Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:19 pm**

This Spider-Man was the best ever!
Peter used his genius to create the web shooters and wasn't some stupid mutation.
It was just really well done.
Gwen Gwen Gwen....

I thought the first Spider-Man, despite the web shooter blasphemy, was great but this one blows it away.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:04 am**

That's really funny, considering
this...
and this...

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:24 am**

Well, what did you think of it?

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:09 pm**

Rigel wrote:That's really funny, considering
this...
and this...

That was awesome. I'm an instant fan of this guy now.

I haven't seen Amazing Spiderman yet. I thought it was ridiculous to remake something that was a decade or less old. How lazy, Hollywood. Why not "reboot" Titanic or the Star Wars prequels? Stupid.

I like how this guy focuses on character for his criticism. If a movie can't get the characters right (and apparently this one can't even get Spiderman right), then nothing will save it. While the guy may be wrong--like I said, I haven't seen it--his focus give him instant credibility with me.

The thought of Spiderman turning into a Twilight wannabe is just so bad.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:06 pm**

I haven't seen Amazing Spiderman yet. I thought it was ridiculous to remake something that was a decade or less old. How lazy, Hollywood. Why not "reboot" Titanic or the Star Wars prequels? Stupid.

They've already confirmed they're making it a trilogy, you know...

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:55 pm**

Spoiler

I saw it with my own two eyes.

Rhys Ifans, playing Dr Curt Connors, achieved mankind's noblest dream, our most sought after goal: to transcend our mammalian ancestry and become lizard men. He achieved this goal with the assistance of Peter Parker, who in turn received the knowledge he used to aid Connors from his father, who had worked with Dr Connors in the past.

When he began to turn green my eyes became moist.

When I saw his full manifestation, powerful briny waterfalls roared down my face in tribute to the tears that lizards were unable to cry for man at this glorious moment.

When he donned his labcoat I put my hand over my heart out of loyalty to his reptilian science.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:26 pm**

You guys suck.

Come on, in the comics they retell the origin story every few years too.

The casting was great as well.
Peter's aunt and uncle were fantastic.

Stan Lee's cameo made us all laugh out loud too.

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:08 am**

I'll be seeing it Tuesday; then I'll tell you guys what you should think about it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:21 am**

High Lord Tolkien wrote:You guys suck.

Come on, in the comics they retell the origin story every few years too.

One of the reasons I don't read the comics

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:27 pm**

I won't see this film in theaters but I might get it on DVD when it comes out. Maybe.

Comic books have to keep redefining--which is a nicer word than retconning--their characters every decade or so to stay relevant. That alone is why I will never get back into comic books again because if you have to keep redefining a character then you didn't create them correctly in the first place. Besides, the characters as they were originally created were snapshots of society at the time. Superman--he was an immigrant who realized his full potential. Batman--criminal organizations were running rampant in big cities during the 20s and 30s, so this character was created to scare the crap out of criminals and initially he didn't care if he killed them. Fantastic Four--a idealization of scientific exploration that resulted in amazing new abilities (as technology was transforming people's lives at the time). Spiderman--a teenager becoming and adult and trying to find his place in the world (a timeless story, to be sure).

Anyway...the point I am trying to make is that we need to quit redefining old characters and making them relevant to where we are now. Instead, why aren't people creating new superhero motifs that give us snapshots of where we are at this point in time? I say that even though I know some new ones have been created; however, the problem with many of the new ones is that, quite frankly, they suck. Where are the new stories that will last? No one is going to care about Deadpool in 30 years (meta-references to other comic books breaks the illusion of what you are reading--Spiderman should never reference Batman).

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:37 am**

Hashi,

I've long held the view that there are only about 35 stories that are there to be told. Think the Arabian Nights, Shakespeare, Dickens and so on; they ran out of juice after around 35.

Of course there are many variations of each storyline in context, time, personnel etc. but the basic story/plot stays the same. As a result the main protagonists stay largely similar: the victim heroine, the action heroine, the smart hero, the action hero, the charismatic leader, the sinister bad guy, the bad guy who's really good at heart and so on. We see the same in actors, as Willis takes over from Wayne, Arnie from Steve Reeves, Charlize from Sophia Loren, Ralph fiennes from Vincent Price.

I think the same principle goes for Superheroes; we take the same stories and the characters and rephrase them with different actors, and different (contemporary) contexts; the roles played are not genre specific. We also take advantage of the ability of technology to frame the heroes and the stories better..... people can fly these days without wires! The thing about heroes is that they embody principles and its harder to invent a new principle than it is to invent a new embodiment of it. The problem is to create a new embodiment that isn't going to be just a poor copy of the original

We might be able to create new heroes, but what we will find harder to create is the aspects that make them unique not just another Batman or Superman in another city with the same conflicted identity issues; Superman as you point out (rather astutely I might add), is an immigrant/refugee - a timeless personna.

The stories get retold with the same heroes and villains whether we are talking about Macbeth or Batman, King Lear or Odin or Oliver Twist and Harry Potter. Creating a new hero to be a contemporary symbol of today's world might not simply be impossible, but also unnecessary for once the gloss is peeled off, they are already there just waiting to be given a new set of wings.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:08 pm**

You are correct. I suppose I am simply being an old grouse because I don't like many of the stories that are being told these days.

As I was telling my daughter last weekend, the Three Musketeers has been remade at least once every decade since the 1920s.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:11 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:As I was telling my daughter last weekend, the Three Musketeers has been remade at least once every decade since the 1920s.

They make it more often than that. It's one tasty candy bar...

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:15 pm**

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:As I was telling my daughter last weekend, the Three Musketeers has been remade at least once every decade since the 1920s.
They make it more often than that. It's one tasty candy bar...

I prefer the mint-flavored one covered in dark chocolate. Very tasty!

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:05 pm**

We're probably due a Tarzan Re-dux....

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:16 pm**

Awesome flick, excellent re-boot. Kept close to tradition but still felt fresh.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:55 am**

HLT wrote:

Peter used his genius to create the web shooters and wasn't some stupid mutation.

Now I never read any of the comics, but this is a point I never understood with Spiderman. If his DNA changes giving him spider like abilities--incredible agility and strength, wall crawling...--why was web shooting not a part of that mutation???

I see validity for both explanations, but always thought it would have been better if the webs were a part of his body and not some contraption he designed from some innate understanding of enzymes, or whatever.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:34 pm**

Now I never read any of the comics, but this is a point I never understood with Spiderman. If his DNA changes giving him spider like abilities--incredible agility and strength, wall crawling...--why was web shooting not a part of that mutation???

Because the webs would have shot out of his ass?

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:52 pm**

Nice one, dlb!

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:40 am**

I finally saw this film last night, and I'll add myself to the minority here of people who'll actually watch and talk about the film in this thread.

I thought it was pretty good! One of the better superhero movies to date. Possibly better than Spider-Man, not quite as good as Spider-Man 2.

Little bothered by how very inevitable Gwen Stacy's dad dying was. As soon as he found out Spider-Man's identity I knew he was going to be killed. Having the police chief know exactly who Spider-Man is and being - to some degree - on his side isn't something that they'd carry through with.

I'll look forward to The Amazing Spider-Man 2 coming out in just under two weeks. Although the trailers for that make it seem like it may be a little crowded. (The trailer also hints at Dr Octopus appearing in the series at some point, with the mechanical arms appearing in an alcove of some kind of Oscorp mechanical-suit armory.)