after Uncle Ben's death hence the opposite of "learning". Maybe if they pulled off a proper Parker then maybe they could have done it, but they failed and now we have a Parker who has a questionable moral compass.

 

[xaszatm]

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.

No, I'm not expecting him to spell it out. He's still a vigilante. His motive has changed from "killing my uncle's killer" to...well, I don't know. I don't know what his motivation is now. Is it responsibility? "The best promises are the ones we don't keep." This is essentially his last line in the movie. Responsible he ain't. The only possible motivation I see is that being a superhero is cool and impresses Gwen.

He also doesn't learn from his selfish attitude. He goes to Dr. Conner to impress him, but also because he thinks he should continue his father's work (that's what I got out of that scene). It's also clear from his interactions with Gwen's father that he is extremely selfish and still is. The dinner conversation shows his arrogance. The police scene shows that he thinks he can waltz in with any story and the police will listen. I could forgive the above, but it is the last interaction with them that really makes me HATE the main character.

Spoiler

When Gwen's father is dying. He tries to make Peter Parker to avoid seeing his daughter because being Spiderman will put Gwen in danger. Spiderman says nothing put SIMPLY WAITS FOR HIM TO DIE BEFORE SAYING NO! WHY?!? This made me from going "eh, he's slowly learning" to "WHAT A POMPOUS, BIG-HEADED, PROUD, SELFISH MAN!"

I was not expecting him to make the promise in the first place (After all, I Liked the romance and plot wouldn't let that go) but it could be handled better. Maybe if he said that he would protect her, SOMETHING other than what that scene showed. And the afterward scene?

Gwen: "You shouldn't make promises you cannon keep"

Parker: "But those are the best kind of promises."

That smacks us in the face of immaturity. Obviously, it was set up on purpose because Gwen is now on a one-way track towards death due to Peter's arrogance, but it could be handled better.

Honestly, I liked the other characters except Peter Parker/Spiderman himself. I wished to movie focused on Gwen instead of Peter. A young genius that is still socially awkward yet can stand up to others? Meets a charming man that has more than meets the eye. Showing an actually interesting romance? Having three-dimensional other characters AND a villain that affect both lives (even if they don't know it until later)? THAT would have been a good movie that would have spun superheroes in a more interesting light. It's Peter Parker that drives down the movie, not the others.

 

[him over there]

You're wanting Parker to be a sort of nerd or geek that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

My god, and I thought I was the only one from the last video's thread to actually realize this. The stereotypical nerd that Bob wants so desperately hasn't been real or at least hasn't been in prominence for the last decade. This is what you call an update.

This makes far more sense considering he seems to be permanently stuck in the 80's, especially in some of his Big Picture episodes, especially the Magneto one where you can see a persecution complex budding.

 

[freakydan]

I was really hoping this wouldn't turn into another Green Lantern. REALLY hoping. Seriously, Bob, if you didn't convince people not to see this movie with the first review, you're not going to do it with the second. This would have been a decent, not great, but decent topic for an Intermission or something. Maybe you could have taken this weekly slot to review something else that people might be interested in, like, say, Savages. You know, that movie you admitted to seeing in the closing credits?

For future reference, reducing a review down to one sentence just so you can extend another review that will do no one any good is unprofessional, stupid, and just annoying.

 

[aba1]

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.

THANK YOU this is a slow clap moment if I ever saw one *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap**clap**clap**clap*

 

[The Great JT]

I miss Emo Peter. Yeah, I said it. I miss him for two reasons. One, he's not Edward Parker, two, at least he was smiling a couple of times. That's my problem with The Sub-Par Spider-Man, it's just a real joyless flick.

 

[Harbinger_]

I'm starting to trust your reviews less and less. You seem to expect every single movie to be this breakout hit thats going to take chances and try new things. With a reboot like this that would be the last thing that they'd want to try. You want to stick to your guns and make a movie thats safe. Get people to liking the characters and knowing the reboot.

Also the fact that Peter Parker had a somewhat disjointed identity between nerd, emo, etc. etc. is because thats what people are like in high school! Not everyone sticks to one demographic, hell I know I sure didn't.

You say that the Lizard has no real plan and he is a cliche villain but thats what superhero villains are. He has no real plan because the chemicals he was pumping into his body was messing with his mind.

Also they don't exactly say with Great power comes great responsibility but they paraphrase it which is really close enough in my opinion.

All in all when I went to see the movie last night I went in skeptical and I came out enjoying what I saw, not even minding having to pay for the 3-D. (The 3-D was better in this movie than others I've saw though it still seems a bit lacking.)

Then again everyone has different tastes in movies. (See that god awful movie Splice that you gave a glowing review for.) It's clear that you were expecting quite a bit more from this movie than it could deliver.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

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.

I object. I still exist.

Hence the words "by and large".

 

[Don Reba]

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 is a pretty damn good response.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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!

What you did there.....

.... I see it.

 

[search_rip]

The story of the movie is actually mashing together several of the different Spider-Man continuities.

In The Amazing Spider-Man comics, The Lizard is a different personality than Curt Connors and does on several occasions try to turn the world (or New York at least) into giant lizards like him. And to be fair, in the original run of the comic, no characters actually say "With great power, comes great responsibility," a narrating text box says it at the end of the very first issue.

In the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (Easily the best Spider-Man cartoon ever but only 24 episodes), Gwen Stacy and Peter are childhood friend who are in high school together and Gwen is working as an intern for Dr. Connors.

In the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, Dr. Connors was friends with Richard Parker, Peter's father, and it's he who accidentally creates Carnage using Spider-Man's DNA and Richard Parker's research.

So yes, while it is not the perfect "Amazing Spider-Man" movie, it gets more correct than Bob gives it credit for.

Additionally, George Stacy has always been a police captain.

<--- THIS...


Also, for me the new movie is not much as a problem as I like to see it more close to the Ultimate Spider Man character, not much of a fan of him tho'

 

[FirebirdXR]

I like how commenters seem a lot more adamant earlier on defending the movie on this thread than in the previous video.

It surely throws Bob's professionalism as a reviewer into question...
...and he is a reviewer, not a critic like Yahtzee is, whom everyone's accustomed to his rather hilariously bitter sarcasm and wit, which Bob severely lacks.

I already made plans to watch this movie and hold my own opinion, since reviews are all over the place with this movie, and most complaints seem to stem from it being a bit of a cash-cow to protect Sony's rights to the character and it being a way-too-soon of a reboot for the character.

I hated Tobey McGuire's wooden version for Peter, and this movie seem to address some complaints I had for Raimi's Spider-Man.

So here is hoping I have a good time...

 

[Master Taffer]

I don't take too much exception to Movie Bob's review. i disagree with it whole heartedly as I loved the movie, but him not liking it is something I can't fault him for (even if his reasons seem petty as hell).

What I do take exception to is him wishing for the movie to bomb in his original review. Him projecting this "I don't care" attitude on the cast and crew of the movie and desiring for their hard work to fail is the worst kind of pathetic and petty bullshit, and this coming from someone who claims and presents himself as a professional critic it compounds it to somethign worst. Bob should be ashamed of himself in that regard.