Escape to the Movies: Untangling Spider-Man

[Carnage95]

People who are mad about The Amazing Spider-Man because he can't return back to Marvel Studios need to calm down. It's still possible for Spidey to be in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's only a matter of when and how. I mean people love Spider-Man and they also love the MCU or at least The Avengers. If you put both of them together it's a win-win. I'm sure Sony knows this.

Collider's question:
Because The Avengers was so huge, and people now like seeing there superheroes now in one film, is there any sort of plan for studios to combine their efforts and allow Spider-Man to join up with the larger Marvel universe?

Avi Arad's response:
Creatively, it would be a trip, it would be wonderful. We had Avengers in out slate in Marvel six years ago, so it?s really . . . Unfortunately the thing is, at the end of the day our relationship with Disney and Marvel is really wonderful, and it?s a matter of sitting in a room and carving out . . . This is the mother of all superheroes, and I believe after this movie, no one will ask us any questions again because we believe we?ve made something really special. And if Disney and Sony meet and say, ?Let?s do this. ? Because it all comes back to the comics, and usually in the comics we do team-ups, even DC.

Source [http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Castle/news/?a=63118]

 

[aeziir]

In all honesty, I first paid escapist money because of MovieBob (publisher's club, I think it's called). I also loved Yatzee (spellcheck please? too lazy to check) But Escape to the Movies was the very first show I saw and thought "Man personalities like these need support. They support the arts and they deserve support as well." I honestly never really agreed with MovieBob in 90% of his reviews, mostly because I think that he knit-picks a lot in his reviews. He sees things from a jaded critic point-of-view and that's fine, but lately (months now) he has taken it upon himself to tear down things he doesn't like.

These first instances of his change started, I think, with the GameOverthinker show, where his opinion started to be stated with a tone of superiority and fact. Opinions are not fact. Now it has been leaking into the Escape to the Movies show. He says things he believes as if it were true beyond a doubt, but there is no possible way for him to know these things unless he spoke to people involved, which I doubt. For example, some people (like moviebob) are stating that Sony ONLY made this movie to keep the rights to Spider-Man, but I don't think there are stipulations in the rights contract that Spider-Man movies have to be good or expensive. This movie was expensive... it seems that Sony poured a lot of money into this movie to both make it look good and to hire actors that are relevant AND good (Emily "Emma" Stone and Andrew Garfield are both "hot" right now and I don't think they are cheap, contract wise.) So if this movie was just made to extend the contract or to avoid losing rights, they could have done it with a MUCH smaller budget and no-name actors. They also gave it the 4th of july opening which is usually good for movies, so they seemed to have thought they did a good job. I honestly think they did a good-faith effort to make a good movie, and I personally liked it a lot. I especially liked the acting...

So yeah, I think MovieBob has become more and more... biased. I mean it in the way that we can tell he already has a preconceived idea of what he thinks of something before he sees or plays it. We can see this in the little slide he puts into his shows that kind of gives a look into what he's thinking or will soon be doing. In many cases he gushes about Nintendo and bashes movies he almost knows nothing about for no reason. In his blog he showed disdain for spiderman the second the first picture of the suit came out, and to me that seems a little excessive.

This review made me feel talked down to, someone trying to force me to think like them and that did not rub me the right way. I felt like someone was trying to convert me into their religion spouting factoids to make their BELIEFS more credible (the twilight thing for example)...

Anyway, I stopped following the OverThinker show a while back because I felt he had lost his "True Neutral" alignment to what he believes is the "lawful good." Now that this has spilled over into the escape to the movies show and the big picture show (I found his statement that Tim Burton's Batman was very flawed bugged me, because he said it, again, as it if were fact and actually started an episode by saying "we all know that first batman was fundamentally flawed" *paraphrase* as if everyone MUST HAVE agreed with him...) I don't think I will be watching anymore of Bob Chipman and am seriously considering taking my money away from the Escapist, although I still enjoy Yatzee *Spellcheck*, Feed Dump, and Jimquisition.

Just my two cents, sorry for the long post.


PS Yes Jim seems to be cocky and also opinionated, but he also has stated on many episodes that it is HIS opinion and he doesnt expect people to agree with him. His arrogance, I think, is meant to be taken comically. Just saying this in case someone says that its weird that I dislike Bob Chipman, but still enjoy Jim Sterling.

 

[aeziir]

Not much I can say though, I haven't seen the movie therefore I shouldn't have a say on Peter's personality or character in this. However, seeing enough clips, trailers, and reviews.. he does come off as unlikable to me.

havent seen the movie, arguments invalid.

 

[Ariseishirou]

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.

Let me chime in add to the chorus of "well done, sir".

The kind of nerd Bob seems to want to see had all but vanished even when I was in high school in the '90s, let alone the new millennium. Everyone was a trencher, or a goth, or preppy, and none of them were apologetic about being smart. Heck, post-Columbine many people were terrified of the trenchers they'd originally picked on, and they started fighting back - even winning - against the "cool kids". "Nerds" these days are sarcastic and aggressive; times have changed.

 

[Antonio Torrente]

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.

You got to understand that Marvel has just been recovering from a financial disaster at that time and badly needed money in order to stay afloat. So they have no choice but to sell the movie rights of some of their characters to other studios namely Sony and Fox.

In case you're wondering what financial disaster I am talking about, it's the Great Comics Crash of 1996 which you can read in detail here [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGreatComicsCrashOf1996]. (yes I know its tvtropes, but still its summarized and detailed)

 

[Antonio Torrente]

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.

It can happen but like I in this and other threads, people(the mainstream audience) are just suckers for Spiderman.

I have to admit, I don't read comic books that much but have sort of extensive knowledge because of reading wikipedia, tvtropes(don't laugh) and other websites that chronicle the events in comics.

So for me and some other people, this is kinda of an insult because they just don't seem to give the character a honest portrayal in the movies.

capcha: laser beams
why did that appear here, that's supposed to be on an X-Men thread

 

[Cartographer]

Well, on the basis of the great rage against Bob's opinion I decided to blow my Saturday morning on this movie and I can honestly say:

That's two hours of my life I'm not getting back.

Not as bad as GL, not as bad as Bob made it out to be, but /sigh.

I'm two hours closer to death and the only thing I can say about it is I've saved myself the DVD money.

I'm just not qualified enough to critique each and every point where the movie blows it (and even in one sitting there were more than enough to write for some time), but especially with Peter's character, I'm reminded of HULK's review of the Twilight series (including the books, a real trooper there). He's artificially a mess to appeal to the broadest possible audience, an everyman in the mold that even Shia Lebeouf rises above and in trying to be relatable (is that even a word?) for the biggest audience, he just fails as a character.

 

[rheianna]

Watched this movie with half a dozen friends on Thursday. My opinion when I came out was that the movie pandered way too much to the Emo-Edward-Twilight demographic. The consensus that my friends came to was that the film rated a 3-4 on a scale of ten. It's sad when I have to sum up a superhero movie as a snoozefest.

 

[ashertaz]

Should we begin a petition to change the ending? Or the middle? I mean, things might get clearer when the "director's cut" will inevitably come out so there's still time for internet rage...
Anyone? No? Ok, then i'm just joking. Think about it.

 

[Nocturnus]

Watched this movie with half a dozen friends on Thursday. My opinion when I came out was that the movie pandered way too much to the Emo-Edward-Twilight demographic.

While you are of course entitled to your opinion... how did you judge Toby Maguire? Because he spent most of the three films seemingly upset, depressed, down in the dumps, and longing for the fact that he couldn't take his gonads out of his purse long enough to actually tell Mary Jane about his feelings.

I honestly love the new Peter Parker's/Spiderman's actor. He caught the sarcasm that Spiderman is well known for almost perfectly.

As far as Moviebob's Review goes... i'm just going to have to chock this one up to a really large amount of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. He has been talking about how much hasn't looked forward to this film for quite some time, and how much he has expected it to do poorly... and well... walk into a movie expecting THAT MUCH not to like it? Yeah...

 

[TheProfessor234]

Spoilers below because I don't know the spoiler tag.







I'm just curious as to why the whole, "Osborne is manipulating Conner," is being left out. He even shows the scene where it's revealed. Hell, there is even a scene of Golum-esc fighting that makes you think Conner has two sides but the scene later shows that is was in fact Osborne. I only bring it up because it shows Conner as being a sorrowful villain, or something, where Bob says he's just a confusing character, or whatever he said.

Then again, I might of missed other things since I enjoyed this movie.

 

[PunkRex]

Sounds like you're standing FAR away from your computer to avoid the flames. It's always the same story isn't it? More hair gel, less personality.

And bad acting in Starship Troopers? What film were you watching?

YEAH! Those roachs gave a cracking performance.

 

[Arkynomicon]

I really don't care much for the old movies outside the second one. I couldn't stand Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man as well and found him mostly annoying. The third movie just pissed me off by totally wasting Venom which was my favourite villain as a kid and having Tobey Maguire being even more unlikeable. Not to mention how uncanny looking the Spider-Man suit was and looked like it was bad 90's CGI but it was an actual physical suit.

I actually like my superhero movies to be gritty. So from what I have seen I like it.

So I'm gonna be optimistic when I get around to watch the movie.


Toby did do some hilariously bad faces, though.

Spoiler

 

[Leethe1Girl]

Not paying attention to the Bobskie anymore. Do what you like to try and reason shit, Bob. Your performance the other night was horribly immature and unprofessional. You seem to like to think you're an "equal opportunities" reviewer but here you are shitting on a movie because you're pissed, not because the movie was actually that bad.

I'm sure you realize that people choosing to not see the film won't cause them to not make another and therefore release the rites to Spidey. And, likewise, you whining and jumping on details that don't even matter will have the same effect.

Respect lost.

 

[Leethe1Girl]

I really don't care much for the old movies outside the second one. I couldn't stand Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man as well and found him mostly annoying. The third movie just pissed me off by totally wasting Venom which was my favourite villain as a kid and having Tobey Maguire being even more unlikeable. Not to mention how uncanny looking the Spider-Man suit was and looked like it was bad 90's CGI but it was an actual physical suit.

I actually like my superhero movies to be gritty. So from what I have seen I like it.

So I'm gonna be optimistic when I get around to watch the movie.


Toby did do some hilariously bad faces, though.

Spoiler

Lol no need to look. I think we all remember the faces. ;p

I have a lot of respect for Toby though for the effort he put into everything. And I just can't blame him for the last film... actors can only do so much when the director is forcing them to dance on a counter top.

 

[maninahat]

Okay... i really can't agree on the Twilight comparison. What makes Twilight... well, Twilight is it's complete lack of likeable character and it's emotionless (almost sociopathic) main characters. In Amazing Spiderman both Peter and Gwen were likeable, relatable and had actual chemistry. And while the romance may have been a little bit rushed (Even though it's still pretty well developed for an action movie) it's by no means bad.

Really, it seems like "It reminds me of Twilight" has become a way of saying "Ew, i don't like girly stuff like romance in my superhero- and fantasy movies!"

My thoughts exactly. I was honestly hoping Bob would have the good sense to not go in depth on his Twilight comparison, because now? Now it looks like he's just desperately reaching to get people to hate this film as much as he does.

The Amazing Spider-man is in no way near any Twilight-level of badness, and Parker's haircare ability isn't a good enough reason.

Except he wasn't saying it was bad because it was like Twilight, he said it was trying to be like Twilight and failed to do even that. He even goes into detail as to why it failed to do that. So really what he is saying is that if you're going to pander towards demographics and copy other popular franchises, at least do it right.

 

[Captain Pirate]

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, a thousand times this.
That type of nerd is just extinct now, and Peter instead being just socially awkward worked far better.

However, the film was ridiculously unrealistic for one sole purpose. Who the fuck uses bing?! Especially not a teenager...