Vanilla Shake Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man was fantastic. Loved it. I expected more bonding time between Parker and Dr. Connors over his research, but it's alright. Since I haven't read/followed the comics, any idea what the after-credits scene is supposed to mean? Supposed to hint towards the next villain I think. Marc Webb said something about the unseen figure having a part in the next film. Apparently, it's Norman Osborn. TC718 / <629 / CF5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man was fantastic. Loved it. I expected more bonding time between Parker and Dr. Connors over his research, but it's alright. Since I haven't read/followed the comics, any idea what the after-credits scene is supposed to mean? Supposed to hint towards the next villain I think. Marc Webb said something about the unseen figure having a part in the next film. Apparently, it's Norman Osborn. Yeah I have a feeling it's him too. Marc Webb stated we saw the man in the credits before, but something was covering him so we couldn't see him. I saw the movie again today, and he is at the beginning when Peter first goes into Oscrop; the big statue shrouded in shadows. No doubt that is Norman Osborne. He won't be the villain in the next movie though, just have a main role. Also, on the discussion of the whole trilogy thing. Yes it's going to be a trilogy, but I think I saw another interview where Marc Webb stated that there may be more after that. Possibly a second trilogy; each focusing on something else? This trilogy is focusing on the orgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Shake Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man was fantastic. Loved it. I expected more bonding time between Parker and Dr. Connors over his research, but it's alright. Since I haven't read/followed the comics, any idea what the after-credits scene is supposed to mean? Supposed to hint towards the next villain I think. Marc Webb said something about the unseen figure having a part in the next film. Apparently, it's Norman Osborn. Yeah I have a feeling it's him too. Marc Webb stated we saw the man in the credits before, but something was covering him so we couldn't see him. I saw the movie again today, and he is at the beginning when Peter first goes into Oscrop; the big statue shrouded in shadows. No doubt that is Norman Osborne. He won't be the villain in the next movie though, just have a main role. Also, on the discussion of the whole trilogy thing. Yes it's going to be a trilogy, but I think I saw another interview where Marc Webb stated that there may be more after that. Possibly a second trilogy; each focusing on something else? This trilogy is focusing on the orgin. I believe he stated that the next two films will uncover more about his parents. TC718 / <629 / CF5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The Amazing Spider-Man was fantastic. Loved it. I expected more bonding time between Parker and Dr. Connors over his research, but it's alright. Since I haven't read/followed the comics, any idea what the after-credits scene is supposed to mean? Supposed to hint towards the next villain I think. Marc Webb said something about the unseen figure having a part in the next film. Apparently, it's Norman Osborn. Yeah I have a feeling it's him too. Marc Webb stated we saw the man in the credits before, but something was covering him so we couldn't see him. I saw the movie again today, and he is at the beginning when Peter first goes into Oscrop; the big statue shrouded in shadows. No doubt that is Norman Osborne. He won't be the villain in the next movie though, just have a main role. Also, on the discussion of the whole trilogy thing. Yes it's going to be a trilogy, but I think I saw another interview where Marc Webb stated that there may be more after that. Possibly a second trilogy; each focusing on something else? This trilogy is focusing on the orgin. I believe he stated that the next two films will uncover more about his parents. I never got really far into the comics. Was anything ever discovered about them, or will the writers and directors be making this stuff up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I don't think i will be seeing these films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 So I was watching Spider-Man: The Animated Series. It's heavily based off of the comics and is one of the only early successful Spider-Man shows with 65 episodes. The first episode; Night of the Lizard gave me the impression that this is what Marc Webb based the first movie off of, but added in the orgins and stuff, since it's kind of required. The next episode in the show features The Scorpion. In my opinion, that seems like the most logical villain for the next film. Peter can begin freelancing for the Daily Bugle, JJ can grow suspicious of Peter's photos, hire Mac Gargan to follow Peter - from there JJ will get Mac into the Scorpion suit and use the infamous cross-genetics to transform him - which was used in the first film and gained a lot of attention. I'm putting my bets on The Scorpion being the next villain in the trilogy. With the gritty tone they're going for, and how Peter is trying to grow up and handle being Spider-Man etc. it seems like the perfect scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Alright i said i wasn't going to see it, but after seeing good reviews i did go and see it, and a couple of my mates were going. I saw the film in 3D, it was actually very good, like really really good. Peter Parker AKA spiderman Or Andrew Garfield was actually really good, kinda like Tobey Maguire he had that funny little geekish grin, except this Spiderman was sort of "cool" to begin with, he is a nerd but not really like a - combed over hair never do anything wrong kinda nerd - like Peter Parker, and also Aunt May and Uncle Ben aren't really frail old people either they are actually pretty cool parents. I should also point out there is no Mary Jane, she was opted out and Gwen Stacy is in instead, the chemistry between her and Andrew is brilliant, the shy boy with the hot girl sorta thing really works out. Overall is was a great movie, it was almost a tear jerker at some points, but it wasn't too bad, so far the storyline is very different to the original Spiderman and the movie seems like it is set in a near future considering some of the technology within the movie which you will come to see. I do think they need to introduce more characters in the film though, you only really get to know Peters parents/guardians (Ben and May) at the beginning of the film and then their roles dwindle as it progresses, the only people you get a feel for is Peter, the Villian (vaguely) and Gwen, all other characters are fairly insignificant Sorry i mean - Those are all the Characters. I hope for the second film which looks like it's coming they Peter gets a friend like Harry, there needs to be more active members in the storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verdant Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Watched it last night with my friend. Absolutely loved it. I expected less out of it but it was a good as movie. Only some scenes were followed along from the other Spiderman movies, but this one went it's own way. The Bad Guy was done well and the fight scenes were great. You guys should all check it out. You will enjoy it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I like that path they're taking that the comics did. Peter never finds Uncle Ben's murderer for a long time. Most likely since this is going to be a trilogy, he will in the third film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Shake Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I like that path they're taking that the comics did. Peter never finds Uncle Ben's murderer for a long time. Most likely since this is going to be a trilogy, he will in the third film. But that's what they did with Spider-Man 3 in a way, with Peter seeing that thief run off right after Uncle Ben is shot and basically letting him die, only to find out two films later that it was actually his partner who accidentally pulled the trigger. Although, they do have the advantage of the audience actually seeing who kills Uncle Ben this time around. Maybe not his full face, but at least the basics. Somehow I doubt we'll see him reappear later in this series. TC718 / <629 / CF5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy455 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I went to watch this yesterday, and I have to say it was completely perfect! The actors were brilliant, the score by James Horner was perfect, and all the little hints and such were perfect. I like how it retains originality from the comics, and to be honest, the whole film was as good as the previous installments. As for the movie hints themselves I've always been good with my hunches and so: I'm pretty sure that The Green Goblin will be the next villian purely based on the hints of Norman Osborne dying and that it may be him who speaks to Curt at the end of the credits. Definitely a worthy addition to the franchise and I'll definitely be seeing it again, and going to see the next two they release in due time. "I might have laughed if I'd have remembered how." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narcis_speed6 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Just saw it a few hours ago, the best super-hero movie in my opinion, I really like how they added that dose of comedy to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzbegone Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 As for the movie hints themselves I've always been good with my hunches and so: I'm pretty sure that The Green Goblin will be the next villian purely based on the hints of Norman Osborne dying and that it may be him who speaks to Curt at the end of the credits. Definitely a worthy addition to the franchise and I'll definitely be seeing it again, and going to see the next two they release in due time. If that's the case, I want Willem Dafoe back. His cackling laugh and Goblin mannerisms just made the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy455 Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 As for the movie hints themselves I've always been good with my hunches and so: I'm pretty sure that The Green Goblin will be the next villian purely based on the hints of Norman Osborne dying and that it may be him who speaks to Curt at the end of the credits. Definitely a worthy addition to the franchise and I'll definitely be seeing it again, and going to see the next two they release in due time. If that's the case, I want Willem Dafoe back. His cackling laugh and Goblin mannerisms just made the movie. You know something. I'll agree with you on that, he was one of the best villains to date. I think what let him down with the mediocrity of his suit which seemed lacking thereof. But he just had the right sort of energy for it. When he says "Can Spiderman come out to play?" it's one of the best delivered lines I've heard. I wish they'd bring him back. "I might have laughed if I'd have remembered how." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chukkles Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Just saw it a few hours ago, the best super-hero movie in my opinion, I really like how they added that dose of comedy to it. This sounds good. At the moment having not seen this, Spiderman 2 is still my favorite superhero movie. 1 was OK, you don't need to be told anything about 3. I wanted to see this in the cinema but my night work interfers with my friendships and my buddies went without me Is it a completely new start? I don't think they'll have the goblin in as i'm sure I read about this series, they don't want to retread ground thats been covered. Come on any other spiderman villains you'd like to see more than the goblin??? After 3 I was hoping we might get a film with Carnage... Isn't J. Jonah Jameson's son the water guy???? A bit like sandman but watery. Or is that someone else entirely? Edited July 18, 2012 by Chukkles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 JJ's son is an astronaut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzbegone Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I've been thinking this for quite a while and come to a conclusion why I like the 2001 version more. Spider-Man (2001) had this genuine feeling that the New Yorkers are aware of this 'higher being' that protects the city. The knowing that this unknown guy is protecting them and leaving the criminals running scared really worked well. The reboot IIRC didn't have any of this. The city remained completely lifeless despite this web slinger swinging through the streets. Peter simply got his powers but there wasn't really any real 'holy sh*t, I got web/crawling/jumping abilities'. Just a f*cking lucky guess that creating some web spinners would allow him to efficiently spin web. 2001's version of Peter really finding his powers (jumping over rooftops, spinning web) was a more realistic view of what I (or anyone else really) would do if I discovered I had powers. The design of the suit from 2001 was also a sweet montage, didn't see any of that in the new one. A bit of what I loved certainly died in this reboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH NO Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Ive rewatched this once a night for the last four nights. It has a few flaws but honestly, I love it. Garfield and Stone are fantastic together and the portayal of spideys abilities, such as the school lizard fight scene, well, I just couldnt have asked for more. I have heard a few criticisms such as Parker acting too cocky but then, hes a teenage lad whos just developed super powers, Id be cocky as well. It also allows scope for him to learn responsibility throughout the trilogy. I saw this in Cinema on release and enjoyed it but I had no idea I would grow to love it this much. But then you know, long time Spidey fan and such. Electro rumoured as the next villain, Id take that. Personally id love to see Ock as hes such a great villain, but we will get Green Goblin so no chance of ock. Edited November 20, 2012 by OH NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryda King Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Saw this on PPV a few days ago. It was faithful to the comic book which was great and it had really nice visuals (CGI was good, city shots looked beautiful, etc). But still, it kinda felt like a jumbled rushed mess. Like, it was just everywhere at once. It didn't explain certain things very well (how exactly he made perfect web-shooters, why no one at school even mentioned how the damn ball wouldn't come off his hand or him doing a ninja flip into the basket) and some scenes just came out of nowhere. Like the bridge scene. Good scene, but it felt random and it didn't really have much impact. Whereas the bridge scene from 2001's SM had a pretty big impact. Speaking of impact, Uncle Ben didn't really have one here. He was played excellently by Sheen and had more screen time to get more invested in the character. But with all the time they spent making you care about the character, Peter never really seemed to care much after his death. In 2001's Spidey, it was his entire reason for becoming Spider-Man and they reminded you the entire movie how important Uncle Ben is to him despite not getting much screen time. Even through to the 2nd and 3rd movies, they never stressed enough about how important and dear Uncle Ben was to Peter. And to me, that's a lot better than having more Uncle Ben screen time with no afterwards impact. The humor was great, it felt like the Peter Parker from the comics. Andrew certaintly looks like a comic booky Parker too. Emma Stone was...meh. Leary didn't even crack any jokes. I get that they're making the sequel and everything, but there were still too many unanswered questions. Why didn't Parker track down Uncle Ben's killer? Why weren't his parents explained better? What happened to Connors in the previews saying "If you want to know about your parents, Peter...come and get it"? Who was the guy in the shadows at the end? Seriously, if this movie was advertised as "discover the untold story" I would think I would DISCOVER THE UNTOLD STORY. Overall it was an entertaining movie and while it did feel more like the comics, I still prefer 2001's Spider-Man simply because of the story, the characters, the emotional investment and the action. Spider-Man 2 is still the best Spidey movie and one of the best movies based on a comic ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Grudge Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 They should have called this Twilight Spiderman. Also this 100%: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Bratton Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I've just seen this. And I hate it. It's so bad, I couldn't watch the whole thing. I didn't even bother with the last 30 minutes of the movie. I was so pissed. How do you f*ck up a Spider-man movie after you've seen what works in the 2002 version? Everything about this movie is terrible. First act even though it's 100% predictable manages to also be a complete mess. The origin of Spider-man and the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" was scrapped for what? Terrible attempt at teenage romance? Get the f*ck out. And the making of the suit was even worse. It just happened. The dialogue between characters is awkward at best. It always feels forced and not once did it feel like a conversation is flowing naturally. And the villain? What was that all about? He just becomes evil after injecting himself with that formula? What is his motivation? He wants his arm back? What, that's it? There's no character development in this movie. Things just happen out of the blue for no reason. I thought things would get better once Peter becomes Spider-man. But it only got worse. The part where he revealed to Gwen that he's Spider-man is one of the worst scenes of the year. And it feels like more than half of the first two acts were deleted because what's there makes no f*ckin' sense. Edited November 21, 2012 by GTAvanja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH NO Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 ....... All valid points mate definitely, same as your post Ryda King. Some of the things you both mentioned were criticisms I had on first viewing, mainly with lack of depth and things feeling a bit rushed. And the villain? What was that all about? He just becomes evil after injecting himself with that formula? What is his motivation? He wants his arm back? What, that's it? There's no character development in this movie. Things just happen out of the blue for no reason. It is explained throughout, fairly extensively, but again, I had to rewatch to catch it all. As for the romance and that, I thought it was great. Emma Stone was cute, likeable and not a wimp..and after what Raimi did to MJ in the last trilogy it was a breath of fresh air. The scene with the dialogue between Parker And Gwen which leads to him asking her out, then skipping off (ha) to finally get to grips with his powers (the scene in the warehouse)...man i got emotional and it gave me goosebumps. I am a soppy f*ckin romantic at heart though, and I was also high as f*ck which may be worth mentioning. I think this movie may be more appreciated after a while, or maybe Im just seeing past some obvious flaws.Im just glad to have a Spidey film that I love and see great potential with. (Dont get me wrong I enjoyed a lot of the Raimi Trilogy, spidey 3 souring the experience to the point I can barely mention it, but still) Garfield and Stone made the movie for me, and if they follow the Gwen storyline we know from the comics, this could lead to be a really exciting and emotional trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rabbit Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) I like that path they're taking that the comics did. Peter never finds Uncle Ben's murderer for a long time. Most likely since this is going to be a trilogy, he will in the third film. But that's what they did with Spider-Man 3 in a way, with Peter seeing that thief run off right after Uncle Ben is shot and basically letting him die, only to find out two films later that it was actually his partner who accidentally pulled the trigger. Although, they do have the advantage of the audience actually seeing who kills Uncle Ben this time around. Maybe not his full face, but at least the basics. Somehow I doubt we'll see him reappear later in this series. he does look like, as in the shades the style, one of the spider man villains. He looks like how I would imagine they would make Herman Schultz look in film maybe - AKA the shocker - oh i would love that and Vanja - that is EXACTLY what the lizard is, a whole Jeckal and Hyde thing. at hear connors is a good man with the best intentions, one of them being to get his arm back, but also provide the serum for regeneration to others like war vets who came back with legs blown off. But the serum is not really perfected, causes him to be a giant lizard instead of a human with regenerative capabilities, and causes him to have uncontrollable rage while still being smart. The Lizard is a good villain because the actual person is a good guy at heart, unlike villains like the aforementioned Schultz who is just a badass. That is not down the character development really, which i feel is always lacking in films as they have 2 hours to do it all whereas in a tv series they have lots more time, that is down to the actual story. That was the original idea behind the lizard and yes ^ that might happen in the 2nd film though, to make way for mary jane in 3 Edited November 25, 2012 by NateShaw92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I don't think the film was as bad, neceassarily, as it was pointless. At least it was entertaining, and more screen time for Spidey. It's a fantastic film to study, however, for it's in a unique position. It was able to cut corners because we already know the story. It didn't have to carry emotional weight because there was holdover from the previous film. And yet, it was complete, it does stand on its own. The cast did a great job with what they were given. I wish we saw more of Spidey crackin' wise, though. I love Peter as a high school student. I hope the next film is ballsy enough to make like he's been taking on a lot of his rogues gallery in the interim. That'd be rad. Or maybe Sony will release the rights so we get an avengers crossover. Squee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chukkles Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Having now watched it, Spiderman 2 is still my favorite and one of the best superhero movies period. It's all a bit awkward and forced. Rhys Ifans played the Lizard pretty well but I couldn't really get on board with most other characters. The Webslingers creation needed more explanation. He stole the webbing cartridges and made the slingers, yet tells some guy that he created it himself? WHy'd he even steal the cartridges? He couldn't have really known what the stuff was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly8000 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Well he said something along the lines of "It's webbing I made based on an existing formula, you probably wouldn't care" so I guessed that he made his own using the stuff that Oscorp used to make the cartridges. Also, he kinda walked into the room where the stuff got made (which is also where he got bitten), so it's quite clear how he knows about the web cartridges. In the comics he simply makes the webbing from scratch, so it could be even more stupid really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chukkles Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Well he said something along the lines of "It's webbing I made based on an existing formula, you probably wouldn't care" so I guessed that he made his own using the stuff that Oscorp used to make the cartridges. Also, he kinda walked into the room where the stuff got made (which is also where he got bitten), so it's quite clear how he knows about the web cartridges. In the comics he simply makes the webbing from scratch, so it could be even more stupid really. Just because he saw the cartridges in the room doesn't mean he can just know what they are. They jumped the gun if you ask me, *looks at things, knows exactly what they are and how to make them????* EDIT: Okay I have rewatched part of the movie, he see's the webbing being made in that room and he definatly steals the cartridges, He say's to the crook "It's webbing I developed myself, but you wouldn't care". Why would he say that? Edited December 5, 2012 by Chukkles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH NO Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Rejoice, for white eyed spiderman cometh. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nai...1/news/?a=74754 theres more pictures knocking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now