The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

Yup, he had parents. He had to have had parents to have been born.

Can you point out the comic book that the parents appear from 1970 to 1989?

[sephiroth61787]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Can you point out the comic book that the parents appear from 1970 to 1989?

Not sure why you're restricting it to that time frame, but here you go:

[Show spoiler]

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

Not sure why you're restricting it to that time frame, but here you go:

[Show spoiler]

I was responding to someone who said this modernized reboot was closer what Spider-Man was to him in the 70's and 80's. That Parker Parents backstory was a 90s comic.

Prior to The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 (published in 1968), there had been no explanation of why Peter Parker was an orphan and was raised by his aunt and uncle. That issue finally answered the question. Richard and Mary Parker only appeared in brief flashbacks in the story.

For many more years, the characters appeared only in flashbacks and photographs. However, in The Amazing Spider-Man #365 (August 1992), Spider-Man's 30th anniversary, they reappeared. Two years later, in #388 (April 1994) they were revealed to be robots created by the Chameleon and were destroyed.

In July 1997, Untold Tales of Spider-Man #-1, part of Marvel Comics' "Flashback Month" event, written by Roger Stern and drawn by John Romita, Sr., expanded the characters' origins. Since then, they have rarely been mentioned except in passing.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Can you point out the comic book that the parents appear from 1970 to 1989?

No, and that isn't my point. The tone is more correct, Parker's characterization is more correct... heck, pretty much everything except the suit is pretty spot on.

I said it was closer... not exact. Don't mismanage my words, please, to try and make an invalid point.

[bookcase]

Does anyone know whether the 3D version comes with a lenticular slip?

[klauswhereareyou]

I always thought Peter Parker worked better without the whole parents being spies backstory presented in the 90's. Just another stupid mid-90's gimmick like killing off Aunt May and Clone Spidey!

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

Better than having MJ constantly be the damsel in distress. At least Gwen DID SOMETHING.

Good God that got old! If I wouldve had to watch her scream and fall again I'd go nuts!

Part of me wanted her to be killed off in the 2nd films some how so they could move on. THAT and I was getting sick and tired of the "off and on, off and on, off and on" relationship they had.

[sephiroth61787]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

I was responding to someone who said this modernized reboot was closer what Spider-Man was to him in the 70's and 80's. That Parker Parents backstory was a 90s comic.

I knew it was a comic from the 90s, but you seemed to be indicating that they've never tackled the parent's backstory in the comics, which they have.

Originally Posted by retablo

No, and that isn't my point. The tone is more correct, Parker's characterization is more correct... heck, pretty much everything except the suit is pretty spot on.

This. Agreed.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Does anyone know whether the 3D version comes with a lenticular slip?

Martin (reviewer) just told me it is LENTICULAR.

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Martin (reviewer) just told me it is LENTICULAR.

Glad to see that. Love slips.

Too bad the 3D didn't get a great score. I actually liked the 3D in theaters, but I suppose it wasn't used to the full potential like with Prometheus. Hopefully I will enjoy it as much in my home as I did in theaters.

[Rizor]

Reading those reviews, I'll probably end up with the 2D release unless the 3D disc is only $5 more on release day.

[Edword]

Can't wait to add the steelbook to my collection!

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by retablo

No, and that isn't my point. The tone is more correct, Parker's characterization is more correct... heck, pretty much everything except the suit is pretty spot on.

I said it was closer... not exact. Don't mismanage my words, please, to try and make an invalid point.

Amazing is a reboot and modernization of Spider-Man. How is this closer to the original book nerd, no parents, friendly neighborhood, version?

The "tone" is a Nolanesque take.

Again when did Parker beat up Flash Thomspon in the 70s/80s?
Aunt May was a greying 50 something?
Parkers skaterat outsider is closer to the bookworm of the Romita years?

I dont get i what comics you were reading.

Peter Parker The Spectacular Spider man read as a "darker/personal" series but overall Peter wasnt what he was in this movie.

Cool if your prefer this version but dont rewrite the myth to fit your preferences.

[double_l4488]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

The "tone" is a Nolanesque take.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by double_l4488

He meant Bud Nolan. He's that guy that lives down the street that takes things that happened to other people and tells stories like they happened to him. I'm always like, "I'm pretty sure I heard this exact same story just a few years ago, Bud."

[Lehnhart]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Martin (reviewer) just told me it is LENTICULAR.

Awesome! I was going to get the 2D version, but I may just get the 3D because of the lenticular slip.

[ozzsoad]

Saw the review scores. So it's as good as Gladiator and The Smurfs, but not as good as Shrek 4. Oh well. It's nice to have a reliable reviewer though.

[birdztudio]

Can anybody confirm the artwork of best buy exclusive steelbook, will it be the one show on their website?

Thank you guys ^_^

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

The "tone" is a Nolanesque take.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

Saw the review scores. So it's as good as Gladiator and The Smurfs, but not as good as Shrek 4. Oh well. It's nice to have a reliable reviewer though.

Context.