PeterBenParker
Wallopin' Websnappers!
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 10,424
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 58
I quite enjoyed the Electro fight, though.
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
Duuudee, be thankful he let the burglar go in the films because in the game, the burglar was quickly offed in a way to introduce "C.K."
Obviously, C.K. was Cletus who was trying to get Spider-Man's attention because they were similar or some crap. A battle here, Ravencroft there, and we end up with a Carnage boss battle motivated by Peter's lack of closure of catching Ben's killer all because Cletus killed him.
The reason why he did, apparently, was because he was a vigilante or something? Kinda like Dexter but a no-name brand of him, I guess. I really can't remember nor do I really want to.
PBP gave an accurate description.
He didn't need to mention Spider-Man using his spider tracers to tap into phone network satellites and tower to jack in on people's private calls and listen to them to find Carradine's line.
Its already my favorite Spider-Man movie for those very reasons and more. For the first time in a long line of films, this one felt the most like a Spidey comic or an episode of one of the shows, and it was great.
I'll never understand the outright hatred for this film. So underrated.
“It’s hard for me to think about it, in terms of regrets. There are so many things that I’m proud of. There was an ambition with the second movie, in particular. The idea that it’s a superhero that can’t save everybody is something that I’m really proud of. I’m really proud of the ambition of that because it’s an important message, and I believe in that. I believe in what we were after. They’re really, really difficult movies to make. They’re complex in ways that people don’t fully understand. They weren’t disasters.”
“In terms of regrets, I don’t think of it in those terms. I felt really, really fortunate to have that opportunity. That’s a whole other long, in-depth conversation that I probably shouldn’t have publicly. I loved everybody involved. I really did. I didn’t have an adversarial relationship with the studio, at all. There were a lot of very smart people. These are just incredibly complicated movies to make. I am proud of them, in many ways, and I stand by them. I’m certainly not a victim, in that situation.”
Repost from TASM GD Thread:
Marc Webb reflecting on TASM series.
Source: http://heroichollywood.com/amazing-spider-man-director-disasters/
“It’s hard for me to think about it, in terms of regrets. There are so many things that I’m proud of. There was an ambition with the second movie, in particular. The idea that it’s a superhero that can’t save everybody is something that I’m really proud of. I’m really proud of the ambition of that because it’s an important message, and I believe in that.
I believe in what we were after. They’re really, really difficult movies to make. They’re complex in ways that people don’t fully understand.
They weren’t disasters.”
“In terms of regrets, I don’t think of it in those terms.
I felt really, really fortunate to have that opportunity. That’s a whole other long, in-depth conversation that I probably shouldn’t have publicly. I loved everybody involved. I really did.
I didn’t have an adversarial relationship with the studio, at all.
There were a lot of very smart people.
These are just incredibly complicated movies to make.
I am proud of them, in many ways, and I stand by them. I’m certainly not a victim, in that situation.”
Also, it's my opinion that Marc did and does not have a firm grasp on the character of Peter Parker and Spider-Man--that most likely added to the complexity.
So, yes, when you take something as sacred as Uncle Ben and cut him out in favor of Peter's parents, you have just sacrificed the core of the character. This is just one of many things that ultimately tells me that Webb didn't understand Peter Parker.
That is easily debatable, but I digress.
I still think ASM is a good movie and set up potential to really tell some 'untold story' about Spider-Man...I appreciated the tone they were going for and attempting to tell a different kind of story. But like most things with this series, the ideas fell flat and were either poorly conceived, poorly developed or poorly executed or in many cases, a combination of all three.
So, yes, when you take something as sacred as Uncle Ben and cut him out in favor of Peter's parents, you have just sacrificed the core of the character. This is just one of many things that ultimately tells me that Webb didn't understand Peter Parker.
Cause it sucks lol
Uncle Ben died because someone wouldn't sell Peter milk.
Instead of learning the importance of using his powers responsibly, Peter is only out for vengeance up until the movie completely forgets about that and it's time punch the villain.
It's insane how hard they dropped the ball. If you don't care about the origin of your character, just don't do it and skip straight to the fireworks.
And in Raimi's Spider-man, Uncle Ben died because someone didn't pay Peter the amount he felt he was owed. In both films, Peter lets the thief escape purely out of spite while feeling that it wasn't his responsibility to intervene.
In all honesty, both films set-up and handled the "Death of Uncle Ben" quite similarly in terms of the lead-up to his death and how it all goes down, although they strayed further apart when dealing with the aftermath and outcomes.
In Raimi's Spider-man, Peter chases the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. When he catches him and realizes it is the thief that he chose to let go, it is a huge moment of clarity for him as he realizes that his own selfishness and irresponsibility led to this. The killer falls to his death. Soon after, Peter decides to become a hero (because "with great power comes great responsibility" and all that). We also hear Ben's voice-over saying the famous quote as Peter stares intently at a drawing of his Spidey suit, so it's pretty clear that this is the turning point, and the moment he becomes Spider-man.
In TASM, Peter doesn't pursue the killer directly after Uncle Ben is killed. Later that night, the police give a description of the killer and Peter realizes it is the same thief he chose to let go, due to his own selfishness and irresponsibility. He is clearly distraught. However, the killer is still on the loose, so Peter starts out by using his powers to hunt down the killer. He is clearly seeking vengeance, which Captain Stacy even expresses when discussing Spider-man's "heroics". I would argue that Peter's turning point in this film is after saving the boy from the dangling car on the bridge and seeing the father reunited with his son. That is his "with great power comes great responsibility" moment and the moment he becomes Spider-man, which he even verbally expresses to the boy's father. (Just as heavy-handed as the comparable moment in SM1 with Peter staring at the suit drawing, in a way.)
Prior to that, Uncle Ben had laid the foundation for that turning point with things he said to Peter prior to his death:
And the missed call/voicemail from Uncle Ben that Peter listened to the night of his death. We don't hear the full voicemail until the end of the film:"You are a lot like your father. You really are, Peter, and that's a good thing. But your father by a philosophy, a principle, really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things! That's what's at stake here. Not choice. Responsibility."
"Peter? I know things have been difficult lately and I'm sorry about that. I think I know what you're feeling. Ever since you were a little boy, you've been living with so many unresolved things. Well, take it from an old man. Those things send us down a road... they make us who we are. And if anyone's destined for greatness, it's you, son. You owe the world your gifts. You just have to figure out how to use them and know that wherever they take you, we'll always be here. So, come on home, Peter. You're my hero... and I love you!"
After the bridge scene, Peter starts being a hero as opposed to being only a vigilante. And yes, the film kind of drops the search for Uncle Ben's killer and the whole thing could have handled better, but I think the point of that was that Peter was able to let go of that, too. Whether Peter was able to stop chasing the "scapegoat" and take full responsibility for what happened that night, or because he realized he should be putting his powers to much greater use, it didn't really matter. The concept could have been executed more clearly, though.
So I would say that Peter learns the importance of using his powers responsibly in both films, albeit in different ways and at different times. Obviously, I can understand why many prefer Peter's hero trajectory in Raimi's film, which is as classic and as cut-and-dry as it could have been. And also obviously, I'm sure most people understand that TASM had to try to do something different with it all, which must have been difficult when trying to tell nearly the same story in a reboot that was being developed/produced less than 10 years after the original was released.
Lastly, while TASM heavily leaned into Peter's feelings about his own father/parents (something I'm not even sure was even mentioned in SM1), I do think it's unfair to say the film "cut Uncle Ben out" in favor of the parents angle. Uncle Ben's storyline was featured heavily in the film and Uncle Ben's impact on Peter was still a primary factor in leading him to become Spider-man.
It's better than having his suit taken away by another hero because he doesn't know the meaning of responsibility
But in all seriousness, why did he decide to save the child on the bridge? Because it Marc Webb's own words, he saw himself in the kid. It reminded him of his own dad & how Richard left him. He wanted to be able to stop that from happening to anybody else
It's better than having his suit taken away by another hero because he doesn't know the meaning of responsibility
But in all seriousness, why did he decide to save the child on the bridge? Because it Marc Webb's own words, he saw himself in the kid. It reminded him of his own dad & how Richard left him. He wanted to be able to stop that from happening to anybody else
Yeah, maybe that would have been nice if it were actually in the movie. But it isn't. And moreover, it's not his classic origin; how many tantrums have you thrown out of fear that they were going to undermine Ben's death in Homecoming? And here you are explaining why Peter embraces the responsibility, and it has nothing to do with Uncle Ben. Classic.
It totally was. You saw it through the mask when Peter was watching the guy hug his son. The first time I saw the movie I knew what Webb was trying to convey