A Fans Take On Why THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Was A Missed Opportunity

A Fans Take On Why THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Was A Missed Opportunity

MrSpock explains why he feels The Amazing Spider-Man was a missed opportunity

Editorial Opinion
By Khan - Apr 18, 2013 03:04 AM EST
Filed Under: Fan Fic



The Amazing Spider-Man swung into theatres in July of last year, the film wads greeted with much success from critics and fans alike, but then there were the bunch of people who felt the film was missing something, heart? Compassion? A purpose?. Now let me explain this first and foremost, I am a huge The Amazing Spider-Man fan, I saw the movie at midnight and have loved the film ever since, this is just my take on why it could have been so much more, let us begin:



Back in early 2010, Sony released a statement, which claimed that the Spider-Man franchise would be rebooted and started all over again, fans were outraged but some like myself saw the bright side of it. Sony a couple of weeks later released a press release explaining that the film would be “darker and more edgy, similar to Batman Begins” this statement got me so pumped, I was over the moon, finally we would have a awesome Spider-Man movie. A week later Sony announced that Marc Webb would be directing, me being 12 at the time had no idea who he was and didn’t care, I was just happy we were seeing a new Spider-Man movie. Sony later released another statement saying the series would be a younger take on the series sending the hero back to high school, this got me even more excited. Now if any one know me they would know that the next article will be very tough for me to talk about, Why you ask? Because in this next article I will criticize The Amazing Spider-Man… Oh god I sound like Grif already.



With The Amazing Spider-Man being confirmed to be a new take on Spider-Man and sending the hero back to high school this got me thinking, who will be the new Spider-Man? Will it be Logan Lerman? Will it be Taylor Lautner? These questions all came to my mind. Sony released a list with 5 actors who were in final talks to play the role. Those actors were Logan Lerman, Aaron Johnson, Andrew Garfield, Jamie Bell and Josh Hutcherson. Garfield was cast. I was very annoyed I mean I still am. I have a man-crush on Andrew Garfield, trust me we all have one, whether it’s Stan Lee’s man crush on Robert Downey Jr or Levitikuz’s man crush on Ron Perlman and the entire Hellboy series, we all have a man crush and I’m about to criticize mine.



When Sony said they would be taking a much younger take on Spider-Man, casting 27 year old was not how I thought they would do it. I honestly thought Logan Lerman was the PERFECT choice for Peter Parker, he had the look down and the awkwardness that Parker needed, I was all for Lerman to play him, and a little other thing had me excited for Lerman as well, the fact that he was 19 at the time. So instead of casting a young actor to portray a young Peter Parker what do Sony do? They cast a 27 year old to play a 19-year-old Peter Parker, thumbs up Sony! Thumbs up! Now I loved Andrew’s performance in The Amazing Spider-Man, but that does not mean I wouldn’t have loved to see a different movie. Now like many other on CBM, I thought we would finally get a high school Spider-Man movie we could be proud of, we would maybe get shots of Peter sitting alone in the lunch hall, but no what do we get? We get a good looking, skate boarding, well-dressed, teenage loser. I’m sorry stuff like that doesn’t happen. If Andrew were going to appear in the new Spider-Man series, I would have loved him to play Harry Osborn. He has the rich boy looks to play Osborn. Imagine a dream world where we would have Logan Lerman as Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield as Harry Osborn, Emma Stone as Mary Jane Watson. It would’ve been perfect! So now I’m going to explain one of the worse parts of TASM. The origin and villain



What was the point of rebooting Spider-Man 10 years after the first one came out? I mean Batman Begins was a reboot nearly 20 years after the first Batman movie came out, Man Of Steel is a reboot almost 40 years after the first Superman movie came out. Those reboots? I’m cool with but when you reboot a franchise 10 years after the first you better make some drastic differences. Personally I thought they were doing a good job, having Gwen Stacy the love interest, Lizard as the baddie I was liking it. Then I saw the movie.. Now after almost 40 views of The Amazing Spider-Man, I am one to agree with my opinion, the origin was pointless, like dear god was it pointless. They introduced pointless characters like the Indian man, instead of having important characters like Martha Conners or Billy Conners. The film seriously missed the mark.



With the story, when Richard Parker and Mary Parker were announced I was so pumped, I thought they would do a Hulk (2003) style origin, where Richard needs to use a thing on Peter and Peter has the spider thing inside him the whole time, but what do we get? An origin story literally shot for shot from the original. Now I understand how Spider-Man (2002) and The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) are based on comic books that came decades before the films so in the end they are copying the books. But when you (Sony) say you are doing a new take on the character, retelling the same origin with different characters is not the way to do it. A lot of people hate the Ultimate series, but me I love it. And that retold the origin of Spider-Man from Amazing Fantasy #15, but it captured the high school hell that is being a teenage loser. So why didn’t TASM copy that? Why didn’t they go the Ultimate route? Sure there are some scenes that are the exact same (Uncle Ben’s speech to Peter) but then there are scenes and shots that are the exact same (Uncle Ben tries to stop a man with a gun). In The Ultimate version of Uncle Ben’s death, Uncle Ben is killed in his own home, that would have made for a much more emotional story and more emotional confrontation between Spidey and his uncle’s killer as appose to what TASM gave us, a dropped storyline.



Let me touch on the villain, was it just me or did The Lizard feel really butchered in this movie? I mean I love The Lizard, and I thought Rhys Ifans did a marvelous job with what he was given (what he was given was Norman Osborn rewrites) why didn’t Conners have his family in it? Why was the Indian man in it instead of Norman Osborn? When Lizard was announced for the movie I thought of an origin where Norman demands Conners create the Lizard formula before a certain date, after failing the date Norman fires him, Conners then could have used the formula on himself and had a vendetta against Osborn, making out like he was the bad guy and going to Oscorp Tower to kill Osborn not turn the city into Lizards. It would have been a much more mature storyline rather than a cartoon story that is “turn the city into lizards”, if Lizard got to Osborn I think the audience would have actually gave a shit about Lizard and seen his side of the story as appose to the wooden character we seen in TASM

Sorry for going on for so long but that’s all the complaining I have to do with The Amazing Spider-Man, I love the movie but this is what I would have done had I been given the chance.
About The Author:
Khan
Member Since 12/17/2011
"I shall leave you as you left me... With herpies"
DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created Infinite Crisis Video
Related:

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created "Infinite Crisis" Video
Carrie Leaked First Look Reveals Summer H. Howell As The Troubled Telekinetic Teen
Recommended For You:

Carrie Leaked First Look Reveals Summer H. Howell As The Troubled Telekinetic Teen

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 4/18/2013, 4:34 AM
Freshman year for me was Raimi's first Spider-man. It gets better (hopefully).
Lindsey35
Lindsey35 - 4/18/2013, 4:37 AM
Good points bro.
Although, I totally disagree with your thoughts for Logan L. to have played Peter. I thought Andrew hit everything perfectly.
Watch out, you'll probably get blasted for being so young; haters will probably say crap like you don't know anything about Spider-Man and whatever, and that probably is not true whatsoever.
TASM is my favorite comic book movie EVER 'cause Spidey's my favorite superhero!
Although you brought some really nice points to the table, (the Lizard for one) the film really isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. I for one think it's a fine movie with brilliant acting, a solid plot, and stunning action.
Besides making Lizard a little more interesting, I wouldn't change a thing.
Spideyguy94
Spideyguy94 - 4/18/2013, 5:53 AM
@LEVI I'd advise against it, The movie has been talked about, analysed and broken down by most people, so all of its problems and everything that could be said about it has been said. Lets all just hope the sequel is good and move on
EdgyOutsider
EdgyOutsider - 4/18/2013, 6:03 AM
Andrew Garfield was the best choice for the role and he nailed it perfectly. Actually, the Peter portrays in the movie can be accurate. I know a few school outcasts who are good looking (no homo) and ride skateboards. Therefore, it does happen. Martha and Billy weren't in the movie cause they didn't fit with the storyline and I was okay with it, The Lizard is my all time favorite villain and even though they would've gave him more depth, they weren't necessary to the story. Lizard wasn't butchered. As far as Uncle Ben's killer goes, that wasn't a dropped storyline. That storyline ended on the bridge after he saved Jacks life. I like the idea of him not finding the character, it gives him guilt that the killer is on the loose and he couldn't bring him to justice. Therefore, he would protect New York to ensure they don't suffer like he did and it gives him a reason to be a hero. The Amazing Spider-Man is the best and my personal favorite of the Wall Crawlers movies. I hope Webb comes back for the third and that the second delivers. [frick] Rhino, he's not interesting enough to be in a movie and now they've made Electro interesting, they need to do another first for him. Give him entertaining fight scenes. This new trilogy won't top the original trilogy (which I adore) if they screw it up early in the ball game.
AC1
AC1 - 4/18/2013, 6:31 AM
On the one hand, you make some interesting points. On the other hand, I disagree with most of your article.

For one thing, Andrew Garfield NAILED the role of Peter Parker - he's a far better actor than Lerman for one thing, and his acting makes you believe he's a highschooler (well, it made me believe that at least). He's very fresh-faced, and doesn't look like he's almost 30. He looks a little older than the role should've been, but that happens in most teen-movies so it was easy to get past. I don't see any of the necessary qualities in Garfield to play Harry Osborn - if he had, it would've just been him playing the dude from The Social Network again.

As for how his Peter dressed and acted - that actually DOES happen these days. These days, most highschoolers/college kids don't just judge on looks, because personality counts too. So Peter, who never tried to socialise with other kids, and always clashed with Flash, would obviously be an outcast. He's not a loser, and he seems to be a loner by choice, but getting his ass handed to him all the time by Flash can't help. Plus, Peter in this series seems to have a lot of trust and abandonment issues resulting from his parents' disappearances, so it makes sense that he'd have trouble connecting and making friends. It all fits together rather well.

Emma Stone was also excellent as Gwen, and I'm glad she played that role, because she's a really likable screen presence - not only does she have great chemistry with Garfield, but she's interesting to watch in her own right. As a bi-product of this, Gwen's eventual death will be all the more tragic (After watching the film I remember hoping to myself that they'd let Gwen live through the series, which is exactly why her casting was a good thing, and is exactly why she shouldn't survive).

As for Uncle Ben's death, that was handled well too. For one thing, the comic version (he gets shot in his own home) makes little sense, because why does the burglar leave May alone? Logically, he's shoot them both, which is how the audience would see it, but then of course Aunt May would die too. In Raimi's version, he's carjacked, and Peter finds him after he's already been shot without seeing the carjacker do it. Peter chases the carjacker and realises he was responsible because he let him get away. In this version, it happens right in front of Peter (shop rather than carjacking), and he realises it was his responsibility immediately. This is why it also doesn't matter that he doesn't find the murderer - he already knew he was responsible, so it would've just been for revenge. Captain Stacy's comment in the dinner scene confirms this, and it makes Peter realise that his responsibility is to use his powers to help people, not for a personal vendetta.

Making it an origin story was a good thing. It completely distanced it from the original trilogy, and set up a very different take on the Spider-Man story. Having Peter's parents appear is very important in this regard, as it sets up not only Peter's insecurities and flaws, but also the notion of Oscorp being the villains of the series and Osborn being behind the scenes of most of the bad events in Peter's life.

I agree that Dr Ratha was handled rather poorly, or at least should have been treated like the minor character he turned out to be, rather than setting him up as a villain. Through him it was made really obvious that parts of the film had been cut. But he was also necessary, because they needed a go-between character for Norman Osborn, and they (quite cleverly) wrote him as being so ill that he couldn't appear personally - this gives him a sense of mystery and power, in that we know he's a threat but don't see him, while his illness gives him a reason to have Conners work on the Lizard serum in the first place, making the Lizard a justified character, and also giving Osborn a reason to take the formula and eventually become Green Goblin.

Lizard was also a very clever choice of villain for the symbolism he suggests: both Conners and Parker are searching for a 'missing piece of themselves', and their place in the world. In Conners' case, the 'missing piece' is his arm, and through it the respect he feels he deserves. This then leads to finding his place, through his plan - he realises that by turning everyone into Lizards then there would be no illness, no injury, and no prejudice (based on looks or disabilities), because everyone would look the same and heal from injuries. In theory, Conners is actually right, in that turning everyone into Lizards may indeed be beneficial to them, but he's wrong because he's forcing it on them rather than letting them choose, so he's a morally grey villain. That means a hell of a lot more than the cliche of a monster trying to kill his maker.

As for Peter, his 'missing piece' is the loss of his parents, and not knowing what happened to them. He appreciates Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and values them as stand-ins, but he isn't fully satisfied that they can fill that void. Through Conners, he finds another link to his father, thus helping to fill the void a bit more. His Uncle's death makes him truly realise how good he and his Aunt were to him, and becoming Spider-Man makes him realise that, while he can't bring his parents or his Uncle back, he can provide that for others by keeping them safe whenever possible, thus finding his place in the world.

TASM is my favourite superhero movie, in part because Spider-Man is my favourite Marvel character (and third favourite Superhero, after Batman and Superman) but also because it's a very well made movie for the most part. It has its stupid moments (Lizard leaving his plan on the screen for example), and you can tell in places that it was hastily edited for some reason, but mostly it's a very well written, well directed and mostly well acted film that captures the spirit and essential qualities of Spider-Man without repeating all the things that can be avoided.
Odin
Odin - 4/18/2013, 7:23 AM
Great article. I agree with in most points. But seriously, ENOUGH with the [frick]ing Spiderman-movie-articles already, can't we just agree that, which SM-movie you ever like; it's a matter of opinion and taste, people like different things (in movies). Still, your editoral is very good.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 4/18/2013, 10:00 AM
ACira, you're usually the voice of reason.... What happened? ;)
JorEllinator
JorEllinator - 4/18/2013, 11:56 AM
I think Lerman would be a perfect Tim Drake, not Spidey.
Lindsey35
Lindsey35 - 4/18/2013, 12:27 PM
LEVITIKUZ

As long as I can remember, ACira has always defended TASM...you're just now noticing this...? :P :P :P
Lindsey35
Lindsey35 - 4/18/2013, 12:30 PM
"TASM is my favourite superhero movie, in part because Spider-Man is my favourite Marvel character"

'in part because Spider-Man is my favourite Marvel character'

...I think he was perfectly clear. Just because TASM is the worst movie ever in YOUR opinion doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's terrible, too, LEVITIKUZ.
TheSuperguy
TheSuperguy - 4/18/2013, 3:47 PM
TASM wasn't great, but I think it was a good enough start. If TASM2 improves on the flaws of the first, then I will be alright the fact that they rebooted. Plus, I can't wait to see if TASM2 has any references to the MCU. Probably not, but a fan can hope.
DeanVanHalen
DeanVanHalen - 4/19/2013, 4:53 AM
Agree 100% Fantastic article, sums up EVERY single complaint I have about the film. Great article Mr Spock
Lindsey35
Lindsey35 - 4/19/2013, 5:57 AM
It's still not as bad as some people make it out to be, though... Personally, I think it's a near perfect Spider-Man film.
RobGrizzly
RobGrizzly - 4/19/2013, 2:59 PM
Nice article.
But you don't need to speculate or make guesses on why ASM missed the mark. I can help. As someone who was lukewarm on the film, I can simply tell you:

As a superhero movie, it lacked an identity of its own.

So here's the story; I was so mixed about what to think the months going into ASM. On one hand, I hated the idea of a reboot because it was so few years after the LAST movie, not the first. Also, I knew they were only doing it because Raimi wasn't making part 4 for them. It was all just about the cash cow for Sony, and not about the character, because, let's be honest- Spider-Man and his tales came out just fine in the original trilogy. (Mostly) It wasn't a disaster that needed saving like what happened to the Superman or Batman series. Spiderman was as popular as ever.

But on the other hand, I kind of liked the idea of a darker take. Raimi's movies, I admit, were always so loud and colorful, and kind of...kiddie for me. I get that. That's the character. Kids should enjoy it too, not just broody ol me. But I couldn't help thinking about what this movie could get right (web shooters, jokes, etc) that maybe Raimi missed. It'd take a more grounded NY over a more fantastical one any day. I even wrote an article about my optimism:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Grizzly/news/?a=54283

Then the movie came out, and I was grossly underwhelmed. You are right about the origin (barely explored) and the Villain (Lizard is lame to me anyway). But there were a lot of little things too. Peter's bad attitude. How they did the death of Ben, an underused Aunt May and the action didn't have the same amount of flare. Tonally, the movie film had no identity. This one is hard to explain, but its the conundrum of how..the same it feels..except for when it makes changes- for the sake of making changes..
I wrote a comparison article about that too:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Grizzly/news/?a=64112

To me Amazing Spider-Man was so "I've seen this before, so what was the point?" and that was the problem. But I totally get people who liked it- its not a bad movie. Its just forgettable to me. It literally never comes up in any of my CBM conversations. So I appreciate your view on the matter. And I can only hope, with the backstory out of the way, Amazing Spider-Man 2 can be as good a sequel as most CBM are starting to get nowadays.

Good job!
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Auto Racing

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder