Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the life-of-a-spider-man-is-always-intense dept.

Movies 93

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "It's a weird time to be Spider-Man. Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man,' which made its debut in 2002, proved (along with Brian Singer's 'X-Men,' released in 2000) that superhero movies could appeal to the mass market, provided they were done right. With or without his Spider-Man mask, Peter Parker (played in Raimi's movie and its two sequels by Tobey Maguire) made for an appealing presence, earnest and kind-hearted even as he punched and trash-talked villains.

A few years after the debut of 'Spider-Man,' Christopher Nolan began his 'Dark Knight' trilogy, and everything changed for the current iteration of superhero movies. Now Spider-Man's earnestness seemed a bit passé, overshadowed by Christian Bale-as-Batman's moral ambiguities and dour growl. With subsequent movies such as 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and the 'Iron Man' trilogy, the genre deepened still further, more willing to reflect—as Raimi's Spider-Man never had—real-world issues such as terrorism, surveillance, and drones."
Read on for the rest of Nerval's Lobster's review.'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure. As a character, Spider-Man needed to undergo a more careful revision—to become more nuanced and grounded, all without stripping the character of his agreeability. With 'The Amazing Spider-Man' (2012) and the new 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2,' director Marc Webb attempts to strike that balance, and for the most part he succeeds. His Spider-Man, as played by Andrew Garfield, comes off as a little more street-savvy and a whole lot less emo than Maguire, even if he does shed tears at key moments.

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' features Spider-Man squaring off against Electro (Jamie Foxx) as well as the Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan) and, briefly, the Rhino (Paul Giamatti). If you think that's too many villains for a feature film, you're right, although Webb manages to weave them into the plot with a bit more finesse than Raimi shoving a trio of wrongdoers into 'Spider-Man 3' (and at least the Green Goblin doesn't look like a Power Ranger this time around). Webb's other thread is the romance between Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), which benefits from chemistry between the two leads, although it's ultimately eclipsed by the inevitable explosions, super-fights, and stunts. As Gwen, Stone gets the chance to play a role with a little more dramatic weight than the standard-issue damsel-in-distress, and late in the movie she gives a speech that virtually breaks the fourth wall to call out superhero movies on their tendency to reduce female characters to little more than eye candy... a speech that's interrupted within seconds by yet another super-powered brawl.

Webb tries to give his new movie some additional weight by making time a major theme. Characters mention they're running out of it; the first shot zooms out from a micro-shot of a wristwatch's gears; much later, the final battle takes place in a clock tower (and ends on a decidedly pessimistic note). In order to prevent the narrative from tumbling into a dour hole, Webb and Garfield try to give Parker some levity, whether he's taunting a would-be super-villain with a bullhorn or engaging in a webbing-powered slapstick routine right out of Buster Keaton. "He's releasing himself into the symbol that he's created," Garfield said in an interview. "He's enjoying the hell out of it while he's doing it."

Spider-Man will never be dark like Nolan's Batman—these movies have an obligation to be colorful and bombastic. But at least this new one gives the web-crawler some shading.

Rating: 8/10"

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Animats (122034) | about 5 months ago | (#46891703)

Is this a new movie, or a re-release of Spider-Man 2 from 2004? I thought this was just the 2004 version, run through 3D conversion.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 5 months ago | (#46891773)

No, it's a completely new movie. Different director, different plot, different cast and all. You could've just read the review, though, and answered the question yourself.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 5 months ago | (#46891801)

Kind of points out the absurd state of Hollywood that they have about a 5 year reboot cycle. I imagine a new set of Batman movies are due next year.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (4, Informative)

nicolastheadept (930317) | about 5 months ago | (#46891891)

It's more about the absurdity of the specific rights to make Spiderman films. Sony loses them if they don't make any, that's why we had the reboot

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 5 months ago | (#46891943)

I don't mind reboots when they bring something worth it to the table. I totally love Christopher Nolan's Batman-movies, for example, as they don't even try to present Batman as some high, respectable, totally-sane, funny and colourful superhero of the 90's -- *cough* George Cloney *cough* -- and they really bring out more what Batman is like. Man of Steel also tried to make Superman a deeper character than just a flying boy scout and while it wasn't all that good as a movie it at least tried to deviate from all the previous movies.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46891957)

Off topic, but I wonder how many people find it equally absurd to be replacing certain electronics every 6months-1year.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892051)

This has more to do with the state of the contracts. Sony and Fox are a bit scared to let the francises they have with Marvel comics characters slip back to Marvel and that is just what the contracts say if Sony and Fox aren't using the franchises they have.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46904317)

I just wish that there was a way that they could involve spider man in cameos in the other marvel movies to give it the same feel of being in the same 'universe' that the comic book. It would be nice to see Spider Man in Marvel's Agents of Shield or one of the Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Avengers or X-Men to pay homage to the original source material.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46892219)

It also points out, I think, the pointlessness of OP.

Raimi's movies were at least good movies. The last Spider Man movie was awful. (As were the Dark Knight movies OP refers to.)

I am aware that "good" movie is a matter of opinion. But that is my very strong opinion.

I understand Tobey not wanting to get type-cast, but I think the Spider Man franchise would have been far better off had he continued. Fiction movies do not have to deal with "real world" issues. They are supposed to entertain. If I want to see fake depictions of "real world" issues I'll watch MTV.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (-1, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46892437)

I think this was the best Spider Man movie ever made. That scene where Peter tells Gwen to stay out of the way because it's too dangerous, and she makes her oh-so-predictable "girls can do anything boys can do" speech, then gets shot dead... that was just awesome. I'm sick to death of the ridiculous "beefcake dressed as nerdy scientist wrings his hands while 110 lb woman dressed as dominatrix defeats six linebackers without messing up her hair" scenes coming out of Hollywood.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892727)

Misogynist racist scumbag. Check your fucking privilege!

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46893035)

Yeah you fucktart.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894181)

Yeah you fucktart.

I saw what you did there!

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46892853)

I'm sick to death of the ridiculous "beefcake dressed as nerdy scientist wrings his hands while 110 lb woman dressed as dominatrix defeats six linebackers without messing up her hair" scenes coming out of Hollywood.

Um... okay. But what does that have to do with Spider Man? The earlier Spider Man movies weren't like that at all. On the contrary: those were fairly typical Damsel In Distress stuff.

Having said that: I agree that was a great scene. But one great scene does not make a movie.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46893813)

Um... okay. But what does that have to do with Spider Man? The earlier Spider Man movies weren't like that at all. On the contrary: those were fairly typical Damsel In Distress stuff.

Having said that: I agree that was a great scene. But one great scene does not make a movie.

I disliked Toby Maguire immensely. Spider-Man is supposed to be an overconfident wisecracking smart ass with a dash of brilliant intellect. Toby Maguire is an emo crybaby, the sort of guy who would keep his girlfriend by telling her he was going to kill himself.

The scene where the little kid faces down the villain was also an awesome scene. Not as good as Gwen's death scene, but awesome.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46894545)

I disliked Toby Maguire immensely. Spider-Man is supposed to be an overconfident wisecracking smart ass with a dash of brilliant intellect. Toby Maguire is an emo crybaby, the sort of guy who would keep his girlfriend by telling her he was going to kill himself.

You must not be as old as I am.

When I was a kid, Spider Man was notably different from most "superheroes", precisely because he was a real kid with social problems. Kids and teenagers could associate with him because his problems were like theirs.

Maybe it's different today.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

Bouncelot (649153) | about 5 months ago | (#46898091)

I agree. the one "difference" in the spider-man series (been reading it since ~1980) was the fact that he was a normal kid, still growing, still learning, still trying to figure out who he was as a person, while be thrust into these insane situations that only he could help with. With great power come great responsibility. And also dealing with the other side of the power "Power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately." He was a hero of the people, for the people. What I loved about the 200x movies is they never forgot that. the messed up the timelines, but the "hero" and who he was was spot on. These new series are nothing but an anti-hero campaign designed make people feel not as bad about their own corrupt morals and values. Make them feel better about them selves. After all if a "Hero" can be corrupt, how can they not be, right!? No-one is perfect, but a hero(even a movie hero) should set an example to strive for.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46904437)

If I remember in the Toby McGuire movie, the character of Mary Jane Watson was the 'damsel in distress' woven into the diabolically "Green Goblinesque" plot idea of setting up a situation where Spider Man has to choose between saving his girl or a cable car full of innocents that are put into a life or death situation at the same time. This touches on a lot of classic archetypes, and Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson were normal humans as characters, not super heroes, be they augmented humans, (such as spiderman, the Hulk or Captain America) Mutants (the X-Men) Advanced technological characters (Iron Man) or normal humans with greater than average skills and conditioning (Black Widow, Hawkeye or for that matter Agent Coulson or anyone in SHIELD) Yes it may be a bit passe to have the focus on the saving of the damsel in distress, but these are real situations that Spider Man dealt with along with having to save Aunt May in Spider Man 2 from Doc Ock, and was a major plot point to Aunt May realizing that Spider Man was a good guy despite the news reports, and of course her intuiton that Peter was Spider Man (I always thought the joke was, Aunt May always knew Peter was Spider Man.)

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46893821)

spoiler alert!

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46893133)

I'm just waiting for a studio to announce a remake of a movie that hasn't even been released yet, or a reboot of a franchise that isn't even finished yet. They've come close a few times.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 5 months ago | (#46896553)

'm just waiting for a studio to announce a remake of a movie that hasn't even been released yet, or a reboot of a franchise that isn't even finished yet.

That's already happened. See the _Fantastic Four_ movie. Not the one with Jessica Alba. The one from 1993?

Nature of the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894041)

Comics retcon and reboot and even feature sometimes parallel yet different story lines. It's a fantasy, there is no consistency mandate. Be strange if the movies weren't the same way.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892205)

No, it's a completely new movie. Different director, different plot, different cast and all. You could've just read the review, though, and answered the question yourself.

That doesn't preclude it being "a re-release of Spider-Man 2 from 2004 ... run through 3D conversion."

Special effects. Spidey gets turned into Spidey. Special effects. Spidey meets girl. Special effects. Spidey fights villians. Special effects. Spidey saves girl. Special effects. Movie ends. Special effects.

What's changed?

(Yeah, I'm cynical...)

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 5 months ago | (#46892699)

Hey, least that was better then Star Trek: Into Darkness ...

Kirk. Lens Flare. Spock. Lens Flare. Ship. Lens Flare. Sulu. Lens Flare. Bones. Lens Flare. Ship. Lens Flare. Even more Lens Flare. Insert Lens Flare every other shot.

* http://www.theguardian.com/fil... [theguardian.com]
* http://www.collegehumor.com/vi... [collegehumor.com]

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46891777)

All these reboots and reboots of reboots are making me dizzy. Actually they've reached the point where I could care fucking less.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#46892221)

I think reboots are for successive generations of moviegoers, moreso than for lifelong fans of a given franchise. If that were not true, the characters and plots would age and mature. (And by "generation," I just mean "people too young to see the previous iteration when it was new", not necessarily the children of the people who watched it new).

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 5 months ago | (#46893621)

Yes, it's exactly that.
A quick cash-grab to attract a few kids who don't know any better at the cost of diluting the franchise/brand/over-arcing story.

Seriously, the new Star Trek is a nice action flick, but it's a giant clusterfuck for people trying to make sense of the setting. You know, those fans who would one day grow up and actually produce new Star Trek material. The term "canon" is now contentious depending on what universe you're talking about. This exact sort of problem is why DC had a crisis on infinite Earths. Because it was all such a mess and none of it made sense.

Action flicks are fine. But you don't have to sacrifice the long-story to make a cheap shock for the short-story.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46895123)

The reboot Star Trek movies, particularly the last one, are just plain baffling films. The quick cuts, the brainless dialog that serves no other purpose than to push the plot along, they rob the franchise of its soul. Watch the interactions between Kirk, Spock and Bones in ToS or the ToS films, and you have rather incredible chemistry (I'd argue that Star Trek would have died around 1967 if it hadn't been for Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley's onscreen chemistry). Now watch Pine, Quinto and Urban, and while they might do a reasonable facsimile of Kirk, Spock and Bones (Quinto, in particular, is pretty darned good), they just don't jell.

Even in ToS episodes and films that were pretty shaky affairs (cough.. Star Trek V cough...), you at least had the three stars' chemistry to rely on. Without that, you just have what feel like amateurishly written and filmed movies, with crap cinematography that actually makes the 1960s series seem like a high point of production values.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

painandgreed (692585) | about 5 months ago | (#46899845)

I think reboots are for successive generations of moviegoers, moreso than for lifelong fans of a given franchise. If that were not true, the characters and plots would age and mature. (And by "generation," I just mean "people too young to see the previous iteration when it was new", not necessarily the children of the people who watched it new).

Thing is that there's no reason to do a reboot. The people already know the character. They don't need another origin story. They don't need to have things rehashed any more than they need to have things based on previous movies. Just do a new movie with a new take on the character already if you want. The only reason to do a reboot where they retell or change the origin story is for somebody to piss all over it and call it theirs. Probably because they can't otherwise come up with a memorable script otherwise.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (2)

CryptDemon (1772622) | about 5 months ago | (#46892271)

Well then go ahead... care less.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46892759)

When a sequel is made absolutely terrible by awful writing, they don't go "Maybe we carried this series on too long, and shouldn't write without respect to the quality of the underlying plot, counting on the name to do everything"

Instead they go "Welp, we drove off all the people that liked the series and another sequel will have a smaller audience. Solution? REEBOOOOOT with more bad writing!"

Comics are a uniquely suited format for adaptation to film, because they have the same (lack) of depth of characters, plot length, complexity, ratio of action to dialog, and flashiness as your typical action movie. So... that's just too easy a train to ride. We'll find a new gimick within another 10 years.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#46894769)

Part of the "fun" of the comics is the serial-ness. Even picking up one in the middle of a longer story, they can be followed. The bad guys never die, they just get lost in a river or volcano, and come back later with some story of being saved by mutant porpuses or a rare gas pocket that blew him harmlessly out of danger.

The only exceptions to that are the ones that are reality-based (300) or time traveling (Terminator) to where you arne't allowed a reboot, or a reboot is one paradox away. At the end of every comic (or two if you get the ones that like the cliff hangers) the hero wins, and the villain is vanquished without death. How many times has the Joker escaped from Arkham?

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895837)

Yea.. Japanese comics, a.k.a. manga. Wonder why they never do those. Maybe the japanese aren't selling to Hollywood. Ninja Scroll would be an epic adaptation, so would a few others I can think off.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 5 months ago | (#46892773)

Agreed.

Reboot. Remake. Redesign. Reimagining. *yawn*

Retarded.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894737)

Re -e -e wind, the crowd say 'Bo Selecta!'

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 5 months ago | (#46894817)

Sorry, don't get the reference. Looks like Bo Selecta is a British sketch show. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo'_Selecta!)

Which are the "essential" skits to watch?

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (3, Funny)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 5 months ago | (#46893195)

All these reboots and reboots of reboots are making me dizzy. Actually they've reached the point where I could care fucking less.

I feel like I'm back on Windows Vista or something!

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46896501)

You mean you couldn't care fucking less.

Re:Re-release of 2004 turkey? (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46891927)

It's exactly the same movie. Different costumes, differently named villains, different actors, exactly the same plot.

Bad premise for review. (0)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46891733)

Viewing recent superhero film development as a dialogue between "light and fun" themes and "dark and heavy" attitudes is overly simplistic. These films were not greenlit based on such factors. Decisions like including the black Spider-Man suit in Spider-Man 3 were also not made for such reasons. Nerval's Lobster is out of his depth here.

Re:Bad premise for review. (3, Informative)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 5 months ago | (#46891889)

Nerval's Lobster is out of his depth here.

We're still talking about reviewing a super-hero movie here, right? You may be taking this a little too seriously.

Re:Bad premise for review. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46893241)

I am the criticritic. It's what I do. No one gets a free pass!

wtf lol omg pakket radioz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46891851)

https://github.com/lulzlabs/Ai... [github.com]

Disclaimer: We don't give a fucking shit about prohibitions over the use of encryption. fuck you NSA.

Re:wtf lol omg pakket radioz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892467)

Disclaimer: We don't give a fucking shit about prohibitions over the use of encryption. fuck you NSA.

So brave!

Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (3, Interesting)

Daetrin (576516) | about 5 months ago | (#46891887)

I'm judging this based almost solely on the trailers, but the new Peter Parker does not seem dorky enough. He looks like they tried to make him into a hipster instead. The CGI in the trailers, especially for the second movie, makes me think "video game" more than "action movie". And all in all i just don't see the point of Spider-Man reboot so soon.

I've seen all the Marvel movies (great.) I saw Man of Steel (okay movie with significant problems that have already been hashed over.) I saw Wolverine (not perfect, but a lot better than the Origins movie). And i'm going to go see Days of Future Past. I have almost zero interest in seeing the second take of Spider-Man 2. Nothing this review has said really changes my opinion (i don't think Spider-Man really needed that much shading) and some of the things i've read in other reviews have helped bolster that opinion. (Rewriting Spider-Man's backstory via his parents to make him a "destined child" kind of strikes me as wrong.)

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892009)

I agree with you about the portrayal of Peter Parker in the new movies. At least, in "The Amazing Spider-Man" with Andrew Garfield, he was too integrated
into his high school's social structure for my liking. When I think of Peter, I think of someone who is put-upon in school.
  I also did not like that while waiting for something to happen in the recent movie, he (in his Spider-Man costume), played some simple mobile app game. I could picture him studying chemistry or physics for school in his 'down time'. But maybe the writers wanted more of a comic moment.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892251)

Exactly correct.

What always made Peter Parker an interesting character is that a) despite doing his absolute best, everyone seems to hate him as Spider-Man (the press destroy him, the black suit didn't do him any favors, and even his aunt May would often be found talking about "that awful Spider-Man") and b) he's got terrible luck. But kids really can't understand a world where they don't like Spider-Man, so the world (particularly in the "Amazing Spider-Man"s, but also in the old Spider-Man 3) changes, so now everybody loves him. And his luck isn't that bad. And he's kind of cool. He skateboards. He's got a smoking hot girlfriend. And he's got all sorts of nifty powers.

Taking that away, pretty much turns the main character into just another blank cookie-cutter which makes this series of films lame.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 months ago | (#46892671)

Thanks. I've been trying to put my finger on why I hated Amazing so much and you just summed it up.

Also, everyone is a total dick in the first movie, including Spider-Man. What's the point of a Spider-Man movie like that? It's totally out of character for him.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 5 months ago | (#46892263)

When I think of Peter, I think of someone who is put-upon in school.

When I think of Gwen Stacy, I think of someone way too intelligent to have anything to do with the jock who was picking on Peter.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 5 months ago | (#46892069)

I love superhero - movies and I've seen pretty much all of them, including all the Spider-Man - ones. That said, I never found Spider-Man an interesting character in the first place, he's just so damn dull and predictable. "The Amazing Spider-Man" certainly was better than the earlier movies, but still, I rather watch movies about other heroes. That said, I would like to see a real-proper movie of Deadpool -- he's insane, as far away from politically correct as ever possible, he really doesn't give a flying fuck about who he kills and he's got enough personality-deficiencies and mental issues to fill a series of books, and as such he'd make a great movie-character if only someone dared to tackle such a controversial one.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892225)

A properly done Deadpool movie would be amazing.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about 5 months ago | (#46892747)

Well tastes differ of course, but Spider-Man is supposed to be the "everyman" hero. And not even a regular "everyman", a smart but kind of dorky and awkward "everyman" who just lucks into his powers.

Superman is born with his powers (but doesn't consider himself "special" despite that.) Batman develops his "powers" through hard work and dedication. (Obviously being rich helps a lot, but also obviously not every rich person can become a superhero.) Captain America is, generally speaking, rewarded with his powers because he is at heart a great person. Or along the lines of the old adage, some are born great (Superman) some achieve greatness (Batman, Captain America) and some have greatness thrust upon them (Spider-Man.)

If you take Spider-Man and make him less dorky and awkward he seems a bit less like the everyman, at least to the dorky and awkward people who comics are (or at least used to be) most popular with :) If you change his backstory from "stumbled into powers" to "was destined to gain his powers from his parents", then you're really changing his character type, even if it's not immediately apparent. He's no long the type of character that became popular with his fans in the first place and, as you say, if the everyman wasn't your type of superhero to begin with then there are already a lot of other options.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892745)

Better Review here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9126-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-The-Movie-That-Broke-MovieBob

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (3, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 5 months ago | (#46892941)

AFAIK, Sony has to keep making movies to retain the rights to Spiderman, otherwise they revert back to Marvel. The same goes for Fox and X-Men. Sony would be foolish, from a business standpoint, to let the rights revert back to Marvel or to sell them back sooner, since they do make substantial money.

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46897621)

a movie studio that makes 'substantial money'? what's the name of *that* movie? sounds like an academy award winner... for fantasy

Re:Didn't see 1, won't see 2 (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 5 months ago | (#46893565)

You're correct. I love the actor, he's been great in other roles but he was terrible at pulling off the geekiness that Toby Macguire handled so well. This Peter Parker is more like a privileged frat boy. I thought the 3rd original Spiderman sucked, but I had zero interest in the 2nd new entry after seeing the first.

And, I REALLY hated the change to his origin story. I don't know if that's in the comics, but that's typical comic melodrama. Cyclops couldn't just be an Orphan of a plane crash. Now, daddy is an interstellar space hero. Same w/ Spiderman. His whole appeal is that he's a very smart, but very working class kid who's alter ego is in another universe compared to other comic hero covers.

Spiderman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892039)

When did Slashdot begin to ascribe to comic book films?

Re:Spiderman (1)

Soulskill (1459) | about 5 months ago | (#46892427)

Must have been super [slashdot.org] recently [slashdot.org] !

Re:Spiderman (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 5 months ago | (#46892917)

Dude. Do not feed the trolls! ;)

Maybe..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892061)

The movie looks cool. But I am not sure if this deserves to be ranked as one of the best superhero movies in this list... http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-superhero-movies-ever-made

Re:Maybe..? (1)

fortfive (1582005) | about 5 months ago | (#46892563)

Worst list, ever.

Supernothing. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892233)

And me, after a decade of this non-stop comic nerd movie vomit fest, I'm looking forward to Hollowood finding something else to do than mine comic books for plots. Enough already, find something else to do and leave the comics (oh *cough* I meant "graphic novels") to the nerds.

Re:Supernothing. (3)

Dracos (107777) | about 5 months ago | (#46892461)

Hollywood has all but given up on original content. There are more and easier profits to be had by adapting works in other media which will bring a built-in audience to the theaters.

That being said, I'm sick of comic book movies.

Re:Supernothing. (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 5 months ago | (#46898529)

I think it's good that Hollywood has given up on original content. Not only are adaptations easier and more profitable, most of the time they are far better than original Hollywood movies. Other media typically doesn't rely on famous actors or flashy special effects to impress, so they are necessarily more interesting in content.

And whereas movies used to be longer than TV shows which were primarily episodic, now TV (serious TV anyway) is mostly plotted with full-season arcs. With the modern trend of binge watching, where you queue up a whole season of a show on Netflix or your DVR, movies are pretty much the shortest and shallowest form of entertainment around.

Tobey Maguires spidey was.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892255)

...too retard for my taste. The guy was a crying baby all the time... I gave up watch from the second movie half til now with Andrew Garfield as the main role. Its much better!

Lacking substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892361)

Peter Parker has always been a socially inept dweeb. Changing him into a cool Facebook hipster with a girlfriend doesn't appeal to me.

Spidersomething blah blah blah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892609)

I mean who even cares? Spiderman and all of these stupid superhero franchises just need to get out of the limelight. Lame, moronic, and waste of money comes to mind.

Is Emma Stone dead yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892633)

Cause her character is killed by Green Goblin in the comics. So she should probably be dead by now.

Moviebob hates it (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 5 months ago | (#46892711)

No idea whether I should listen to Nerval's Lobster... but I've come to trust Moviebob, and I've never heard him pan a film like this, ever...

http://www.escapistmagazine.co... [escapistmagazine.com]

Re:Moviebob hates it (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46893893)

After reading this review, I'm pretty sure we shouldn't listen to Nerval's Lobster.

More Superhero overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46892785)

As I have said to many friends recently - I have zero interest in any Superman, Batman or Spiderman movies, TV shows, or animations. They have been done to death.

Look through the list of characters and you will see that DC and Marvel each have hundreds of characters. Let's see something about the other characters. For that matter let's look beyond DC and Marvel and get into some of the stranger and better written characters.

Guardians of the Galaxy looks like it could be good, but then again it will probably be just another dumb superhero movie.

The Japanese make good live action movies of so many of their characters, why can't we see a decent Blackhawk Squadron movie?

Look the back issues of any comic book shop and you can find a plethora of well written material that would make excellent movies. Power Factor would near the top of my list.

Finally to quote Teddy Wilson from Innerspace - Marvel is doing a movie with a talking raccoon and DC can't give us a Wonder Woman movie.

Edgy black suit (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 months ago | (#46893069)

'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure.

No, Spider-Man 3 was a near-faithful movie version of the alien-suit saga, a pivotal point in Spider-Man's career where the suit was making Peter stronger and a better fighter, but also more callous and brutal. To say the black suit was the director's attempt at an edgy Spider-Man is like saying the death of the witch king in Return of the King was Peter Jackson's attempt at feminist ideology.

Re:Edgy black suit (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 5 months ago | (#46893219)

'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure.

No, Spider-Man 3 was a near-faithful movie version of the alien-suit saga, a pivotal point in Spider-Man's career where the suit was making Peter stronger and a better fighter, but also more callous and brutal. To say the black suit was the director's attempt at an edgy Spider-Man is like saying the death of the witch king in Return of the King was Peter Jackson's attempt at feminist ideology.

Agreed, it stayed pretty close to canon, from what I can remember. I was a youngster subscribing to the comics during the course of that sage, and it was definitely taking a darker edge to the story.

Unfortunately, the director had this bizarre tendency to have the actors suddenly break out in song and dance - what, three times over the course of the movie? In a previous movie, it was cute once, so they tripled down, slowing the pacing of the movie and breaking the suspension of disbelieve (which is already pretty generous when you go to see a super-hero movie). It's been years since I watched it, but I always thought that if they had just edited it down to the core scenes, the movie wouldn't have been so painful to watch.

Re:Edgy black suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46893249)

Spider-Man is like saying the death of the witch king in Return of the King was Peter Jackson's attempt at feminist ideology.

Nah, shoving Arwen everywhere she didn't belong and throwing some random elf strumpet into the Hobbit was Jackson's attempt at feminist ideology.

</nerd>

Re:Edgy black suit (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46893891)

Correct. I was referring to this in my post "Bad Premise for Review" above, but for some reason that's been modded down.

Spider-Man proved superhero movies worked? (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46893369)

Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man,' which made its debut in 2002, proved (along with Brian Singer's 'X-Men,' released in 2000) that superhero movies could appeal to the mass market, provided they were done right.

Really? That was the movie that proved superhero movies could work?

*ahem* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00... [imdb.com]

C'moooon. I don't really think anyone's looking back on Spider-Man as a classic now, let alone in another 24 years' time.

It's time for Civil War (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 5 months ago | (#46893535)

So where the hell is the Civil War [wikipedia.org] arc? The boring old "let's fight the villain and save Earth" storyline is played out.

It's time for internal strife to rip apart our loved ones and reflect the EXACT sort of conflict going on in America right now. The two party system is tearing us apart and causing complete dysfunction. The storyline itself is just as hard hitting now as when it came out. Do we believe in individual freedom or do we clamp down on potential dangers.

And what do the good-guy super heroes do when they disagree with the other good-guy super heroes.

It's not a cheap thriller for kids. It's a mature topic. And beyond all reasonable hopes, I think the right people in Hollywood could actually pull it off.

And I think it's the next logical step. You've got the introduction. The typical story. The crossover. Now it's time to have some serious continuity. People are getting burned out by all these superhero movies. Time to mix it up.

Re:It's time for Civil War (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#46894861)

I was hoping for more mutant concentration camps and Sentinals running around and killing X-Men and other Mutants. There were some of those that weren't X-Men specific, so we could have a crossover.

superhero movies could appeal to the mass market (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 5 months ago | (#46893657)

Umm, didn't Superman I from 1978 do that?
(Heck, you could probably make the argument that the Batman movie in the 1960s did too.)

Re:superhero movies could appeal to the mass marke (2)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46893865)

Correct. This review is terrible. The pretense of a professional critical voice, the authoritative tone, the complete lack of accuracy.

This is why all superhero movies are reboots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894199)

Tired of the endless reboots of superhero movies? Seems they never progress the story very far (if even a little bit) before "it must be rebooted".

Here's why... Superhero movies come from superhero stories and those stories come from comics for young boys. The premises and stories are stripped down to the level of young boys. It is kept as simple as possible. Bonus if it can be stripped right down to the "good vs evil" bone. There is literally nowhere these stories can go. That is why there is only reboots and not continuing stories.

Oh, in comics there might be a story there somewhere, but at the end of the day the superhero cannot change because then he/she wouldn't be the same superhero he/she was before. In comics, as in movies, there will always be something like alternate universe or time travel or nuclear explosion to set things back to where they were before. In other words, rebooted.

tldr - Simple characters in simple stories cannot change because simple story means there is nowhere to go.

Don't be that guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894885)

Don't be the reviewer who gives a passing grade to a certified rotten movie. The people you duped into wasting $12 will be after YOUR blood.

Psychopaths make shitty art. News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46896055)

To succeed in Hollywood, you have to either be the biggest shark in the tank, or be really good at out-swimming sharks.

When you apply that bullshit survival of the fittest Darwinian tomfoolery to pretty much *any* human social system, you end up with heartless broken crap which benefits a few psychopaths short term and wires an auto-destruct sequence into the DNA of the system as a whole.

Psychopaths are morons. And no, they can't write anything but shallow garbage for a human audience because, duh, you need a soul to do anything with depth, compassion and insight.

superheroes stuck in a dark rut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46896537)

Yet another superficial 1980s fanboy mistaking grim-n-gritty stylings for depth and complexity.

Hollywood's handling of superheroes has finally caught up with the early 1990s of corporate comics ... a short-lived sales high, which set up the comics industry for a horrific bust, as the audience got bored with the surface glitz and started to realize how formulaic the writing had become.

Re:superheroes stuck in a dark rut (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46897009)

Man, great comment. Why are you posting as Coward? Also, why is the community modding these comments down? I don't get it. It seems like everyone who has insight is getting labeled a troll on this topic. Sony? Are you here somehow? Um...I loved the Walkman.

Re:superheroes stuck in a dark rut (1)

Tridus (79566) | about 5 months ago | (#46897751)

Never underestimate the power of large quantities of fanboys with mod points.

Re:superheroes stuck in a dark rut (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46902809)

Truth. Fanboy balkanization. I thought this place was for nerds, but apparently we're outnumbered by dorks, and they're going to mod us down until we're invisible.

Superheroes? (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 5 months ago | (#46897447)

What is it with America and superheroes? I don't think any other nation has ever produced quite such a concept. I suppose the nearest thing in UK would be 'super detectives' like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot or Lord Peter Wimsey, who were intellectual and self-ironic. Or in Scandinavian tradition, the god Thor - who was rather short, red-haired, choleric and not a little stupid, unlike the American re-invention.

The American superheroes all seem to be overgrown teenagers with inflated egoes and shaped like body-builders. I wonder if that is because Americans are obscessed with youth - or perhaps fear of getting old?

Re:Superheroes? (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 5 months ago | (#46901337)

I wonder if that is because Americans are obscessed with youth - or perhaps fear of getting old?

The image? Probably. But more important is your first question...

What is it with America and superheroes?

The superhero is America's myth - the idea that with the right combination of luck, hard work, and/or good-heartedness, miracles can be achieved; that these miracle men (and women) will eventually overcome whatever evil is unleashed upon the world; and that, because of this, order is sustained and the world healed. In addition, the superhero is always isolated from society by dint of both his power and his superior morality or his circumstance. This latter attribute is the one most useful to the ruling class.

National Lampoon had it right on more than one level when they ran strips featuring the super hero "Son-o-God" in their magazine in the mid-1970's. The superhero is a Jesus substitute and his Bible the Constitution (at least those parts about meeting out justice, even if the protagonist usually is less concerned about things like the Bill of Rights) and Adam Smith, while he works to defend "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". In this mythos, salvation always comes from an external individual source - never from societal, collective action. This myth conditions the masses to wait for the superhuman savior rather than to organize in their own defense. It is another opiate of the masses writ in pulp.

There are particular graphic novels that make the character a bit more edgy, perhaps a bit more revolutionary - but almost never enough to actually challenge the system in which they are embedded. And even these few characters are the exceptions that prove the rule. The superhero is Nietzche's superman who bows down in defense of the status quo, even though this means that he enslaves himself to the people running the system and their goals (which are almost always good, but occasionally subverted by a few bad individuals).

And, as long as we wait for Superman, the masses will be distracted - the perfect circus, even for those without bread.

Re:Superheroes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46921309)

Or you could take it from the completely opposite direction: the fact that the protagonist is breaking from societal and collective action because those systems are a hindrance to the betterment of the world around them.

The superhero is never defending the status quo (just by doing what they do, they're vigilantes which is fully anti-system). And more often than not, the system is the enemy in the eyes of the average American (fanatical pockets aside). So it's an empowerment fantasy.

More likely, Americans believe themselves completely invincible outlaws (the cowboy imagery on steroids) and this makes it an attractive lore (even the American-movie heroes that don't have powers are nigh invincible (any of Schwarzenegger's roles in the 80's, John McLane from Die Hard, or even Batman who while a "superhero" has no actual powers beyond being super-wealthy).

The 'science' in this film made me cry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46897747)

Anyone who is above high school grade science will weep watching this film,
This film lost me at the start mility grade plutonium in glass vials.
You known instead of the meter thick lead its usually in,

"Appeal to the mass market"? (1)

markhb (11721) | about 5 months ago | (#46902139)

Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man,' which made its debut in 2002, proved (along with Brian Singer's 'X-Men,' released in 2000) that superhero movies could appeal to the mass market, provided they were done right.

As opposed to, say, the $400 million brought in by Tim Burton's original Batman?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>