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.
I was wrong about Ben not existing in Homecoming, I admit that. I could still dig into the ridiculous reasoning given for him not being in it, but as Joker said-- I'm treading carefully. Not trying to get back on probation.
But here's what I will say: Ben wasn't undermined in TASM, you still felt the impact he had on Peter throughout the whole movie. His reasoning for becoming Spider-Man was still the same: Ben's death. His death wasn't handled well in the movie, i'll give you that. I think what Webb was trying to get across is that learning the true meaning of what Uncle Ben was trying to tell him "If you could do great things for other people, you have a moral obligation to do those things. That's what's at stake here: not choice... Responsibility" (Even Homecoming is going down this route. The line "With Great Power" isn't even in the movie). TASM was decent, TASM2 was bad. That's where I stand
It totally wasn't. It simply came across as Peter trying to reassure a scared child in a dangerous situation, and the kid being embraced by the grateful parent. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Watch the scene and look at Spidey's body language, you can almost feel him:
And then it's followed up by the scene in Peter's room him oloking at his mask, thinking about the responsibility, the path he's going to take because of that kid. Je realizes he can help people, so they can never experience what he has experienced
Watch the scene and look at Spidey's body language, you can almost feel him.
And then it's followed up by the scene in Peter's room him oloking at his mask, thinking about the responsibility, the path he's going to take because of that kid. Je realizes he can help people, so they can never experience what he has experienced
I've seen the scene enough times to get a feel of what it's about. It's the first heroic act he does as Spider-Man, that's why they have the long staring shot of the him looking at the good he just did saving a kid and the father embracing him, and then turning around and asking Spidey who he is. Because now he's being established as a hero. Spider-Man saved my son. Followed by him looking at his mask is what is supposed to be the scene where he now decides for no reason at all that he is now going to be a hero using this Spider-Man persona. When this is something that should have happened the second Uncle Ben died and he realized it was his fault.
But that's just another hallmark story element the TASM movies took a big dump on.
I've seen the scene enough times to get a feel of what it's about. It's the first heroic act he does as Spider-Man, that's why they have the long staring shot of the him looking at the good he just did saving a kid and the father embracing him, and then turning around and asking Spidey who he is. Because now he's being established as a hero. Spider-Man saved my son. Followed by him looking at his mask is what is supposed to be the scene where he now decides for no reason at all that he is now going to be a hero using this Spider-Man persona. When this is something that should have happened the second Uncle Ben died and he realized it was his fault.
But that's just another hallmark story element the TASM movies took a big dump on.
He decides to become a hero because he realizes after saving the kid that he can help people, I guarantee you he's thinking about what Ben said in that moment. That's what Webb said in the commentary, dude.
He decides to become a hero because he realizes after saving the kid that he can help people, I guarantee you he's thinking about what Ben said in that moment. That's what Webb said in the commentary, dude.
I am well aware of what Marc Webb said. The problem is it doesn't come across that way in the scene. Hence why we shouldn't need the director to tell us what the character is thinking. The scene should convey that clearly. But it doesn't.
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
When I was debating with you how Uncle Ben undeniably had an effect on Holland's Peter, you tried to argue that the speech Peter gave Tony could have been about any number of things that aren't Uncle Ben. And you only conceded when I showed you the Russo brothers talking about that moment and saying it was a clear reference to Ben.
But here, you were able to read this moment and see what the character was feeling based on nothing other than the blank stare of an expressionless mask. If this isn't outright proof that you can't be objective about these films then I don't know what is.
I was wrong about Ben not existing in Homecoming, I admit that. I could still dig into the ridiculous reasoning given for him not being in it, but as Joker said-- I'm treading carefully. Not trying to get back on probation.
But here's what I will say: Ben wasn't undermined in TASM, you still felt the impact he had on Peter throughout the whole movie. His reasoning for becoming Spider-Man was still the same: Ben's death. His death wasn't handled well in the movie, i'll give you that. I think what Webb was trying to get across is that learning the true meaning of what Uncle Ben was trying to tell him "If you could do great things for other people, you have a moral obligation to do those things. That's what's at stake here: not choice... Responsibility" (Even Homecoming is going down this route. The line "With Great Power" isn't even in the movie). TASM was decent, TASM2 was bad. That's where I stand
There's no substantial change in Peter marked by Ben's death. They dropped the ball big time by making it mean almost nothing to the character's journey. That's the biggest insult to the mythos, and it makes no sense to me for someone so averse to changes from the source material to defend this moment.
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:
"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."
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:
"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.
When I was debating with you how Uncle Ben undeniably had an effect on Holland's Peter, you tried to argue that the speech Peter gave Tony could have been about any number of things that aren't Uncle Ben. And you only conceded when I showed you the Russo brothers talking about that moment and saying it was a clear reference to Ben.
Because everybody involved with the movie were practically preaching to ppl about how it wouldn't be an origin story. I originally saw it as nothing more than as a wink to fans because that's as far as I thought they originally intended on taking it.
But here, you were able to read this moment and see what the character was feeling based on nothing other than the blank stare of an expressionless mask. If this isn't outright proof that you can't be objective about these films then I don't know what is.
Because Ben is actually in the movie, had a big part & we actually SAW him impact Peter in a huge way.
There's no substantial change in Peter marked by Ben's death. They dropped the ball big time by making it mean almost nothing to the character's journey. That's the biggest insult to the mythos, and it makes no sense to me for someone so averse to changes from the source material to defend this moment.
There totally was, man. Him becoming a vigilante aka Spider-Man was because of Ben's death. That's what set him on that path/journey to realizing his purpose. That's why I don't have a problem with it because it was still the same basic origin story
I am well aware of what Marc Webb said. The problem is it doesn't come across that way in the scene. Hence why we shouldn't need the director to tell us what the character is thinking. The scene should convey that clearly. But it doesn't.
I don't know how you guys didn't feel Peter. Just because the mask doesn't have expressive eyes doesn't mean his emotions are unreadable. Both Garfield & Maguire did a great job of conveying what he was feeling through the mask. Powerful acting from Garfield to me.
I don't know how you guys didn't feel Peter. Just because the mask doesn't have expressive eyes doesn't mean his emotions are unreadable. Both Garfield & Maguire did a great job of conveying what he was feeling through the mask. Powerful acting from Garfield to me.
Some of you are saying that Ben set TASM Peter on his journey but I have yet to understand how. Please explain how that happened and what changed within the character because you're sending mixed signals. Apparently the moment on the bridge is when he became Spider-man, but that had nothing to do with Ben even by Harry's own omission.
Yeah I also don't see how it can be argued that the TASM origin is the same basic origin as the comics. In the comics Ben's death is the direct cause, the turning point to changing Peter into a hero. It doesn't set him on any convoluted path. He isn't (supposedly) thinking of his father whom he barely knew when he decides to turn hero. This is not the origin of Spider-Man.
The second Peter realizes Ben wouldn't be dead if he had stopped the thief, that is the defining point of Spider-Man's life. It is THE moment that defines him and who he is. It is that which makes him decide to be a hero and use his powers responsibly. It doesn't set him off on a vigilante revenge quest. The reason why they never say the with great power line in TASM is probably because it's not an origin story where it fits. Peter doesn't learn about responsibility from Uncle Ben's death.
They also missed out on that great transition of showing Peter using his powers for shallow reasons like making money, into using them as a hero.
Yeah I also don't see how it can be argued that the TASM origin is the same basic origin as the comics. In the comics Ben's death is the direct cause, the turning point to changing Peter into a hero. It doesn't set him on any convoluted path. He isn't (supposedly) thinking of his father whom he barely knew when he decides to turn hero. This is not the origin of Spider-Man.
The second Peter realizes Ben wouldn't be dead if he had stopped the thief, that is the defining point of Spider-Man's life. It is THE moment that defines him and who he is. It is that which makes him decide to be a hero and use his powers responsibly. It doesn't set him off on a vigilante revenge quest. The reason why they never say the with great power line in TASM is probably because it's not an origin story where it fits. Peter doesn't learn about responsibility from Uncle Ben's death.
They also missed out on that great transition of showing Peter using his powers for shallow reasons like making money, into using them as a hero.
It's like Man of Steel in that the story is running through the motions of the origin and has all the texture of being a proper character arc but once you look under the hood you realize that there's no actual change or substantial journey.
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.
Uncle Ben was definitely cut out in favor of Peter's parents in ASM-2. I should have been more clear when I made that statement in my post.
I think the overall message of Peter learning responsibility was indeed there in ASM however it wasn't executed well imo. I still think ASM is a decent movie but unfortunately the sequel pretty much killed anything that was good in the first entry, even literally, by killing off Emma's Gwen.
Here's my main issue: With Uncle Ben's presence in the first movie, the lesson about responsibility isn't one that Ben teaches Peter. When Ben talks to Peter about being responsible he uses Richard as the example of what it means to be responsible. He states it pretty clearly, "your father lived by a philosophy, a principle about doing good for others. About being responsible.'
So, it really isn't about Ben's actions nor his words when he speaks to Peter, he's just relaying Richard's message. That right there takes away from the importance of Ben in the mythos and instead gives it to Richard.
I've stated this many times over but I don't really have an issue with including the mystery of Peter's parents as a subplot in these movies. However when it drops Uncle Ben completely and also diminishes his value and importance to Peter and the message of responsibility--the entire mantra of Spider-Man and why he chooses to become the hero in the first place, well, that's an incredible disservice to the character.
They also did absolutely nothing interesting with the parent's subplot. It was drawn out over two movies when it could have been wrapped up in one and it was boring and the reveal was lame. If that wasn't enough of a detractor, the parent's subplot had another negative when it took yet another shot at the origin. Richard was infusing Peter's DNA into the spiders he was working on, thus creating this 'pre-destiny' crap about Peter becoming Spider-Man. That was and imo never should be a part of the origin.
Doing the whole 'Monday morning quarterback' on this situation, they never should have gone with the origin again with ASM. Many of the changes came off as contrived--change for the sake of change, only to try and be different from SM1. When you make changes, as all adaptations do, it's supposed to be in service of the story or as a progression for the characters. ASM fails in this regard, imo.
Some of you are saying that Ben set TASM Peter on his journey but I have yet to understand how. Please explain how that happened and what changed within the character because you're sending mixed signals. Apparently the moment on the bridge is when he became Spider-man, but that had nothing to do with Ben even by Harry's own omission.
True. I just want to know what answer could possibly exist, and how people who rail against Homecoming's version of the origin that we haven't even seen yet could possibly defend what is arguably the worst moment in any Spider-man film thus far.
Time for the conclusion of my Spider-Man marathon, and there is only one proper point to end it; THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2.
*INTRO:
This is an infamous movie, some many consider it to be the worst Spider-Man flick, it's hard to find a single unifying theme in it, and like its predecessor, it was advertised as something different from what we were given. Where do I stand from this point? For a while it stood as my favorite Spider-Man movie, I understand that the lows in it are down, this has some glaring issues that didn't sour the experience for me, but when I think about it, it's hard for me to hate on a Spider-Man story.
I wanted to see Jonah Jameson in this sequel or the sequel to it, we didn't get that.
I wanted James Horner to return as the composer, but instead we got Hans Zimmer and some band I never heard of before, I keep forgetting their name. I like what Zimmer did, but I liked his work less than I liked that of Horner.
I wanted a sequel to this, but we won't have one cause this one sunk pretty bad, it ended up being the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie of all time, grossing less than most of the other comic book movies released the same year.
We got what we got, and that's the end of it.
Instead of going straight to making a full on commentary, I will start by outlining the flaws, and maybe some personal gripes I have with this.
Richard Parker killed all the genetically manipulated spiders he worked on, his son getting bit by one feels like it doesn't make sense in the context of this script.
Locking a stall from the outside.
Almost no mention of Doctor Curtis Connors, the movie feels like it ignores him in favor of making Richard work straight with Norman Osborn as his main lab partner.
The dialogue exchange between Harry and his father is a jumbled mess, it's awkward.
"I'm dying Spider-Man, I need to import Star Trek Into Darkness blood of Doctor Strange Kahnplot to survive."
Harry Osborn was to be taken out of his office, by security guards working for him. The company owner kicked out for reason of....
How did they build the subway cart lab and elevator? Who maintained it all these years to work just fine for when Peter comes? I'm not suspending my disbelief on that one.
Harry took out two fully trained security guards, the guy with hands shaking from a disease did that.
There were still some spiders living with whatever Spidey's dad did to them after all these years.
Poor performance from Dane DeHaan at some points.
Max and Alexi are Looney Tunes character in a movie that is meant to be serious. "SAY KELLO TO ALEXI SYTSEVIC. AAAHHAAAAHHAAAHHAAHH" Who was he talking to?
The huge shift in tone from the previous movie, and a huge step up in strength for Spidey.
Gwen knows too much about OsCorp for an intern.
I won't extend to find more wrong than there already is, I'm not CinemaSins, and I'm not a ticked angry fan who thinks Peter is a *****e in this movie, he's not.
I saw this film for a second time yesterday (following the ugly first and only time I've seen in theaters back then) and it is not as bad as I remember.
No, it is not great. And no, it is not bad.
The villains is everything that is wrong with this film because I think the love story, the chemistry between them, Aunt May, and Peter himself are all very, very well executed. It is such a shame that they wasted all those interesting character dynamics with some awful cartoonish villains.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
