Well it looks visually decent. Also, I really like the actor who played Andrew in Chronicle (now playing Harry Osborne). There also appears to be a TON of villains in this movie.
I wish Sony would just sell the rights so we can have him in the Avengers.
It seems interesting. I'm cautiously optimistic. My only issue is, with so many villains, it can't be about all the villains.
But we're literally going to have, just in this movie:
- Electro
- Rhino (I'm glad they're going with a mix of the ultimate 'Mech' Rhino and the classic russian Rhino character)
- Harry/Norman on the Goblin Glider
- Doc Ock's Arms and Vulture's Wings can be seen in the background.
It really looks like they're going with a common origin story route this time, with all roads leading to Oscorp.
It seems interesting. I'm cautiously optimistic. My only issue is, with so many villains, it can't be about all the villains.
But we're literally going to have, just in this movie:
- Electro
- Rhino (I'm glad they're going with a mix of the ultimate 'Mech' Rhino and the classic russian Rhino character)
- Harry/Norman on the Goblin Glider
- Doc Ock's Arms and Vulture's Wings can be seen in the background.
It really looks like they're going with a common origin story route this time, with all roads leading to Oscorp.
It's Harry as the Goblin. Pics and tweets confirm it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
In Spiderman 3 we had 3 bad guys all vying for screen-time alongside Spiderman - Sandman, Venom and The Green Goblin - and it also had too many storylines. I'm Ok with having 3 villians again, but hopefully there's not too much going on all at once or it'll suffer from the same things that doomed Spiderman 3. Sometimes, even in comic movies, less is more.
The makers for this current series are pretty ambitious, to be sure. It should be noted that Giamatti claimed the Rhino would return in ASM3. If the the reports of a Sinister Six film are to be believed, this is only the beginning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
In Spiderman 3 we had 3 bad guys all vying for screen-time alongside Spiderman - Sandman, Venom and The Green Goblin - and it also had too many storylines. I'm Ok with having 3 villians again, but hopefully there's not too much going on all at once or it'll suffer from the same things that doomed Spiderman 3. Sometimes, even in comic movies, less is more.
I concur. Although it wasn't without merit, that was messy.
I am looking forward to more work from Andrew Garfield but nothing, this included, in particular.
Definitely better than the first one. I was worried they'd be drowning in villains, but it was handled very well and not in a way you'd expect.
It was a bit more campy than I would like in certain parts, but overall the story seemed tighter.
Paul Giamatti's Rhino was horrible. Wtf was he doing? "Herp derp dee derp, I am the Rhino!!!"
Electro's obsession with people and relationships was overdone to the point of being too kooky to take seriously.
I like that the movie ended mid battle.
And...
Finally...
The story that should have been told all along, the death of Gwen Stacey, was. It was handled very well in my opinion: Peter missing saving her by just a half a second, the web looking like it was reaching for her; super touching. I love that it focuses on him trying to deal with the grief over a long period of time. For all the goofs in this movie, Marc Webb handled arguably the most important story in the Spider-Man mythos very well (Uncle Ben is probably just as important; they serve different purposes).
Definitely better than the first one. I was worried they'd be drowning in villains, but it was handled very well and not in a way you'd expect.
It was a bit more campy than I would like in certain parts, but overall the story seemed tighter.
Paul Giamatti's Rhino was horrible. Wtf was he doing? "Herp derp dee derp, I am the Rhino!!!"
Electro's obsession with people and relationships was overdone to the point of being too kooky to take seriously.
I like that the movie ended mid battle.
And...
Finally...
The story that should have been told all along, the death of Gwen Stacey, was. It was handled very well in my opinion: Peter missing saving her by just a half a second, the web looking like it was reaching for her; super touching. I love that it focuses on him trying to deal with the grief over a long period of time. For all the goofs in this movie, Marc Webb handled arguably the most important story in the Spider-Man mythos very well (Uncle Ben is probably just as important; they serve different purposes).
The issue becomes whether they'll be drowning in villains and/or repeating a flawed formula with Amazing 3. The pieces are very similar:
1. Harry is the Goblin, check.
2. Peter and Harry are at odds due the events of a previous movie.
3. Peter's love life is up in the air.
4. There are multiple villains, likely more than in any prior film
Ultimately, the question will be whether they actually go for the Sinister Six and, then, how well they manage that many villains in one sitting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
The original movies were typical Sam Raimi good but cheesy. But my point was more that Emma Stone is a much, much better actress that Kirsten Dunst and while I always hated Mary Jane I liked Gwen Stacy from the start.
The original movies were typical Sam Raimi good but cheesy. But my point was more that Emma Stone is a much, much better actress that Kirsten Dunst and while I always hated Mary Jane I liked Gwen Stacy from the start.
I don't see how you could say that the first Amazing Spider-Man "has more heart" when it's a by-the-numbers copy of the first Raimi movie. And yes, Raimi's Spiderman films were cheesy, but they still worked, and they worked because they had so much unabashed earnestness to them.
I agree that Gwen Stacy was one of the best parts of the Amazing Spiderman (special mention goes to Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy). But you cannot tell me that mess of a movie had more heart than Spiderman 1. The movie is a soulless rehashing of the first film.
Not gonna lie, I actually really enjoyed this movie (a pleasant surprise considering how mediocre I thought the first one was). It was nice to have just a lighthearted superhero movie that I could laugh along with for the most part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
All I meant was that The Amazing Spider-man had a better cast who made me believe their relationships more, even if the plot itself was a bleh rehash.
Ehhhh... I'll grant that the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy works much better than in Spiderman 1. But Andrew Garfield's interpretation of Peter Parker doesn't work at all, and none of the supporting cast (Dennis Leary exempted) are at all effective or memorable in The Amazing Spiderman.
Pros-
Emma Stone is amazing as Gwen Stacy.
Andrew Garfield is fun as Peter Parker.
Spider-Man is the wise-cracking ass he is in the comics.
Since the two are in an actual relationship off the screen, their relationship on the screen works.
Cons-
Stuff.
-Electro is stupid. Are we supposed to believe that the man is in actuality insane but simply keeps it hidden? Did he go insane after his accident? Is that why he hears voices in his head in a really strange musical tone? Or is he supposed to be full of rage that he reveals only when he becomes invincible?
And the way he dies... Oh man. The man is essentially invincible. But the writers knew that they wrote themselves into a hole and so had to make him impossibly stupid/make his powers just change in degrees as the situation demands it. One moment he's literally destroying buildings, but when he drains the entire city of its power he's incapable of just annihilating Spider-man with a blast?
And where'd he get that suit that can also convert itself into electric current and back into physical form? That's some amazing ***** right there.
-The Green Goblin is stupid. Harry Osborn is not stupid though; just the Green Goblin. Harry has a genuine conflict and I felt sorry for him. I can totally understand why he felt Peter refusing to give him anything is a betrayal. But then he clearly saw what happened to him when he did get the spider venom. It ****ed him up. So are we to believe that he's insane now? So either he's insane and won't listen to Peter, or he decides to kill Gwen because Gwen needs to die because Gwen's death is important in the comics. I wonder which it is.
-The writing is... weird. What's with the whole "Aunt May heard from FBI agents that Richard Parker may be a traitor" thing? It doesn't lead anywhere besides to just yet another moment between Gwen and Peter. What's with Gwen Stacy trying to find out about Electro (forgot his human name)? If the system was still looking for the individual when the security team locked it down, how did Gwen know that Electro was involved in an accident? At best she'd think there's a cover-up, but the incident thing comes out of nowhere. Why have the security guard chase her, only to have it never become an issue again? You just needed another reason to create an intimate moment between Gwen and Peter?
There's so many things shoe-horned into the film that simply doesn't seem necessary. Oh, and planes have blinking lights on them PRECISELY for the situation that occurred in the film. They're not there for show.
-Why was it so damned important to the Parkers that they send a message to a hidden base? That no one could possibly find unless they knew exactly where it was? Why not send it to all over the world instead? Reveal the truth? And what exactly was wrong with Oscorp? That they planned on using your research for weapons? You do realize that a bunch of researchers and private companies find themselves in the exact same situation every couple of years? I'm tired of this cliche; at least make it reasonable in the manner of "Oscorp plans on taking over the world with my research!"
-The Rhino is stupid. Why the **** is he running on all fours?
The entire movie just seems designed to set up Gwen's death. Everything seems subservient to this. You needed a Green Goblin because he's the one who placed Gwen in a situation that led to her death. You need Harry to be given a reason to become the Green Goblin, so you create Electro and a rather silly power-play within Oscorp. The film could have been so much more effective I think if it just dropped Electro entirely and found another way to get things done. Make the movie more about the conflict between Harry and Peter, etc.
The death itself was very well done imo, though I would have preferred if she died exactly the way she died in the comics, which would show that Spider-man's own hubris and arrogance in his abilities is what killed her and not her fearlessness. I honestly didn't like her line of "I get to choose what I do!" It takes responsibility out of Peter's hands.
I feel like I'm the only one who appreciated Electro's autism storyline. The sensory overload; the difficulty making friends; the resentment; the breakdowns in communication that lead to violence; I felt like pretty much up until the part of the film where he somehow got the suit his character was really well handled, then pretty much thrown away to feed the blockbuster after that.
Seriously though Rhino was the worst excess I've ever seen in a comic book movie. No reason for him to be there, no reason for the character to be so absurd (a mentally deficient foreigner? Really? THAT'S the guy we're giving a ******* mech suit? Not, say, one of the badass commandos you had on call?)
But yeah I loved it. I dunno. I thought that, when giving some leeway for the obligatory blockbuster concessions (though the action scenes were occasionally great; there were a few times in the movie where Spider man felt agile and creative- and other times where I wondered if the director thought he was directing a superman movie), this was one of the better Comic Book movies released in the last few years. I genuinely appreciated the focus on human relationships, even if it occasionally left the film with some fat that could have been trimmed.
All I meant was that The Amazing Spider-man had a better cast who made me believe their relationships more, even if the plot itself was a bleh rehash.
You should really fight a bit rather than just acquiescing to the other guy's opinions. I happen to agree with you about the remake series having more heart (so far). Not only is the acting generally better, but most of the characters feel more compelling and fun to see (right down to the love interest; a major upgrade). Honestly, they could have cast Stone as Charlie Cooper aND IT STILL HAVE BEEN BETTER than Dunst's MJ. It's like a 7 vs a 2.5 in terms of acting and writing.
Spider-Man is more than just a sadsack stand-in for the director (Maguire's role in the original trilogy). Yes, Garfield's version comes off like an ******** sometimes (mostly due to the writing, I'm sure), but it works. This is a Peter I can see growing up and doing something akin to what comics Pete has accomplished. Maquire's Peter could barely manage navigate adulthood.
The original movies were typical Sam Raimi good but cheesy. But my point was more that Emma Stone is a much, much better actress that Kirsten Dunst and while I always hated Mary Jane I liked Gwen Stacy from the start.
I don't see how you could say that the first Amazing Spider-Man "has more heart" when it's a by-the-numbers copy of the first Raimi movie. And yes, Raimi's Spiderman films were cheesy, but they still worked, and they worked because they had so much unabashed earnestness to them.
I agree that Gwen Stacy was one of the best parts of the Amazing Spiderman (special mention goes to Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy). But you cannot tell me that mess of a movie had more heart than Spiderman 1. The movie is a soulless rehashing of the first film.
You're so wrong it's scary. Let me guess, the fact that both tell A VERSION of the origin is your loose excuse for calling Amazing 1 a rehash? Tell me, how do you define "rehash"? Because I literally can name only a few superficial similarities. Meanwhile, everything else (from the costume to the cast/characters) are notably different.
Now, look, you're allowed to dislike the films. And it's clear you violently hate them. But your complaints ought to be substantive and based in reality, not just some stock line like "it's a rehash".
The 2012 reboot simply doesn't make sense. The movie is more like a "ya, ya, we know you know what we plan on telling. So we're just going to get it out of the way so that we can get to the better stuff!"
Everyone knew the better stuff would be Gwen Stacy's death. And now a Sinister Six movie, apparently.
It just feels like a cash-grab than a genuine attempt to tell a story. It's scary how both of the Amazing Spider-man films essentially end the same way- a major character dies, Peter suffers agonizing emotional pain, he gets over it. Except not really!
Are we going to see him tormented by Gwen's death in the third film? Maybe he'll see Gwen's ghost all over the place like he saw Capt. Stacy.
The 2012 reboot simply doesn't make sense. The movie is more like a "ya, ya, we know you know what we plan on telling. So we're just going to get it out of the way so that we can get to the better stuff!"
Everyone knew the better stuff would be Gwen Stacy's death. And now a Sinister Six movie, apparently.
It just feels like a cash-grab than a genuine attempt to tell a story. It's scary how both of the Amazing Spider-man films essentially end the same way- a major character dies, Peter suffers agonizing emotional pain, he gets over it. Except not really!
Are we going to see him tormented by Gwen's death in the third film? Maybe he'll see Gwen's ghost all over the place like he saw Capt. Stacy.
Your problem seems to be with the entire concept of movies based on other things...they're sorta based on something. The reason why most of the Spider Man movies focus on Peter trying to deal with loss is because Spider Man, especially post 9/11, has been about dealing with loss and finding hope. And I dunno if I would call it a cash grab- by Blockbuster standards it's artistic tour de force. They could have just as easily gone the Michael Bay/Superman/Iron Man/Thor/Avengers route and made a movie entirely devoid of themes or ideas, but they didn't. The movie, if anything, serves as a vehicle for character development and interaction, which I find to be a welcome change from most action movies, wherein character development is just an excuse for the hero to fight some new bad guys.
If you found the movie heartless....I don't really know what to say. Did you not genuinely feel the friendship between Peter and Harry, at least once or twice? What about the scenes between Peter and Gwen? Did you really not feel any of Harry's emotional motivation? Again; if anything, the movie is ALL heart, with most of the blockbuster staples of action and complex plot lazily stapled on to what amounts to a movie that should have been about the exploration of a person's responsibility to other human beings.
Well it looks visually decent. Also, I really like the actor who played Andrew in Chronicle (now playing Harry Osborne). There also appears to be a TON of villains in this movie.
I wish Sony would just sell the rights so we can have him in the Avengers.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
But we're literally going to have, just in this movie:
- Electro
- Rhino (I'm glad they're going with a mix of the ultimate 'Mech' Rhino and the classic russian Rhino character)
- Harry/Norman on the Goblin Glider
- Doc Ock's Arms and Vulture's Wings can be seen in the background.
It really looks like they're going with a common origin story route this time, with all roads leading to Oscorp.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's Harry as the Goblin. Pics and tweets confirm it.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
Here, let me Google that for you.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
First one was more convincing and had more heart than the original trilogy, but a worse story.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
No seriously, the trailer looks great. I'm impressed by this reboot.
Modern
RBig RedR
GMean GreenG
WWW AlliesW
BGScavengeBG
WUVenser SilenceWU
EDH
RWAurelia 1 vs 1RW
GWURoonGWU
GWSaffiGW
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
I concur. Although it wasn't without merit, that was messy.
I am looking forward to more work from Andrew Garfield but nothing, this included, in particular.
Definitely better than the first one. I was worried they'd be drowning in villains, but it was handled very well and not in a way you'd expect.
It was a bit more campy than I would like in certain parts, but overall the story seemed tighter.
Paul Giamatti's Rhino was horrible. Wtf was he doing? "Herp derp dee derp, I am the Rhino!!!"
Electro's obsession with people and relationships was overdone to the point of being too kooky to take seriously.
I like that the movie ended mid battle.
And...
Finally...
The story that should have been told all along, the death of Gwen Stacey, was. It was handled very well in my opinion: Peter missing saving her by just a half a second, the web looking like it was reaching for her; super touching. I love that it focuses on him trying to deal with the grief over a long period of time. For all the goofs in this movie, Marc Webb handled arguably the most important story in the Spider-Man mythos very well (Uncle Ben is probably just as important; they serve different purposes).
Want to be a better Magic player? Read the rulings forum and check out the comprehensive rules!
The issue becomes whether they'll be drowning in villains and/or repeating a flawed formula with Amazing 3. The pieces are very similar:
2. Peter and Harry are at odds due the events of a previous movie.
3. Peter's love life is up in the air.
4. There are multiple villains, likely more than in any prior film
Ultimately, the question will be whether they actually go for the Sinister Six and, then, how well they manage that many villains in one sitting.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I agree that Gwen Stacy was one of the best parts of the Amazing Spiderman (special mention goes to Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy). But you cannot tell me that mess of a movie had more heart than Spiderman 1. The movie is a soulless rehashing of the first film.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Emma Stone is amazing as Gwen Stacy.
Andrew Garfield is fun as Peter Parker.
Spider-Man is the wise-cracking ass he is in the comics.
Since the two are in an actual relationship off the screen, their relationship on the screen works.
Cons-
Stuff.
-Electro is stupid. Are we supposed to believe that the man is in actuality insane but simply keeps it hidden? Did he go insane after his accident? Is that why he hears voices in his head in a really strange musical tone? Or is he supposed to be full of rage that he reveals only when he becomes invincible?
And the way he dies... Oh man. The man is essentially invincible. But the writers knew that they wrote themselves into a hole and so had to make him impossibly stupid/make his powers just change in degrees as the situation demands it. One moment he's literally destroying buildings, but when he drains the entire city of its power he's incapable of just annihilating Spider-man with a blast?
And where'd he get that suit that can also convert itself into electric current and back into physical form? That's some amazing ***** right there.
-The Green Goblin is stupid. Harry Osborn is not stupid though; just the Green Goblin. Harry has a genuine conflict and I felt sorry for him. I can totally understand why he felt Peter refusing to give him anything is a betrayal. But then he clearly saw what happened to him when he did get the spider venom. It ****ed him up. So are we to believe that he's insane now? So either he's insane and won't listen to Peter, or he decides to kill Gwen because Gwen needs to die because Gwen's death is important in the comics. I wonder which it is.
-The writing is... weird. What's with the whole "Aunt May heard from FBI agents that Richard Parker may be a traitor" thing? It doesn't lead anywhere besides to just yet another moment between Gwen and Peter. What's with Gwen Stacy trying to find out about Electro (forgot his human name)? If the system was still looking for the individual when the security team locked it down, how did Gwen know that Electro was involved in an accident? At best she'd think there's a cover-up, but the incident thing comes out of nowhere. Why have the security guard chase her, only to have it never become an issue again? You just needed another reason to create an intimate moment between Gwen and Peter?
There's so many things shoe-horned into the film that simply doesn't seem necessary. Oh, and planes have blinking lights on them PRECISELY for the situation that occurred in the film. They're not there for show.
-Why was it so damned important to the Parkers that they send a message to a hidden base? That no one could possibly find unless they knew exactly where it was? Why not send it to all over the world instead? Reveal the truth? And what exactly was wrong with Oscorp? That they planned on using your research for weapons? You do realize that a bunch of researchers and private companies find themselves in the exact same situation every couple of years? I'm tired of this cliche; at least make it reasonable in the manner of "Oscorp plans on taking over the world with my research!"
-The Rhino is stupid. Why the **** is he running on all fours?
The entire movie just seems designed to set up Gwen's death. Everything seems subservient to this. You needed a Green Goblin because he's the one who placed Gwen in a situation that led to her death. You need Harry to be given a reason to become the Green Goblin, so you create Electro and a rather silly power-play within Oscorp. The film could have been so much more effective I think if it just dropped Electro entirely and found another way to get things done. Make the movie more about the conflict between Harry and Peter, etc.
The death itself was very well done imo, though I would have preferred if she died exactly the way she died in the comics, which would show that Spider-man's own hubris and arrogance in his abilities is what killed her and not her fearlessness. I honestly didn't like her line of "I get to choose what I do!" It takes responsibility out of Peter's hands.
Seriously though Rhino was the worst excess I've ever seen in a comic book movie. No reason for him to be there, no reason for the character to be so absurd (a mentally deficient foreigner? Really? THAT'S the guy we're giving a ******* mech suit? Not, say, one of the badass commandos you had on call?)
But yeah I loved it. I dunno. I thought that, when giving some leeway for the obligatory blockbuster concessions (though the action scenes were occasionally great; there were a few times in the movie where Spider man felt agile and creative- and other times where I wondered if the director thought he was directing a superman movie), this was one of the better Comic Book movies released in the last few years. I genuinely appreciated the focus on human relationships, even if it occasionally left the film with some fat that could have been trimmed.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
You should really fight a bit rather than just acquiescing to the other guy's opinions. I happen to agree with you about the remake series having more heart (so far). Not only is the acting generally better, but most of the characters feel more compelling and fun to see (right down to the love interest; a major upgrade). Honestly, they could have cast Stone as Charlie Cooper aND IT STILL HAVE BEEN BETTER than Dunst's MJ. It's like a 7 vs a 2.5 in terms of acting and writing.
Spider-Man is more than just a sadsack stand-in for the director (Maguire's role in the original trilogy). Yes, Garfield's version comes off like an ******** sometimes (mostly due to the writing, I'm sure), but it works. This is a Peter I can see growing up and doing something akin to what comics Pete has accomplished. Maquire's Peter could barely manage navigate adulthood.
You're so wrong it's scary. Let me guess, the fact that both tell A VERSION of the origin is your loose excuse for calling Amazing 1 a rehash? Tell me, how do you define "rehash"? Because I literally can name only a few superficial similarities. Meanwhile, everything else (from the costume to the cast/characters) are notably different.
Now, look, you're allowed to dislike the films. And it's clear you violently hate them. But your complaints ought to be substantive and based in reality, not just some stock line like "it's a rehash".
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
The 2012 reboot simply doesn't make sense. The movie is more like a "ya, ya, we know you know what we plan on telling. So we're just going to get it out of the way so that we can get to the better stuff!"
Everyone knew the better stuff would be Gwen Stacy's death. And now a Sinister Six movie, apparently.
It just feels like a cash-grab than a genuine attempt to tell a story. It's scary how both of the Amazing Spider-man films essentially end the same way- a major character dies, Peter suffers agonizing emotional pain, he gets over it. Except not really!
Are we going to see him tormented by Gwen's death in the third film? Maybe he'll see Gwen's ghost all over the place like he saw Capt. Stacy.
Your problem seems to be with the entire concept of movies based on other things...they're sorta based on something. The reason why most of the Spider Man movies focus on Peter trying to deal with loss is because Spider Man, especially post 9/11, has been about dealing with loss and finding hope. And I dunno if I would call it a cash grab- by Blockbuster standards it's artistic tour de force. They could have just as easily gone the Michael Bay/Superman/Iron Man/Thor/Avengers route and made a movie entirely devoid of themes or ideas, but they didn't. The movie, if anything, serves as a vehicle for character development and interaction, which I find to be a welcome change from most action movies, wherein character development is just an excuse for the hero to fight some new bad guys.
If you found the movie heartless....I don't really know what to say. Did you not genuinely feel the friendship between Peter and Harry, at least once or twice? What about the scenes between Peter and Gwen? Did you really not feel any of Harry's emotional motivation? Again; if anything, the movie is ALL heart, with most of the blockbuster staples of action and complex plot lazily stapled on to what amounts to a movie that should have been about the exploration of a person's responsibility to other human beings.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!