Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Amazing Spider-Man Discussion

Pat the NES Punk and I discuss the Amazing Spider-Man film!


Keith Inman said...

and let the trolling from the fans commence

Anonymous said...

Keith why would there be trolling? It wasn't a perfect film and there are no wrong opinions.

I'll be watching in a little over a half hour from now still watching NRAnews at the moment.

Badger Boy said...

I have 3 complaints with ASM:
1. Peter Parker: was not the Peter that we know. I can't hit all my complaints, but the main one is that this Peter was too much of a normal teenager. Peter is a special person, and they should have played to more of his special personality. (seemed to be more like a slacker/punk rather than book worm)
2.Uncle Ben's death: One of the best parts of the original Spiderman film was the build up to finding out the killer. I felt this film was too quick.
3. The Final Battle: I loved the final battle in the original movie.Even though the movie was corny, it was really exciting to see Spiderman save the kids, MJ and deal with Green Goblin. With NY backing Spidey up, it was simply an exhilarating end.

2 final things:1. For a sequel, do Spider Island. With all the Spiders in the room and with the possibility of the Jackal, it would be a cool sequel.
2. Not to be rude, but if you want a drinking game, take a shot every time someone says: The Rami Films.

Anonymous said...

I didn't really like the lack of J.J. He had the Bugle demonizing Spidey as soon as he started showing up in police reports.

I can see the reason for suspecting the Jackal was the man at the end considering that the WMD that OsCorp has is the same weapon that gets used in the Clone Saga.

The drinking game suggestion would lead to toxic shock before getting through this.

I don't have never have had and don't intend to ever have a cell phone. Guess that would make people consider me a Luddite.

"Finish It" was one of my favorite scenes! It was totally done for intimidation (Its also the closest Rami gets to Drama) to plant the threat that Peter would get no matter how long it took for him to get back home.

I don't even understand how Crane Dad would know enough people for the crane stunt, be able to get them out that fast, nor why he would know Spidey needed to get to OsCorp.

If they do Craven I know there is one actor that could do him perfectly. And I know you know him too. Vernon Wells. Put him in that outfit he could make the look intimidating.

I agree on FOX Kid's Cartoons were the best so far. Lessons could be taken from the pacing of the cartoon series.

30 degree 1/3 up. In the Roman Arena that's almost to the thumb to the side for let him live ;) I listened to all of it. Great hearing from both you and Pat the NES Punk on this!

TimeTravelerJessica said...

I felt like Connors' human character really got shafted in this movie. Why do I say that? Well, I read an interview with Rhys Ifans where he talked about how much wounded vets went into his performance, and how he played it as his character wanting to make those young men and women (as well as himself) whole again. But his motto isn't about making people whole, it's "A world without weakness" which frankly has uncomfortably ableist shades to it. You never even find out in the film how he lost his hand - which was as an Army medic (obviously he'd have to be in Her Majesty's Army for the movie but oh well it still works) who risked his life to save people in the line of fire, and losing his hand destroyed his chances of being a surgeon. Fundamentally, Connors character is a healer, which makes the contrast with the destructive Lizard all the more striking. Granted all of this probably came across to people familiar with his character from the comics, but the filmmakers should not have assumed everyone has read the comics (I had to look it up, being more of a DC person), and a lot of it would probably come across on repeated viewings due to Ifan's performance but IMHO it absolutely should not have been subtext - it absolutely should have been text. It would have taken a grand total of two seconds of screen time to explain how he lost his hand and tweaking the motto a little bit, and that would have made the character far, far more sympathetic. Not that he was completely unsympathetic in the film as is, but his motives read far more selfish than they should have if you don't have the background knowledge. Injecting himself came across as reckless and selfish (and almost implied simply being an amputee is enough motivation to inject yourself with a completely untested drug which could end up doing God knows what), whereas, after reading Ifans' interview, I can read that as Connors not wanting Evil Oscorp Person to use the vets as guinea pigs, as well as desperately hoping it would work, and while the (understandable) selfishness is still there it's actually quite sacrificial and would have been a lot more moving.

Anonymous said...

Overall, I thought ASM was decent, but definitely flawed. The acting was good, the characters had personality and actually did stuff. But the plot was rushed with several interesting plot points (such as multiple Lizards running amok) not brought up again or handled offscreen, and the 'grounded' tone just made the comic book science stand out even more (genetics does not work that way, at all). I'd give it an average rating overall, but I'm not waiting with bated breath for the inevitable sequel.

lokesh said...

the movie was too quick that it ate up the parts that we njoyed reading in comics..mark webb would definitely come up with a good sequel.i have this feeling...!!!

E. Wilson said...

I think the best way to look at the films is to take a moment to ponder the Bat-franchise as well. Specifically, the Raimi trilogy seems to share much with Burton's Batman; both directors are trying to create a larger-than-life comic book world, and largely succeed. Alternately, the Nolan Bat-films, and Web's Spider-Man, are taking these larger-than-life characters and trying to par them down into a much closer approximation of the "real world". (Well, a real world with ninja assassins and lizard men, but you get my drift.)

This is best summarized by the super hero costumes. In the earlier films, Spidey and Bats just show up in these outlandishly awesome suits because it's a comic book world, and that's how they roll. In the latter films, they take time to show you the "real world" mechanics and rationale of the outlandish costumes, because it would seem out-of-place, otherwise.

I liked the movie, but I can honestly see why someone would not care for it, just as I can see why someone would prefer it to the original; they're both Spider-Man, but each film has a different artistic vision. Now, I can't see why someone would vitriolically hate it, but I don't really get upset by all that many films, so YMMV.

My biggest complaint, (aside from the silly end-credits sequence, which could have been done so much better), is that there's really no fist-pump, "Hells yeah!" moment of excitement in this film, at least in my opinion. There wasn't one awesome moment that really got me hyped up, which is a bit of a shame, because I found everything else to be enjoyable, if not at least servicable. Maybe they parred the concept down a bit too far? I don't know.

Oh, and regarding the Lizard: the Lizard being a mindless beast is actually a fairly recent concept, and it came from, wait for it, the 90's! Prior to that, the Lizard had been more "Jeckyl/Hyde" than "werewolf", with the Lizard persona having elaborate and verbiose plans plans to take over the world with a reptile army. (Him and Mezogog (?) from PR: Dino Thunder would actually have a lot to talk about.) It was Todd McFarlane's famous "Torment" storyline which recast the Lizard as a beast, but even in that story, he was under the mental control of a magical curse. The narration even expressly states that the Lizard is usually much more intelligent and talkative than in that story, but he's been rendered an animal by outside forces. And like a lot of stuff from the 90's, writers took the wrong lesson about the Lizard and ran with it.

Regarding Spider-Man: TAS: I love that show. I grew up on that show. And it did a lot of things really well. But it was also incredibly goofy in parts, and much of it hasn't aged well. And I know Linkara has mentioned before that he doesn't watch that much TV, but you both really should considered checking out the tragically-brief "Spectacular Spider-Man". It's Spidey as done by the man who gave us "Gargoyles", it's only 26 1/2 episodes, and it still manages to give us most of the big villains, as well as adapt some classic storylines. You won't be disappointed if you check it out.

Dracomax said...

I usually somewhat agree with him, but here I disagree with Quite a bit of What Linkara said.

I thought that garfield's performance was overall much, much better than Toby "can't emote" McGuire. I liked that he felt like an actual teenager, and the angst he showed was actually justified in the film--and they actually kind of showed him growing out of it. Think about that--He had more growth in this movie than in the 3 Raimi movies combined, and he still has room for actual growth.

I also thought the fights in general were among the best we've seen in the movies.

I missed Jameson, but I am glad they didn't try and shoehorn him in and have a comparison that would inevitably suffer.

It was definitely a flawed film, and it needed a good editor to go over the script and clean it up, but I really thought this was a better movie even so than the original (Raimi)Spider-Man.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I thought that Amazing Spider-Man had too many faults to be enjoyable.

1. The character of Spider-Man had been changed from a nice kid who fights crime because he just wants to help people to a thieving, rude, inconsistent, idiot who beats the s**t out of crooks out of vengeance rather than learning his lesson of "great power comes great responsibility."

2. The relationship between Gwen and Peter was not convincing for me and felt forced. Also, why should we care about this relationship since we know where it is going to end, with Gwen dead. When a character's most notable thing is their death, you need to deliver. The only way I can see Gwen and Peter's romance lasting is if they introduce Mary Jane and kill her off to throw the audience for a loop.

3. The movie goes by very quick and doesn't give us enough time to care about something, or see evolution. The whole sequence of Peter building his Spider suit and his web shooters takes one to two minutes where it took the first third of the first movie. Uncle Ben's death goes by very quickly, so quickly that he dies before he can tell Peter about "great responsibility," thus teaching Peter nothing by the end of the film other than to fight crime until I find that one guy and then stop. Again referring back to Gwen and Peter, their romantic moment of them swinging through the city is quite literally two swings and then the moment is over. If the film doesn't care about showing evolution of a character, why should we care about that character.

4. The film is not very memorable. Think about the first three Spider-Man films, what do you remember about them. We will all remember Bonesaw, J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, and the goofy parts like the Green Goblin and Peter dancing for the rest of our lives. What will we remember from this movie, action set pieces, no, a great villain, no because he really stand out compared to Doctor Octopus and the Sandman, the only thing that I can think of is Denis Leary who is amazing and is easily the best character in the movie, but that's only one thing. All in all, I felt empty after leaving the theater and thinking I would forget a lot of things by the next day.

There were certainly a lot more problems in the movie for me, but I thought those were the biggest. So the movies i've seen this summer were, Amazing Spider-Man, Brave, The Avengers, and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and believe it or not but "Lincoln" was the best out of all of them in my mind (yes, I didn't like The Avengers either for reasons I could rant on also). Along, with these movies, The Eternity Clock video game, Mass Effect 3, and brentalfloss' Bits of Me cd, 2012 has been the year of disappointment so far.

badasseswithcreamsicles said...

-I actually personally think that both Gwen in Marc Webb's new film and MJ from the Ramni films both suffer from flawed writing and characterization, even if it's for completely different reasons.

-I actually did like Andrew Garfield as Peter, I just felt the writing was a little off for him (not as bad as Gwen or Aunt May in this film though). I did like the Flash character arc

I'm disappointed we'll never get a Spider-man origin story film with Peter saying 'only a science major could have created a device like this'

Barachiel said...

Yeah, I'm pretty much in the "Blown Away At How Much Better This Was Than Raimi's Films" camp. I never cared for the Campy Spidey films with the non-wise-cracking Spidey, and the 60s-esque dialogue and stories. The closest I came was enjoying their take on Doc Ock in #2, and the way they brought the Goblin business full circle in #3. Aside from that, I've had no desire to see any of them more than twice: once in the theatre, and once on DVD to see if I liked 'em better later on. I didn't.

To me, the only real flaws in this movie was the need for a better editor, and the cheesy "crane scene" which honestly should have had the Raimi fans applauding, because it was the exact same level of cheesy camp that those films were famous for. "We Love Spiderman Day" anyone?

Anonymous said...

Pat should rewatch the Raimi films. They don't hold up well AT ALL!!!

Zero-ELEC said...

The Spider-Slayers appear in the Amazing Spider-Man video game which has a surprisingly well thought out plot and actually serves as very nice continuation to the film.

It also fleshes out the Dr. Connors character and basically gives him a larger character arc, while also giving us Alistaire Smythe and more Oscorp scientist and experiments.

Also the best other-media adaptation of Spider-Man, IMO, is the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, hands down.

The Id said...

I disagree with Pat on most of his points. Then again I thought the Amazing Spider-man was mediocre.

badryukun said...

I think I actually know what that big room full of spiders is all about. If you look at the machinery and how it seems to look and function it appears as if the 'liquid steel' or whatever the webbing was called is likely made in that room. This is because that machinery seems to draw the webbing in, but shock off spiders which would impede the machine. I think that is what it is at least.

Anonymous said...

Two things directed at Pat

In the original Lee Ditko comic books, Gwen Stacy was not smart or (originally) kind in the comics, she was initially a stuck up bitch and slut who only went after peter because he would not pay attention to her on the first day of collage (Aunt May was in the hospital so he had a lot on his mind). True she did develop into a much better girlfriend but still not that great. The movie character seems more like a cross between Liz Allen (high school love interest) Betty Brant (kind understanding and his first real girlfriend) and Deb Whitman (brainy and somewhat reserved blond) the only thing Gwen like about her (besides the name) is her father. However Gwen is much better known then the rest of them

My second are questions about the rWo shirt specifically what douse rWo stand for and ware can I get one, I designed a shirt like that when I was younger but could not get it made

Could you pass these questions (especially the second one) to Pat because I really want to know?

Jesse said...

I would love to see Shocker and Rhino being beaten by Spider-Man in the opening credits.

I would love to see The Chameleon as the main or side villain at some point. Having Kraven already be used could make things even more interesting.

So many villains, not enough time and money for the movies.

The 90s Spider-Man cartoon should get more respect given how much it was able to do with all the insane amount of censoring it had to adhere too. X-Men from the 90s wouldn't have been able to pull that off as well as Spider-Man did.

Still miss it and The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon.

BooRat said...

I still need to see this movie!
Well the one thing I know about this movie that kinda annoys me is that they cut out a whole of of stuff that was actually in the marketing and that was the whole secret of Peter's parents. There is proof there was a scene set somewhere in the sewers with that evil Indian guy from Oscorp, The Lizard, and Spider-Man in-which it's basically said what happened it it has to do with one part of how Peter survived his spider bite and got powers. It was going to be hinted at more threw out the movie and full on revealed in that scene that basically Peter's dad pulled an Ang Lee's Hulk and he either did genetic testing on himself before Peter was born and passed it on to his son or he actually did it to Peter and he's had the secret, that Connors' needs to unlock human/animal cross genetics, in his DNA! Now if they kept all this in the movie I think that'd help people except the reboot idea because that story would be hard to hammer into the canon of the Raimi movies with out it coming off the same way the Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer did!
Also there were whole scenes re-shot there were suppose to be at Connors' house and show his wife and son to give him a more sympathetic look.
I kind of hope if they do Green Goblin again they mix the Ultimate and 616 universe for it and have the chemical transform Osborn into the Green Goblin but instead of him being a huge hulking monster like in the Ultimate universe have him just turn into the more classic looking Goblin of the 616 universe and have it be more a Jekyll and Hyde thing. He's still a normal sized human being but his skin is now green and he has super strength and agility on par with Spider-Man and he's still intelligent enough to use technology like his glider, pumpkin bombs, ect... this way every one is happy as I love the 1st Raimi movie but I was very disappointed with the Green Goblin costume!
On the James Cameron Spider-Man script I've heard and read a lot of things(I really need to find that script online and read it for myself) but from what I learned the main villain was going to be Doctor Octopus but he would be referring to himself as Spider-Man but everyone else was calling him Doc Ock and Cameron's choice to play him would've been Arnold Swarchenegger! Now, I've heard that Electrico was suppose to be in it as well but I know nothing more on his characterization. And, that Spider-Man would've been played by Leonard DiCaprio because you know that Cameron cast only his friends! :D
I really hope they do what I've heard they want to do with Venom is give him his own movie and then tied him into the Amazing Spider-Man universe! The only problem I see is from what I've heard is they want to skip the Eddy Brock Venom and go strait to the Flash Thompson Venom and it might be more heavily influenced by the Ultimate universe in that the symbiote will be a man-made weapon and not an alien species! But I guess if they do that they can do the clone Carnage based on a mix of the Venom symbiote, The Lizard, and Spider-Man's DNA that kills Gwen!
A lot of people want them to do Scorpion as a main-ish villain in that he's the physical threat to Spider-Man but with Osborn behind his creation and actions. And, I can see that working.

Hey, what are ya'll's thoughts on them trying to make a deal for Spider-Man to be in the Avengers 2 in like 3-5 years?

Le Messor said...

I loved it. As much as there were flaws - that wasn't Peter Parker, it was Bart Simpson! - I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
It really entertained me, I cared about the characters and what happened to them, etc...

Plus, I don't think we'll ever see Killer Croc realised in live action any better than we have here!

(What do you mean, 'Killer Croc is a Batman villain'? That was him! He looks just like he did in the cartoons! The, uh, Batman cartoons...)

LucasChad said...

Spider-Man is my favorite superhero basically because of how relatable he can be. In terms of casting, I thought Garfield was great but I still prefer Maguire. To answer BooRat's question, it depends on Sony's decision especially if Spidey fits anywhere in the sequels story wise. I hope they do bring J.K. Simmons back as J. Jonah Jameson for the second film considering he's a great character actor if you've seen him in other films and in the Farmers commercials.

Overall, enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man and I can't wait to see The Dark Knight Rises.

Sperium3000 said...

One thing that I hoped you'd bring up was the fact that by the end of the movie Spidey is -yet- to catch Uncle Ben's killer, not only that, they bring up the blatant Chekov's Gun that is his star tattoo. I'm pretty sure they're going to turn him into a supervillain in a future sequel. My money is on The Scorpion.

Chris Conley said...

I don't know Lewis it seemed like Pat was giving more of an opinion about it than you. You didn't really have any time to really state your opinion, it was mostly Pat's viewpoint. I mean no offense to Pat.

Anonymous said...

Video failed to load due to noscript blocking malicious code inserted from a third-party domain, in this case, gorillanation dot com.

(Do not actually visit that URL. They have been busted for sending malware in the past.)

Web-of-Trust report on them here:

Please choose your advertisers better, Lewis.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Video failed to load due to noscript blocking malicious code inserted from a third-party domain, in this case, gorillanation dot com.

(Do not actually visit that URL. They have been busted for sending malware in the past.)

Web-of-Trust report on them here:

Please choose your advertisers better, Lewis. "

One - tell that to Pat the NES Punk, not me. These are his videos.

Two - I have no control over who advertises on my videos, anyway.

Three - I am not Springboard. At all.

Johndar said...

It's funny that you mentioned the Spider Slayers because they and Alistaire Smythe are the primary villains of the tie in game, which is very good by the way, and takes place after the movie.

Another point, Spectacular Spider-man is the best Spider-man cartoon in my humble opinion

Anonymous said...

Right, thanks. Guess I'll google Pat the NES Punk so I can find out how to contact him and tell him his videos are potentially forwarding malware to people from a known malicious source.

1 and 3 are good points. I'm telling you anyway so you can be more aware of what your blog is doing to users' computers without your knowledge or consent. (Also Pat might be more likely to listen to you than me.)

#2 is just plain false though. (Or it would be, if it were your video.) You're right, Pat can't control who advertises on Springboard, but he can choose to switch from Springboard to someone, *anyone* else.

(He could also forward this information to the people who run Springboard so they can maybe take the malicious site out of the rotation, but that depends on Springboard caring about its content providers as much as their advertisers.)

Anyway, thanks for the public response. A lot of website owners would try to sweep a problem like this under the rug. Take care.

Jasn0_X said...

Linkara, great job.

Pat, you really need to go back and rewatch both of Spider-Man & Amazing as you are wrong on so many details.

Linkara, Please don't do anymore commentaries or reviews with Pat. He really threw you off with his opinions (based on incorrectly remembered facts), interrupted you way too much and just generally did not know what the heck he was talking about.

Master Control Cynic said...

The movie was HALF DECENT!! HOORAY!!!! As a VIOLENT HATER OF THE RAMI MOVIES. (ALL OF THEM) It was AVERAGE! I was happy! Not a perfect movie. But not as bat as the original. Not as vomit inducing as 2. And not as LEATHAL as 3!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I just disagree with your Co-host. Harry was THE key villain in SPIDER-MAN 3 and NOT
an "intro" villain. If you re-watch the film, Harry is the one who inflicts the most emotional damage to Parker, prompting Pete's "feel good" addiction to the Venom costume. Personally, I didn't object terribly to the condensation of the Venom appearance as I thought the sequences where Parker wore the suit and its affect on HIM were
a heckuva lot more interesting.

Getting back to your Co-host, I think he's just not ready for prime-time as a film reviewer. Sam Raimi is a director known for quirky off-the-wall type film-making and let's face it--compared with the other super-heroes who came before him, Spidey has ALWAYS been a "quirky" character, making Raimi the perfect choice to chronicle his cinematic adventures! This is definitely evident in his selection of Tobey Maguire who actually LOOKS like his comic-book counterpart,
as many of his facial expressions were similar to scenes in the actual comics. Garfield on the other hand, looks like some-one's "modern-day", more "hip" re-interpretation of Peter Parker-- having more in common with TWILIGHT than SPIDER-MAN.

Finally, one thing that really annoys me is when amateur movie critics use the word "camp" to denigrate a film they in particular didn't like. One should say what you objected to and move on, there's no need to label a movie or series (which a lot of people liked) as "cheese" or "camp", simply because YOU (or rather your co-host) didn't care for it!

That's all I'm saying.

Okay, so I stole your line...gimme a break, it's a Spidey thing.

Anonymous said...

I thought the movie was just so bland. Come on there is nothing Amazing about it. I basically started crying when The Lizard appeared, he looked so bad, so badly animated to what could have been a cool looking villain, and those fight scenes, let me tell you that they will never be as memorable as the train fight in Spider Man 2 and the sewers fight in the 3rd one. And Peter was Peter BUT he was not the good one. This seemed more like Peter Parker from the Ultimate Universe (which I despise) or the current unmarried still acts like a teen Peter.
Sure the originals was cheesy but at least it had something that this new Spider Man doesn't, heart and development. At least in those movies Peter is played by Tobey Maguire seems more like a Nerd and a Geek than Andrew Garfield.
And let's face it this movie was only made because if they didn't use the film license it would go back to Marvel owned by Disney. so basically this is a quick money grab before Sony Pictures get's totally bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

this movie was... crap. no really it was, on it's OWN MERRITT its just a crappy film. lots of people have told you why, so let me get this in the pro's and con's

Micheal Massee as Norman Osborn in the post credit.
GWEN: Emma was okay, but I do agree that she did a good job.

My goodness GWEN was techniquelly MJ as a science Geek with blode hair. I know, I knwo movies tend to never get things right, but COME ON YOU JKACKASS AT SONY FOR MAKING THIS CRAPPY FILM FOR JUST KEEPING THE RIGHTS YOU SELFISH JACKASS!

Peter Parker isn;t a douchebag, and no there where no quipes, spider-man WASN'T Funny. of course peopel today don;t seem to know humor if it bit them in the ass.
Agree on OsCorp.

Anonymous said...

When you peel ALL THE LAYERS BACK well this is batman as spider-man, its Nolan's batman begins, as the obvious factor,format, and people mainly speaking terrible expansion. Webb isn't fit for spider-man, because when you look at Peter Parker he's suppose to be NOT the average teenager but a realtable Geek or Nerd and likable protagonist.
So waht maeks this paker no different? well they try to make him perfect at everything, a lot of the itnertest don;t stack up will becuase its constantly HITTTIGN YOU IN THE FACE and not giving you a chance, you know he could have a puppet on his wall, boom he likes puppeteering, maybe a haocky stick or a paintball uniform in the closet, BOOM he likes sports. why was the punk parker takign pictures of the lizard? theres no real reason for him to do anything, its an [insrt this thing and make him perfect at it]. if anythign ti turns you off. it coems off more like a docuhe in that aspect. GwenJ i liek that, i;m using that term. She does feel more blonde hair Mary Jane then comic book gwen. some aspect of Gwen is in there but buffy the vampire slayer handled romance so much better, and aspects of teengers, like Dalia it's still modern and fresh with the times and aged alright. the edting and pacing was terrible, and i rally felt there where alot fo sences missing, becuase this reboot was set-up, terrible set up to a sequal i won't see. Peter is suppsoe o be a likable human protaginist, not a dick who ahs no real interest in anything he's nto likable, and is way to over confident, i loved flash tophson ebcuase even thoguth it hink he could of been better like spdier-man season, this flash was alright, iw sih he told us why he picked on Peter but it was more of no reason, so your uncle died, and now where friends. okay, i have no dad, and now look where friends now, yayz!

well boris was aweosme as parkers dad,but i really don;t remmeber him other then he;s boris form Royal pains (one of the ebst shows ever!) Since everyone here can;t or doesn;t understand what stand alone means, there IS NO WAR beteween "rami" fans and "webb" fans. here watch this: I don;t agree but I don't disagree what Sam here has to say. also totally called the school scene being all CGI :3 I Still don't like this film at all, plus is it me or does this film actually have another handful of influence of JAMES CAMRON!!!

i also figured these two videos actully make soem good points.
as well: part 1:
Part 2:

also BTW Folks the modern Nerd is a trekkie or trekker....what ever the heck you guys call yourself that what a nerd is, some one who has sufficient knowledge in one department and pride themselves on that knowledge. whiole you can liek toehr things a geek si soemone who while also liek a nerd know a lot but insted of oen thing MANY THINGS, and liek other things.

So calling this parker a modern nerd is jsut stupid in itself. has tiem changed yeah but its geeks you where talking about Webb and you even failed to mess that up you MTV docuhebag.

Jordan Royter said...

Really good points all around. I didn't like Amazing Spider-man when I saw it, of course, I really didn't give it that much of a chance.
Thinking back, the Ramey movies really haven't aged well. lol

Thanks guys, this was great.

NelsonStJames said...

Great discussion guys. Please do more of these in the future about other comic book films.

My take. The perfect Spiderman film lies somewhere inbetween what we've gotten so far. My main problem with the newest reboot is that the main actors are way too old for the parts that they are attempting to play, and it just doesn't seem believable to me. Also to make Peter anything other than a science nerd takes a lot away from the character.