That's so dumb. People need to get over it. The same people complaining about a reboot would probably be complaining just as much if Spiderman 4 was as bad as Spiderman 3 or they had to recast Peter Parker. Not seeing Spiderman for the first 50 minutes isn't a big deal for me. We didn't see 'Batman' until the 45 minute mark or so in Batman Begins. I think it's important to get the viewer to care about the person under/behind the mask first because that's the person we truly relate to, not the superhero (that's the person we, the viewer, wants to be). As for not having JJ in the film, I'm not a big Spiderman comic guy so it probably won't matter much to me, but I always say if it makes sense to the story NOT to have a character in it, that's fine. I'd rather leave people out of the film then the shoehorn them in and not have them fit in with the story. Yeah I heard something similar about how originally Peter becoming Spiderman was somehow of a "planned" event and not an accident. Again though it's only a rumor right now. I haven't heard or read exactly what was changed, if anything at all. If this is basically a retelling then yeah the movie probably isn't needed and they could have easily rebooted the franchise and started it out with Parker as Spiderman already, like what they did with The Incredible Hulk. I truly hope that's what WB does with the rebooted Batman series. Batman Begins was a perfect telling of how Bruce became Batman, everyone knows the story, there's no need to rehash it.
That could make or break the movie though. Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-the-amazing-spider-man#ixzz1zUXo73w4
Good movie. I liked the tone set in this version. I think Garfield plays him a little more like a teenager probably would, with regards to being cocky as well as confused. Plus the overall tone was less comic book-y and based in a tad more reality, I thought. Long movie though. I saw it at midnight which usually makes the movie seem longer since I struggle to stay awake, but it ran for seemingly two hours or longer.
I plan on watching this movie tonight or tomorrow. From the reviews I have read I get the impression, the more you love the character of Spider-Man and Peter Parker, the less you like the movie.
Maybe that's why I liked it? I was never a big Spiderman guy, but I like comic book movies...or I WANT to like comic book movies. I thought this one was done pretty well. The story is certainly different than the Sam Raimi ones. But beyond that, I think the cast is just way better in this version. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as his Uncle and Aunt. And of course, Gwen Stacy over Mary Jane is much better as well. I also found the dialogue to be less emo-y and closer to real life. I dunno, maybe that isn't what Spiderman is about. Either way, it isn't a waste of money imo.
Thats what happens when you try to make Spiderman "dark and gritty". It worked with Batman because Batman is supposed to be dark and gritty.
I watched it, it was OK. It was like a better Daredevil. It was an enjoyable movie with a really stupid script.
One thing this movie had going for it, is the action scenes. They were really well done and directed. Which is impressive for Spider-man as the quick movements are easy to get lost
When I first heard of a reboot I was excited because Spiderman was always my favorite and when I was younger I read the comics. I worried though that they'd just try for a Dark Knight-ish Spiderman. After seeing it yesterday I don't think that's the case. For me anyway, I feel they found a good balance between the first trilogy and something like Dark Knight, not too cartoony but not too dark and gritty. I really enjoyed it, liked Garfield as Spiderman, and look forward to the next movie/s where so much time doesn't need to be spent on the origin story.
It's based on Ultimate Spider-Man, not the normal Spider-Man. And the Ultimate universe generally has more of a serrated edge than the "regular" Marvel universe.
