Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Amazing Spider-man Movie Discussion (Spoilers when the movie opens July 3)

I decided not to go see it until blu-ray but I was curious that there has not been much discussion recently on the forum or a thread created since the new forum was created. Unless I missed when I checked. Despite my negativity towards the movie I vowed not to be a troll and just wanted to hear other peoples takes.

So is anyone going?

I guess I can add something positive though.

Effects look great.
I actually like the idea of Denis Leary as George Stacey. New York cop who has seen everything now has to deal with a guy in a spider-suit.
And Lizard is a nice old school villain.


«1

Comments

  • I'll be going in a couple of hours so I'll try to add my thoughts on it. Going into it, I'm not thrilled about having to sit through the origin again, but I do like the cast and the Lizard as a villain so I'm hopefull it will a least be good.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    I read a review in a major newspaper that said it was terrible. Here is hoping that the critic is wrong.
  • tazmaniaktazmaniak Posts: 733
    edited July 2012
    I always wait until after I've seen a movie to read the reviews. I pretty much have my mind made up as to whether I want to see a film when the trailer comes out and no good or bad review will change that.

    When there's a really big film coming out, I'll sometimes read the last paragraph of a review right before I see the film, as it sums up the entire review, but doesn't contain any spoilers or direct references to the film's plot. So here's the last paragraph of a few reviews for the movie.

    Michael Moran of Bleeding Cool
    Amazing Spider-man is by no means a bad movie. It’s well-made, there are comparatively few holes in the plot (although Peter’s free access to classified areas of Oscorp’s labs needed a bit more explaining) and all of the actors do a fine job. Andrew Garfield is maybe a shade too cool to be entirely convincing as Peter Parker, übernerd but it’s a solid performance. The 3-D cinematography is glossy, lush and immersive and there are some beautiful action sequences.

    It even has, for me, the single best Stan Lee cameo ever. Given how many there have been now, that counts as a major achievement.

    It just isn’t the best movie of the Summer. It’s not even the best super-hero flick of the Summer. But given the competition, there’s no great shame in that.
    Billy The Kidd of AICN
    There may be problems through Raimi’s trilogy of films, including just about all of SPIDER-MAN 3, but none of them missed the mark as badly as this one. There are now two bad Spider-Man movies out there, and one of them is THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. I wish there wasn’t such a rush to do something, anything Spider-Man so closely to Raimi’s films, because unless they were just going to recast and keep going, the franchise could have used a break. A refresh like this may have worked 10-15 years down the line, but now, with Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, James Franco, Alfred Molina, etc., still fresh in our minds, this comes through as a weaker copy. The breathing room might have helped, but the closeness that was opted for in its place instead suffocates Spider-Man with an untold story that feels pretty well told and rather inconsistent with what we’ve come to know and love of our friendly neighborhood web-head.
    Harry Knowles of AICN
    By no means is this film as problematic as SPIDER-MAN 3, by no means. The movie is actually more along the lines of SPIDER-MAN 2… just not that consistent. I’m not in the middle on this one. I can’t wait to take my nephew. He’s gonna love it. Scorekeeper absolutely fell in love with the film. Father Geek liked it a lot. I understand some of the hate for the film. We’re at the point in Superhero Genre filmmaking where doing radical redesign to classic costumes isn’t necessary. Where monkeying with key story elements integral to the character can cause raging. And still… there are some folks that just don’t like Andrew Garfield. I LOVE HIM! I love his take on Parker. Mainly I love the chemistry between him and Gwen/Emma! Box Office-willing, I would kill for 5 more movies all with Emma as Gwen. Stop thinking in trilogy form. Make the world love her more than we ever have loved any Superhero Girlfriend. That’s the character. Make us dream of their old age together. This is such a great start. Teach a new generation what a great BF/GF film relationship is. Then show them how much love can hurt. It’d be amazing! I can be amazing. This is almost amazing.
    Perri Nemiroff of Shockya
    While it’s still tough to say that we did indeed need another Spider-Man movie, it’s a thrill to confirm that nobody could have done it better than Webb and Garfield. The Amazing Spider-Man may not be quite as good as the 2002 film, but it’s not that far off.

    Technical: B

    Acting: A-

    Story: B+

    Overall: B+

    Scott Nye of Shadowlocked
    The Amazing Spider-Man is ultimately somewhat of a mixed bag, dragging on way too long to get to the money moments, and not really investing in what made Peter Parker such a great superhero in the first place - his essential humanity. His struggle to keep his home life, school life and hero life all in one piece are touched upon, but never truly indulged, preferring a stock, 'hero’s journey' tale over a more compelling story. It’s not so much that we’ve seen this story before, but its familiarity runs much deeper than simple plot points - it’s the same story we see every year, just with a different costume...
    Josh Spiegel of Sound On Sight
    Comparing The Amazing Spider-Man to its predecessors is almost impossible, but the less you think about the Sam Raimi trilogy, the more you may find yourself getting into the groove with this version. Forgetting why you liked or loved the 2000s-era take on Peter Parker may be antithetical to revisiting the beloved web-slinger, but it’s for the best. And as fun as this new film can be, you’re better off saving a few bucks and avoiding the 3D presentation altogether. Anchored by Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, The Amazing Spider-Man is merely a passable restart to a recognizable franchise.
    Peter Paras of E! Online
    Through it all, Spidey swings to and from danger with the ease of good stuntman. Some shots do look computer-generated though. Still, there's such propulsion and weight to him that he feels absolutely real.

    Although Spider-Man 2 is still the best overall, with more effective story elements, engaging characters and superior visuals, Amazing bodes well for future installments.
  • GregGreg Posts: 1,946
    I cannot wait to take my son to see this movie!!!! The girls aren't going so it's a guys night with the two of us and my dad. \:D/
  • Ok, I just got back from the movie so here are some initial thoughts.

    SPOILER warning for anybody who didn't pay attention to the thread title.

    The rehashing of the origin was my biggest concern going in and I actually enjoyed that portion of the movie much more than I thought I would. It felt a little like Ultimate Spider-Man vs classic Spider-Man. They kept enough intact to be true to the origins but changed enough so that it felt a little fresh and added some mystery involving his parents that may carry through the next few flicks. I felt that Peter, Gwen, Uncle Ben, Aunt May, and Capt Stacy were well written and developed. Curt Connors got the short end of the stick. I dont feel we got to know much about him before the transformation and afterwards it was hard to get a feel of what his motivation was. The CGI and effects were hit and miss. Spidey and the Lizard looked good most of the time but there were a few backgrounds and inanimate objects( ex. Cars) that looked bad. However, the 3D was pretty good. It didn't look muddy or too dark and there wasn't a lot of gotcha moments(other than a blatant one at the end).There were also a few bad ADR spots. I did enjoy the action sequences and felt we got a little more comic book movement to Spidey than in the previous films. I also liked the prescence of a major character even though he didn't really appear in the film (Give you 2 guesses on who he is,but you'll only need 1). My biggest gripe, the same as the first 3, is why would Spider-Man go to the trouble of making a mask if he voluntarily removes it every time he is in costume? I know the actor wants their face on screen but it happens so much it is distracting. Overall, it is much better than it could have been but still has room for improvement. 4 out of 5 frekking sweers.
    for reference:
    Spider-Man - 4 out of 5,
    Spider-Man 2 - 4.75 out of 5,
    Spider-Man 3 - 2.75 out of 5

    There is also a mid-credit scene for anyone wondering.
  • *semi spoilers since it is July 3*
    Just saw the movie and really enjoyed it. I wasnt too excited for it when it was announced, but the trailer looked great so I was expecting a decent movie. A few minor qualms were when Peter threw the football at the goalpost and bent it from the stands. Nobody is going to question that or a broken backboard with a superstar dunk? The story at parts wasn't too on par with the comic book origin which I prefer, but didn't go too far off the path. A few other nitpicks but nothing major overall.
    I would give it a 4.5/5 and even enjoyed it more than the other 3 films, but that might be muddled because I've seen them so many times and this was fresh air. At least we don't have another origin for 10 years.
    Any thoughts on the mystery person after the credits? I'm thinking Osborn but I dont think they'll go for the goblin as the villain in the next movie.
  • Eric_CEric_C Posts: 263
    Oh my gosh. It was awesome. I love it with all my heart. I still can;t decide whether I like the Raimi/Tobey films or the new ones, but I really don't care. It was incredible. Garfield was absolutely perfect, could not have asked for more. He was funny and geeky, but also cool in the way Spidey is. Most importantly was the wit. That was the biggest screw up of the originals (that feels weird as it was 10 years ago, but still). Garfield was hilarious. Emma Stone was just fantastic and really is gonna make me sad when you know.....snap! Her interactions with Peter were incredible. Sheen was just cool as always, Fields did better then I thought, and Leary was Leary, which is the man. Connors was a cool villain that captured a lot of what I like about the Lizard. The inner battle between Reptile and human came through great. I didn't even dwell on the weird family stuff. The whole movie was an awesome combination of what Spidey is about and it came through perfectly. I could not have asked for more. I can't wait til the next one.
  • VashVash Posts: 12
    *OBVIOUS SPOILERS*

    I thought Garfield was great. The offscreen romance between he and Emma Stone clearly helped the film. I generally hate origins in film (everybody knows the basics of all the main characters anyways) but it was handled pretty well. Introducing Connors, Oscorp, and making that all fit into a movie origin works and really speeds the film along. The fighting scenes were amazing... when Spidey crawled all around Lizard and actually webbed him up in a similar manner to a real spider trapping his prey, I almost lost it.

    Now, about that mid credit scene. Who is that guy? I have been more a DC reader but I know Spidey's rogues gallery and nothing came to mind. Mysterio maybe... seems to 'comic book' to work as a film character. Chameleon? Not well known. Morbius, would make sense with the plot of the film, but I just don't know. With all the set up any sequel will have to have Norman Osborn, but that could not have been him. Any thoughts?
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    I'm not going to bash a movie I'm not interested in going to the theatre to see nor spoil anything I know, I'm just going to make a general concern with comic-reboot origin movies. I loved the Raimi stuff in his first movie, so there are moments like when Pete yells at Uncle Ben right before he doesn't go to the library that adds more weight to the scene when Ben dies (THAT shouldn't be a spoiler at this point!) I would be comparing all of the Uncle Ben death lead up moments to that. Those are the things that bother me about a rehashed origin reboot movie. I think if it would've been more like Batman (1989) where he's established with flashbacks, it'd be more enticing to me.

    As a sidebar, that's one of my big hesitations with another Shadow movie. Sure, Raimi has the rights, but there were some elements used in the movie that weren't in the original source materials.

    Enjoy Amazing Spider-man, though.

    M
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    I loved the movie. This might be blasphemous to say, but I think I liked it more than the Raimi movies. And I really liked the Raimi movies, but I think it took this one to make me realize that they weren't perfect.

    The Bleeding Cool excerpt actually said two things that I was going to say already so now it looks like I'm stealing from them - Andrew Garfield did seem a bit too hip to be the class nerd, but in all fairness, high school aged kids are weird, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. Also, the Stan Lee cameo might have been my favorite (although Iron Man was also a good one).

    Other points.

    Other than the aforementioned gripe, I think I like Garfield a bit better as Parker than McGuire.

    I know I like Emma better as Gwen than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. She completely got it right.

    This movie very very much felt like old school Spider-Man comics with a modern flair. More so than the previous movies or the Ultimate books.

    I really loved (to my surprise) the new origin given to Spider-Man. Although I always thought the wrestler thing was kinda corny, especially in modern times.

    The connection between the spider experiments and the lizard experiments seemed a bit vague to me to be honest.

    I didn't like that he told Gwen, but I've come to expect that that's a staple of these adaptations.

    I loved seeing a smartass Spider-Man. That was something we didn't see enough of in the Raimi movies, but is an integral part of the character (nerd out-of-costume, smartass in costume, partly that the mask gives him more confidence, partly that he's trying to cover up and hide the tension).

    I liked Flash. He's an easy character to make a bit too over-the-top like he was in the Stan Lee days and end up with a campy character (and that was one of the things that I liked about this version over the Raimi version. Not that I didn't like the campy moments like... well, any scene with JJJ, but I like even more the fact that there wasn't any campiness in this movie).

    With that said though, I wouldn't have minded seeing at least a cameo from JJJ, but he could be a difficult character. You go too far to one extreme, he gets campy. You go too far to the other extreme, he's unlikable.

    I got a laugh at the end of the movie when the credits finished and nothing happened. Almost the whole theater was still there waiting, there were a few boos and someone in the back yelled out "Where's Nick Fury?" That person sounded like he was joking, but I'm not sure how many people in there knew that this was not actually a Marvel Studios movie.

    They had me going for a bit where I thought it would end with Spider-Man being the hero which would have made me upset (at least if we're planning on sequels, which we obviously are. If there was ever an actual ending to Spider-Man, it would be nice to see him go out a hero, but if the story is continuing, it doesn't fit the character).

    Is there anything I'm forgetting?
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    *OBVIOUS SPOILERS*

    I thought Garfield was great. The offscreen romance between he and Emma Stone clearly helped the film. I generally hate origins in film (everybody knows the basics of all the main characters anyways) but it was handled pretty well. Introducing Connors, Oscorp, and making that all fit into a movie origin works and really speeds the film along. The fighting scenes were amazing... when Spidey crawled all around Lizard and actually webbed him up in a similar manner to a real spider trapping his prey, I almost lost it.

    Now, about that mid credit scene. Who is that guy? I have been more a DC reader but I know Spidey's rogues gallery and nothing came to mind. Mysterio maybe... seems to 'comic book' to work as a film character. Chameleon? Not well known. Morbius, would make sense with the plot of the film, but I just don't know. With all the set up any sequel will have to have Norman Osborn, but that could not have been him. Any thoughts?
    Why couldn't it be Norman? I thought it was obvious that it was.
  • I thought this was a great movie. Way better then all of the previous three.
  • JaxUrJaxUr Posts: 547
    The rest of my review:

    http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/07/wr-up-like-movie-review-amazing_04.html
    Those "groaners" were some of my favorite moments. The scene where Peter saves the kid on the bridge captures the very essence of why superheroes are popular. And it was nice to see C. Thomas Howell again.

    I felt that overall this was superior to the McGuire films in most respects. Whatever happened to Tobey? Is he still working? I can't recall the last film he was in
  • ctowner1ctowner1 Posts: 481
    I thought this was a REALLY weak movie. I went in with high hopes, but about 1/2 way through it really lost me. For one thing, it really started to drag. But aside from that, the plot kept getting more and more outlandish, so that by the end of the movie, when Spidey pops the the unbelievably easily made up "antidote" and just wafts it into the air? Forget it! And when he happens to have a freeze thing right where he needs it? Ridiculous.

    Plus, the fact that his "secret" identity really shouldn't be secret anymore - I mean he was unmasked in front of a crowd of people who were looking right at him (no one took a picture?). And how about Aunt May, does she know? It sure seems that way - but it was ambiguous. Why??

    And the cranes scene?? Very weak - seemed like a tepid remake of the great scene in Spidey 2, when the New Yorkers come to Spidey's aid against Doc Ock.

    And the final scene? Was that in Connors' mind? Or was the guy really in the cell? And who was he? I assume it's supposed to be Norman Osborn - but really? Last we heard he was dying offscreen. The scene as shown is pretty unintelligible.

    Plus, the noodling with his origin wasn't helpful. So I assume his parent are alive? And why did they flee? B/c they were afraid their research was going to be used for bad stuff? Why? Why didn't they go public? why have they been in hiding? Why insert such mysterious things into a movie? All for future movie setup? And having the burglar (well, not even a burglar now) end up uncaught? Again, why? Just to set up the next movie? These threads weaken THIS movie.

    On the bright side, I DID like Garfield overall. He was a bit too much of an asshole in places (I think Toby McGuire is a better Peter), but he did an OK job. And the movie did have a nice quotient of action. But it really needed a better editor.

    Very disappointing.

    e
    L nny
  • Eric_CEric_C Posts: 263
    I loved the movie. This might be blasphemous to say, but I think I liked it more than the Raimi movies. And I really liked the Raimi movies, but I think it took this one to make me realize that they weren't perfect.
    I am kinda leaning that way a little to. I don't get all the hate
  • JaxUrJaxUr Posts: 547
    Tobey who?

    Sony confirms that two more Spidey sequels are on the way:

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/
  • NickNick Posts: 284
    I liked the movie, I thought it had ups and downs compared to the original trilogy, but overall it was a good Spider-Man movie. @matt I had the same feeling as you about re-making the origin (and I was really not looking forward to that part), but to my surprise the origin felt fresh and not the horrible remake some were expecting. The visuals were cool, and I thought the pacing of Spider-man's overall character arc were just right (not working at the Bugle yet, not quite having a mastery of his powers yet, not getting the girl, etc.) I really liked all of that stuff. I agree Lizard kind of got the shaft in terms of his story, he ended up being a little one dimensional and just was a bad guy just to be a bad guy.

    @ctowner1 I hear you about the ending (and I think everyone saw him using that aerosol device to fix everything at the end), but I guess to me it's a comic book movie, and sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy the ride.

    My wife liked is MUCH better than the original movies, so that tells me that possibly it'll really hit home with the general population. For me it would be like a 4/5 Frekking Sweers.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    edited July 2012
    I think this one wasn't for me.

    It is not poorly made, and it may be that it is doing a good job at connecting with the younger viewers of right now. Using a Harry Potter/Twilight sensibility for that generation. And if so, then great. Not everything has to be for me.

    But I agree with much of what @CTowner1 said- I got bored as the movie dragged on. Maybe because I just don't need another origin story. But also because I feel like the voice of the movie started getting lost as it continued on. Tonally it started to be all over the place. It didn't seem like it could commit to being funny or earnest, so it would have moments of either, but did not consistently do either well.

    That said, it had moments that really worked for me- rescuing the kid from the bridge was earnestness that really worked. But needing to pay off the father with the ridiculous parade of sky cranes was just silly. And didn't seem justified (a wounded leg is keeping Spider-Man from swinging?) There were a lot of logic conveniences that could have been solved in smarter ways (Peter gets cell phone service in the sewer tunnel, but supposedly rich corporate guy can't be reached by cell phone when he is going over the Williamsburg Bridge? I don't think I have ever seen someone put their name on their camera- and not even their actual camera, as we saw that camera earlier and it didn't have his name, so he just puts it on his flash? Come on. You're writing a supposedly $220M movie, you can take another pass at that.)

    And probably the biggest weakness, especially given that it is a Spider-Man movie, is that it wasn't funny. I don't think any of his jokes actually made me laugh. And tonally, one of his quippiest scenes was when he was confronting someone that may be Ben's killer. So, again, it seems like the tones clash.

    Rhys Ifans was arch and dull. It's a shame we never got to see Dylan Baker as the Lizard, I think he would have been much more interesting. And they even went to the trouble of giving Lizard a sort of actorly, expressive Gollum face instead of a more exciting big lizard snout... and Ifans still did little with it.

    I do like Garfield, though I have trouble believing him as anything but the school's artsy heartthrob. I think he plays hangdog and put upon well, as he did in the Red Riding adaptation, and he was excellent onstage in Death of a Salesmen. But he seemed to really strain for high school nerd.

    Finally, and this might be my hang-up more than most, but I hated their fake New York. Sure, they did a little bit of shooting here, there were occasional authentic locations but it was mostly fake New York in LA and soundstages. Which is a bummer as New York City is a character in Spider-Man. New York has been captured so well in many of the comics, and Raimi and his people did an excellent job of making that character a part of things, and this time around that character was mostly faked. And not faked well.

    But they didn't even put an effort into geography that made sense (as opposed to the recent Avengers movie, whose NYC geography was specific and really authentic), or even pinpoint where the threat to the city was happening (they seemed to be pretending that the Oscorp Tower was near the park, basically where the Time Warner center would be, I think. But then the evacuation was from 53rd Street and south, which is almost 10 blocks off, and then later we hear that 'the residents of LOWER MANHATTAN can rest easy tonight...' which is silly as Lower Manhattan starts south of Canal. I think Grand Theft Auto 4 had better geography. Again- you are writing a $220M movie. Get a $10 tourist guidebook.

    And that was the whitest and sunniest Manhattan high school I've ever seen. I'm in New York schools all the time for my work and... nope. That might as well have been Ridgemont High because it sure isn't the New York City I live in.

    And, again for a big budget movie, the "New York" we saw often felt very empty. As did the lives of the characters- did Ben and May have no friends? No one comes to help comfort her the night Ben is killed. When Ben is shot and dying on the street, a crowd doesn't gather? Even the cast was pretty spare. It just feels like the movie could have used a few more characters.

    But, so it goes. I am glad to hear that it is connecting with many people. I think this one was just not for me. And I may just be too old for it, I don't know. I think it may be targeted elsewhere, and that is okay.

    Besides... two weeks until Dark Knight. Oh HELL yeah.
  • GregGreg Posts: 1,946
    edited July 2012
    The rest of my review:

    http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/07/wr-up-like-movie-review-amazing_04.html
    Those "groaners" were some of my favorite moments. The scene where Peter saves the kid on the bridge captures the very essence of why superheroes are popular. And it was nice to see C. Thomas Howell again.

    I felt that overall this was superior to the McGuire films in most respects. Whatever happened to Tobey? Is he still working? I can't recall the last film he was in
    Since Spider-Man 3, Tobey has been in four movies (two still in post-production) and a short film: Brothers, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby, The Deatails and Beyond All Boundries. He has been a producer on three films: Rock of Ages, Seeking Justice and Country Strong.

  • NickNick Posts: 284
    @david_d I totally get some of your problems with the movie. First about the cell phone, I just assumed the executive on the bridge couldn't get service because of so many cars in one place (sort of like when you are at a con and can never make calls or anything), but I don't live in a city so I'm not sure if that is accurate. And the webslinging with the cranes I figured was because really how does Spider-Man websling between two buildings? I figured he has to have something above him to swing on, and he isn't experienced enough yet and needed a boost.

    That being said I thought your points were valid and not wrong. Hope you like the Dark Night a little better :)
  • HexHex Posts: 944
    Well... my wife liked it.
    Me? not so much. Found myself sighing throughout the film, just wishing they would get on with it.

    I did enjoy the fact that Emma Stone's Gwen wardrobe consisted entirely of mini-skirts and gogo boots.
  • ctowner1ctowner1 Posts: 481
    @david_d Good points all around - you're certainly right about the shift in tone. As I mentioned, there was a point in the middle of the movie where it just started losing me and felt like it had degenerated into a silly blockbuster.

    I wasn't' so put off by the quips, though. I think they did a reasonable job of portraying Peter/Spidey as a teenager - even the Peter/Gwen teenage awkwardness was well done. And if his quips aren't that funny, most teenagers don't have good joke writers.

    The name on the camera thing was ridiculous to me, as well. I also forgot that Connors is yet another guy who knows Peter is Spider-man. that secret ID really isn't going to hold for long!

    I also thought that the scene in the sewers with him sitting on the webs was kind of an interesting idea, but didn't really make that much sense - b/c he's shooting the webs down the sewer and what are they latching onto?? In fact, the whole webbing thing seemed off to me in that it was just so strong. With all those cars hanging off of the bridge?? OTOH, I liked his deveopment of the shooters - right down to the gizmo he had attached to the table when he's testing it which, IIRC, is right out of Amazing Fantasy #15.

    One odd thing: was there no Spider sense in this movie? I don't recall him using it. why would they take away one of his signature powers like that?

    Also, on the crane scene: that was the dad of the kid he rescued?? duhhh. Right over my head! lol. As @nick mentioned, yes, it doesn't make much sense the way Spidey swings through the city, and the cranes would help - but that's true for EVERY webswinging scene in the comics and previous movies. I've always taken that as a suspension of belief type thing b/c it doesn't really make sense otherwise. So that being the case, no need for the cranes.

    Finally, I would have liked a snouty Lizard myself - he just didn't look right the way they showed him - particularly that joker-like grin they had around his mouth. And they only had him in the labcoat very briefly. I like the comic look much better!

    e
    L nny
  • NickNick Posts: 284

    One odd thing: was there no Spider sense in this movie? I don't recall him using it. why would they take away one of his signature powers like that?

    e
    L nny
    I think he had it, it wasn't like they showed the tendril like things around his head, but when he first got his powers he sort of had the hyper-sense of what was going on around him. It was just sort of built it later, like when he's kissing Gwen on the bleachers and knocks the football away. He couldn't see it but his Spider sense was there telling him it was coming. And of course the fight scenes didn't show it because it would get old really quick if it showed him sensing every blow coming.
  • ctowner1ctowner1 Posts: 481

    One odd thing: was there no Spider sense in this movie? I don't recall him using it. why would they take away one of his signature powers like that?

    e
    L nny
    I think he had it, it wasn't like they showed the tendril like things around his head, but when he first got his powers he sort of had the hyper-sense of what was going on around him. It was just sort of built it later, like when he's kissing Gwen on the bleachers and knocks the football away. He couldn't see it but his Spider sense was there telling him it was coming. And of course the fight scenes didn't show it because it would get old really quick if it showed him sensing every blow coming.
    That makes sense, @Nick - I think you're right. Just seem to recall in the Toby McGuire movies it was a little more obvious. ie. - should we have seen some kind of reaction shot from Peter the first time he experienced it?

    e
    L nny
  • NickNick Posts: 284
    Oh, I agree, they could've made a little bigger deal of the Spider Sense and mentioned it all in the span of a minute and a half. I also noticed it seemed like sometimes he could stick to walls very easily and other times he couldn't. I'm not sure if this was suposed to be part of his learning curve or just to make him a little more vulnerable.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    @CTowner1 Clearly the webs were latching onto the sewer cranes. Remember: New York City is absolutely shitty with cranes. They're everywhere!

    Or maybe it was the sewer cell phone tower ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.