At 7/5/12 07:20 PM, tarahloveshentai wrote: I thought it was shit. Tried too hard to be funny, changed too much stuff from the original comic storyline and re-vamped Peter Parker's personality so he can fit along with the other douches in the Avengers.

Avengers clones all sucked cunt

In that case, I have some good news for you. The people who own that movie say they have no intention to have Spider-Man be in any future Avengers movie. I'm disappointed by that, because they went through all the trouble of getting a reboot, and I thought that was the reason why they even did it.

At 7/14/12 11:26 AM, Ericho wrote:

In that case, I have some good news for you. The people who own that movie say they have no intention to have Spider-Man be in any future Avengers movie. I'm disappointed by that, because they went through all the trouble of getting a reboot, and I thought that was the reason why they even did it.

Different companies own the rights to the films. Seeing Spider-man in the Avengers, would be like seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in the same cartoon.

i dont get why the fuck they keep making these spiderman movies when italian spiderman is obviously the best choice for a new hollywood spiderman movie

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Amazing Spider-man makes 200 million in its second week.

I didn't like it nearly as much as the original.

As an action movie, it does okay. Cool fight scenes, a hot chick who the main character gets to make out with a lot, etc. But as a superhero movie, it's bland. It's largely based on things laid out by the original, so there is hardly any development to anything. The characters are boring, forgettable, and unimportant. The crisis is extremely generic, and the conclusion is underwhelming.

Spiderman was an extremely iconic movie, with real characters who cared about each other and interacted with sincerity. Not a perfect movie by any means, but a true superhero movie with meaningful developments. The Amazing Spiderman is cold in comparison, a forgettable action movie that I would never watch a second time.

At 7/17/12 05:01 PM, Cootie wrote: Still, he isn't as cheesy as the Green Goblin was.

Cheesy? I thought he was an excellent villain, a true evil comic book bad guy. Willem Dafoe's dramatic performance is enjoyable every time I watch the movie.

I found the special effects of The Amazing Spiderman far cheesier than anything in the original. I nearly laughed at the stretching of the Lizard's mouth every time he talked.

At 7/17/12 07:22 PM, Tremulos wrote: Spiderman was an extremely iconic movie, with real characters who cared about each other and interacted with sincerity.

Although I should note that this is in no way meant as a compliment to the acting of the original. That is one thing that the new one has better.

The rarely ever seen triple post.

Now the the Amazing Spider-man has dominated the box office. Who will be the enemy in part two?

I thought it was a great movie. I didn't care for the crane scene very much but I thought everything else was great.

With all the talk about Norman Osborn but no actual appearances by him I think it's safe to say we're getting a sequel.

At 7/17/12 07:42 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

Who will be the enemy in part two?

Obviously the mysterious man who appears in the post credits scene covered by the shadows. I'm pretty that's Norman Osborn.

At 7/17/12 07:42 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Now the the Amazing Spider-man has dominated the box office. Who will be the enemy in part two?

Alistair Smythe. I hope so, anyways. (He's in the video game based on this film and is confirmed by the new canon to be an OsCorp employee)

As for my opinion on the film, I loved it. Even the terrible Lizard design and nonsensical mess about Peter's parents was alright. The movie was really slick and did everything it needed to do with very little fluff. It even kept true to the comics and showed Peter to be somewhat of a genius, unlike the Raimi trilogy. Emma Stone did much better as Gwen Stacy than Kirsten Dunst did as Mary Jane. I was honestly cynical about the film until I saw it. I didn't see the need for a reboot this soon, but it was pretty great.

At 7/17/12 09:35 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote:

At 7/17/12 07:42 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Now the the Amazing Spider-man has dominated the box office. Who will be the enemy in part two?

Alistair Smythe. I hope so, anyways. (He's in the video game based on this film and is confirmed by the new canon to be an OsCorp employee)

It would be interesting to see Spider-man versus the Spider Slayers.

At 7/5/12 12:19 PM, Ultimatezpider wrote: So I just saw the amazing spiderman movie yesterday and I thought the movie was awesome. But when I saw the movie review by IGN I saw that they didnt give it a good score but I still knew it was going to be cool, So I went and the movie was very good. What do you guys think of the movie, Did you think it was cool? or Did you think it was lame?.

I had to point this out: See the poster? Look at his wrist, and it has a blue tack sort of thing. Anyone have anything to say about this?

At 7/24/12 05:04 AM, Equally-Sane wrote: Look at his wrist, and it has a blue tack sort of thing. Anyone have anything to say about this?

Consistent with the movie. Different versions of Spiderman don't always grant Spidey the ability to shoot webs naturally.

I saw it, and I thought it was okay. It was more fascinating than entertaining.

I watched it the other day, and really enjoyed it.

This spiderman can move more like a ninja xD

i thought it was pretty meh

At 7/14/12 01:21 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Different companies own the rights to the films. Seeing Spider-man in the Avengers, would be like seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in the same cartoon.

They were both in "who framed roger rabbit?"

At 7/5/12 01:27 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 7/5/12 01:01 PM, simon wrote:

"Tropic Thunder" is a good comedy movie but "Saving Private Ryan" is a classic.

Tropic Thunder is NOT a good comedy movie!

At 7/24/12 05:24 PM, sleeeeep wrote:

At 7/5/12 01:27 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 7/5/12 01:01 PM, simon wrote:

"Tropic Thunder" is a good comedy movie but "Saving Private Ryan" is a classic.

Tropic Thunder is NOT a good comedy movie!

Tropic Thunder is the only film that Tom Cruise does not play himself.

At 7/5/12 12:42 PM, Baby-Bottle-Bob wrote: Fuck IGN. I dont never base whether I'm gonna watch a movie or not on IGN dumbass ratings.

I completely agree with you, dude.

i loved the romance in this movie, I think emma stone and the guy who played spiderman portrayed it perfectly. It made me think of the girl I like, did anyone else have a similar experience?

Regardless of anything else in the movie I'll just be waiting to see if they do the whole Gwen Stacy/Green Goblin thing right.

And no I'm not talking about her sleeping with him, christ knows what the writers were smoking.

At 7/25/12 03:10 AM, Protagonist wrote: Green Goblin isn't in this one dude.

I'm aware, I'm saying I hope they do it right in the future. I expect I wasn't the only one disappointed by the "Yay, everything's fine!" resolution of the bridge scene in the first movie.

At 7/14/12 01:21 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Different companies own the rights to the films. Seeing Spider-man in the Avengers, would be like seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in the same cartoon.

Maybe it could be a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" scenario then? Anyway, speaking of Mickey Mouse, Marvel is currently owned by Disney but they apparently don't own the same movie rights, so maybe Disney isn't as powerful as people think it is.

Ha the times, this used to be my old newgrounds account.

I thought it was okay. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll just list the good and bad points for this movie:

Good:
1: Andrew Garfield does a fantastic job playing Peter Parker.
2: Gwen Stacy seems really smart and believable.
3: The Lizard was, while a tad bit under-written, was still great to see on the big screen.

Bad:
1: The pacing in the first act of the movie is TERRIBLE. It's like they just wanted Peter into that Spidey suit as soon as possible.
2: The Lizard himself looks like if the director just vomited all over the screen. While his presence is definitely felt, he doesn't look all that good.
3: There's just no real motivation to watch the movie all the way through, because with every superhero movie, the hero wins, and that's it.

It's a pity movies can't be like comic books, where they simply have any kind of crossover they want. I'm serious, Superman has had crossovers with Spider-Man, Bugs Bunny, Alien, Predator, He-Man, the Nesquik Bunny, EVERYONE! I only hope they never make a full movie like that, it would be as dumb as those comics. Of course, hopefully, they'd make it work.

At 7/26/12 10:45 AM, Ericho wrote: It's a pity movies can't be like comic books, where they simply have any kind of crossover they want.

I agree with you. I am glad that The Avengers was the first movie to take a step in this direction. Four Super Heroes from four different films all in the same film.

Now I want to see more!