So it's been a couple days now since I saw The Amazing Spider-man and in that time I've been mulling things over.
I've been mulling over things like: Did I like it better than the Sam Raimi films? How did it compare? Who did I like better as Spider-man.
I've come to realize that I like them both equally in different ways.
My problem with the original Spider-man films was, as true to the heart of Spider-man as they were, they were kinda heavy. Drama in movies is a good thing. It keeps you emotionally divested in the story. I feel kinda depressed watching them at times, so they don't come out of the closet much. (By me. Sam on the other hand has them out all the time.) Also, because the films are really about Peter Parker and his dealing with being Spider-man as well as his life, there's a lot less time in the suit. That, for me, is why I watch a super-hero movie. I love being able to go and watch Spider-man be Spider-man.
Amazing on the other hand had a great balance of the drama with great amounts of action. Peter had the same problems, but it didn't seem to way me down as much as it did in the Sam Raimi films. It was still about Peter balancing being Spider-man and the problems it cause without depressing me, which the Raimi films seem to do. And Peter was Spider-man, quite a bit. Also it seemed to play up Peter's brilliance. Not that they didn't show Peter as smart in the original Spidey films, it just seemed to me to be downplayed. Peter invents his webshooters and seems to be using his smarts to take him where he needs to go. I didn't realize how much I missed it in the original films.
I found that I enjoyed Andrew Garfield's Spider-man, his Peter on the other hand had some problems to me. Other than the aforementioned smarts, both Toby Maguire's and Garfield's Peter could be construed as the same. They both had trouble talking to the girl and were socially awkward. Garfield's Spidey was different. Although both made jokes as Spidey, Garfield's seemed to be more Spidey-esque. The scene where he's swinging and cracking jokes about, "Can't you see I'm swinging here!" Made me think of something straight out of the comics. His dialogue when in the suit seemed to suit Spidey more than what I felt was forced joke from Macguire's Spidey. On the other hand I wasn't sure I liked his brooding, skateboard riding Peter. I know that they want him to be relevant to a current audience and I do think they balanced it quite well. I don't see that Peter being picked on. He looked like he fit in too well.
On the other hand, even though Garfield had the build of Spidey, it was hard for me to get past the suit. Even though it was close to Spider-man's classic suit, it just wasn't. I realize they were probably trying to differentiate their Spidey from the original, I think they would have been better suited to stick to the original design.
I think my biggest issue is the fact that's it's out already. Is it too soon? Yes. I think to put out this movie so soon after the very successful originals is just weird. I was okay when it was The Incredible Hulk, but Spider-man? Really? I thought that they were still pretty successful. Too much to reboot. Sure the third was not my favorite, but it was still better than most movies.
I realize that these may seem like nit picky things. It's hard when I really enjoyed, and had problems with, both incarnations of the beloved webhead. Both had their good and bad points and I'm not sure I can pick one over the other. If I want to watch something I can be emotionally divested in I'll probably pop in Spider-man. If I want something action filled and with a bit more humor I can see myself popping in Amazing. It might be my love of the character, but I can pick one of the other.
I've been mulling over things like: Did I like it better than the Sam Raimi films? How did it compare? Who did I like better as Spider-man.
I've come to realize that I like them both equally in different ways.My problem with the original Spider-man films was, as true to the heart of Spider-man as they were, they were kinda heavy. Drama in movies is a good thing. It keeps you emotionally divested in the story. I feel kinda depressed watching them at times, so they don't come out of the closet much. (By me. Sam on the other hand has them out all the time.) Also, because the films are really about Peter Parker and his dealing with being Spider-man as well as his life, there's a lot less time in the suit. That, for me, is why I watch a super-hero movie. I love being able to go and watch Spider-man be Spider-man.
Amazing on the other hand had a great balance of the drama with great amounts of action. Peter had the same problems, but it didn't seem to way me down as much as it did in the Sam Raimi films. It was still about Peter balancing being Spider-man and the problems it cause without depressing me, which the Raimi films seem to do. And Peter was Spider-man, quite a bit. Also it seemed to play up Peter's brilliance. Not that they didn't show Peter as smart in the original Spidey films, it just seemed to me to be downplayed. Peter invents his webshooters and seems to be using his smarts to take him where he needs to go. I didn't realize how much I missed it in the original films.
I found that I enjoyed Andrew Garfield's Spider-man, his Peter on the other hand had some problems to me. Other than the aforementioned smarts, both Toby Maguire's and Garfield's Peter could be construed as the same. They both had trouble talking to the girl and were socially awkward. Garfield's Spidey was different. Although both made jokes as Spidey, Garfield's seemed to be more Spidey-esque. The scene where he's swinging and cracking jokes about, "Can't you see I'm swinging here!" Made me think of something straight out of the comics. His dialogue when in the suit seemed to suit Spidey more than what I felt was forced joke from Macguire's Spidey. On the other hand I wasn't sure I liked his brooding, skateboard riding Peter. I know that they want him to be relevant to a current audience and I do think they balanced it quite well. I don't see that Peter being picked on. He looked like he fit in too well.
On the other hand, even though Garfield had the build of Spidey, it was hard for me to get past the suit. Even though it was close to Spider-man's classic suit, it just wasn't. I realize they were probably trying to differentiate their Spidey from the original, I think they would have been better suited to stick to the original design.
I think my biggest issue is the fact that's it's out already. Is it too soon? Yes. I think to put out this movie so soon after the very successful originals is just weird. I was okay when it was The Incredible Hulk, but Spider-man? Really? I thought that they were still pretty successful. Too much to reboot. Sure the third was not my favorite, but it was still better than most movies.
I realize that these may seem like nit picky things. It's hard when I really enjoyed, and had problems with, both incarnations of the beloved webhead. Both had their good and bad points and I'm not sure I can pick one over the other. If I want to watch something I can be emotionally divested in I'll probably pop in Spider-man. If I want something action filled and with a bit more humor I can see myself popping in Amazing. It might be my love of the character, but I can pick one of the other.
In it's "remake" defense, they did the origin part which was ten years ago. That's what I tell myself in order for it to seem ok to do.
ReplyDeleteBut overall, my biggest problem was that it did seem unnecessary. However, I feel like Amazing got all the characters down. Thats what puts it at the top for me. When we see Gwen for the first time, I thought "Dear lord. John Romita's Gwen Stacy is sitting right there". I felt the characterizing beat the first one's into the ground so Amazing gets my vote.