Okay, two things. First, a story I forgot to tell about when I saw 'Amazing Spider-Man'. When I was in line to buy my ticket for the movie, an elderly women got in behind me. I went through just after hearing her say, “One seniors ticket.”
The woman was a stereotypical, fragile old lady. I looked at her and thought, 'MAN! YOU LOOK LIKE AUNT MAY!' Heck, for all I knew she was dressed up as Aunt May for the movie.
I took maybe twelve steps away. Then I heard a clunk sound, like someone had dropped their large drink. I turned to give the person my silent condolences, since dropping a 5 dollar drink? That blows. Thats not what had happened though, what happened was the old woman lost her balance and did a face plant into the wall, knocking her self out.
In a instant I thought, shit, if she had been in line in front of me, I may have noticed her falling and I could have grabbed her, or helped her. I thought, is there anything I can do? People have already rushed to her care, and someone was already dialling 9-1-1. What was there for me to do? And the answer was... Nothing, so I turned the fuck around and watched Spider-Man.

Second thing. I want to talk about the big violence of the week, the shooting in Colorado during the midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises.' These two things relate in many ways. First off, both happened in a movie theatre, during a screening of a comic book movie. And for me, they both caused me to reflect and think... What would I have done?
I can't honestly answer that, If I had been that theatre there is no telling how I would react. But with every little, personal story I hear come out of this, I get a little more terrified. I've read stories of a guy seeing his girlfriend get shot, and hearing her scream for only a moment before a second bullet struck her in the head.
Or another man who threw himself atop his girlfriend and best friend and took bullets for them, leading to his own death, but their survival. Its scary stuff. Stuff no one ever wants to experience.

The Saturday after the shooting, the day after I saw and LOVED the 'Dark Knight Rises' I saw the cell phone video taken outside the theatre after the shooting. I was nervous watching it, I was concerned for the people that stood around outside the theatre slack jawed, gocking, at the people poring out of the theatre crying, some splattered in blood, their own, or other.
I watched and thought, WHY! WHY ARE YOU STANDING! THERE! This early after the shooting there is no telling where the shooter is, or if he's alone. For all they knew his next stop would be the fucking lobby, or he could have a buddy waiting to start phase two in the parking lot.
I learned a valuable lesson watching these fucking people who just couldn't walk away. I learned that if I see something horrific happen, and I am powerless to stop it (which I often will be). I'll turn to the people I'm with and say, 'Lets get the fuck out of here. We can read about this later.' I don't need to witness it myself.

As soon as I first heard about the shooting, I knew this would mean some irrational fall out. People needing something or someone to blame aside from the obvious people. I was sure we'd hear the usual shit, movies, video games and music caused this. And since it was a movie based on a comic... maybe comics will be blamed as well.
I was right, people think he was inspired by a scene in the 'Dark Knight Returns' by Frank Miller. People are saying that its the violence of the movies that drove him to do it. This all of course distracts from the possibility that maybe, just maybe... James Holmes was an unhappy, fractured human being, who for some fucked up reason could only find relief by doing something horrible. In which case, what made him this way? Probably a combination of a million things.
Gun laws will be debated like they always have after a shooting. And people are going to look for something to blame. One man has already filed a lawsuit. What he went through was traumatic, and I'm sure he was thinking emotionally not logically, but his lawsuit is retarded. Lets look at it.

First he's suing,
The theatre. He claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

Okay, lets look at this in parts. Usually its considered negligent for a theatre to NOT have an emergency door. He's not complaining about that though, he's complaining about it not being guarded or alarmed.
If it had been guarded or alarmed, it may have saved some lives, I'll agree to that. But you can't expect the theatre to have an armed guard at every (or ANY) fire exit. As a far as the alarm is concerned, this would mean that every joe blow, or jerk off kid who walks out of the movie via the fire exit would interrupt the screening.
I've seen hundreds of people go out the fire exit in a theatre, (dark theatres where you couldn't possibly read “Alarm will sound” written on the door if you weren't looking for it) but I've only ever heard of ONE shooting in a movie theatre EVER.
Theatre is not to blame for this shooting. The person to blame is named James Holmes. He is the one that propped open the door and got the guns. You could argue that the American Government is to blame, since you know... laxed gun laws and all. But not the theatre. That being said, he could win this one.


2. Holmes' doctors. He says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

Does he know what properly monitoring him means? I sure don't. I guess hindsight is 22, this guy obviously should have been locked up in a institute away from all things pointy, and I like to think that the doctors, if they knew Holmes was violent, would have done something about it. But the second thing I heard about the shooting, was 'He was a nice, intelligent guy'. No one saw this coming from him.
I'm also left thinking about the documentary 'Generation RX'. Its about the effects of psychological meds on teens and children and how it really effects their mind. They claim that meds for depression and bi-polar disorder given to teens actually results in more damage then anything. They give examples like the columbine shooting, where the two shooters were on meds. But again, could be miss placed blame, blame the meds, not the illness, or even blame the meds for the illness. Or maybe a guy named James Holmes shot up a theatre.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

This on is the most retarded of the bunch. I've seen the movie, the movie is PG 13, PG 13 is not particularly violent. No more violent then any other action movie. And he mimicked some of the action?... Yes you're right guns were shot in the movie, just like... nearly every other action movie/every other act of violence in REALITY.
I've heard that a lot of people first thought it was part of the movie, giving the shooter a 6 second edge. But thats not the movies fault! Its a movie! Shit like that happens all the time. “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence shown today” Yes! His name is JAMES HOLMES! THEY ALREADY CAUGHT HIM! And if anyone is to blame for this whole thing, its him.


If you think violent entertainment causes people to be violent, you're a fucking moron. Violent entertainment is a 100 times less violent then it used to be. Because violent entertainment used to be real. 'Hostal' back in ancient times wouldn't have been a FAKE movie, it would be a public display of torture.
I want everyone looking for someone to blame, to think critically, to the point that your brain hurts. Don't just point your finger and stop there. James Holmes shot a bunch of people. He is to blame directly. You'll then ask, WHY? What made him do it? This question opens a unlimited number of more questions, cause no one thing made James Holmes who he is. No single moment created him, but 22 years of moments. When you start to dissect him, his life, his interest, you'll get to the point where you ask yourself a question like, 'How is the fact that he liked crunchy peanut butter, and Stephen King, relate to him killing people?' Your brain will start to hurt, and you'll only be able to answer 'I don't know.' Thats when you stop.
You stop thinking about 'Why?', you stop trying to understand and find someone to blame. And you just go out and enjoy a movie, just like you always have. Remembering that out of the millions of people that have gone to the theatre, something bad has only happened once.
Remember that the world is actually the least violent its ever been, and you are statistically, safe. Uncompromisable, emotionless numbers say so. Don't be afraid.

 
When it comes to making a comic book movie in my opinion only two things are of great importance. The origin and the characters. You can fudge details all you like but be true to those to things and you have a winner. So how was the origin of Spider-Man handled in the film? Naturally I'll be comparing it to the Raimi film.

Origin

The origin in the movie is handled with a limp wrist. That is to say, instead of making something of the moment, it passes by and you hardly notice. Actually his transformation is fast, in movie time like 30 minutes. In our time like 4 minutes... Most of that four minutes is him shrugging off the bite, and making googly eyes with Gwen Stacy.
This origin pales greatly to Raimi's. The spider bite had a build up to it, we tensely see it lower its self on to his hand and bite him. Then later on while sleeping he slowly transforms into Spider-Man after feeling ill. Toby sleeps a whole night, Garfield has a nap on the subway...
The spider bite and transformation are both WAY better in Raimi's film. Everything is glossed over in Amazing. Which makes sense since everyone knows the origin of Spider-Man, so why waste the time... Great question, why did they reboot the series and have 2 hour movie explain everything we already know?...


Their was a great argument in 2001 when it was announced that Spider-Man would have organic webs, not mechanical web shooters like the comics. People cheered when they found out mechanical shooters is what would be in Amazing... but then what was the reason they didn't have it in the first film?
Well its not believable that a teenager could invent such a complex piece of technology... which is kind of stupid in a movie that features a guy that can climb walls. Then again, you can't gloss over such an invention in montage like they did in Amazing.
To be fair, the origin wasn't AWFUL in Amazing, just meh. Especially when compared to Raimi's.

Aunt May/Uncle Ben

The next biggest part of Spider-Man's origin is (Spoiler) the death of Uncle Ben. Let me get this annoyance out of the way... They don't have “With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility” in the movie, instead they have Uncle Ben give a clumsy speech that dances around “With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility.” Why complicate such a simple thing? Everything you need is in that phrase, its simple, yet profound. They clearly did this to distance themselves from the other movie... but its straight from the comics. So you're just distancing yourself from the source material.
Then you have his death, which is done with a whimper. It lacks dramatic impact. Peter in Amazing doesn't attempt to be a wrestler, he just runs around in a warehouse like hes in footloose (I'll get to this more in a moment). Peter is kind of douchebag in the movie.
Where Peter in Raimi's movie loses out on some money and lets the crook go loose, cheating out the promoter who burned him. “You could of killed that guy!”
“Not my problem.”
In Amazing, its not a crooked promoter, its... a convenience store clerk who wouldn't give peter a chocolate milk even though he was only a few cents short. Essentially he was trolled by Randel and decided “Fuck that guy!”

So, really Uncle Ben's death is SUPER petty. Which should have made it a whole lot sadder, but again it lacks dramatic impact. A man dies and you shrug. No one even seems that saddend by it. Peter gets moody for a few days but then his pain is left on the back burner so we can see him make a costume. Its good to have hobbies.


But how were the Parkers presented? Well... They're just as good as they were in the Raimi movies. Sally “I want to be a Comedian” Fields I think is a little to healthy for Aunt May. I like my Aunt May's sickly as shit, on the fucking verge of death with every breath. I want to see Aunt May climbing a set of stairs and have it be terrifying, cause there is a good chance she'll fall and break her hip. Sally Fields though looks... young. She'd probably play a great May though... if she had something to do in this movie a side from wanting omega eggs.


Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Peter Parker has yet to be done perfect in movies. Both film versions are OKAY but not great. They both seem to focus on different parts of Peter's personality. Where Raimi's movie has more of a melodramatic Peter, who is a geek who tries to be funny, Amazing has a funny guy mistaken for a geek, that is kind of douche bag.
I don't dislike either one, I just find that Tobey's Peter felt closer to the Peter I know from the books. Though neither one is played perfectly.


Gwen *Snap* Stacy/Captain *gasp* Stacy

Gwen Stacy is what most people who dont actually KNOW the comics latch onto with Amazing Spider-Man. “ITS MORE LIKE THE COMICS! SPIDER-MAN WAS WITH GWEN STACY BEFORE MJ!”... Well... actually Mary Jane was technically shown partially first. But even then, Peter was chasing after Betty Brant way before Gwen. Lets look at how else this aspect is different from the comics shall we? Gwen didn't go to high school with Peter, nor did she ever know that he was Spider-Man. So, more like the comics? Hardly.
As far as personalty is concerned... Gwen in the comics didn't have much of one, aside form being melodramatic and a woman who knew her place (quiet and in the kitchen... Seriously these comics are from the late 60's early 70's and were written by a man of the 40's.) So the life that was breathed into her in Amazing was much needed.
As for Captain Stacy of the NYPD (Gwen's father) his character is just J. Jonah Jameson. You know since JJ isn't in the movie you need that guy that's against Spider-Man. So instead of being a guy thats FOR Spider-Man, he's against Spider-Man.

HUGE SPOILER! HUGE SPOILER... Actually not much of a spoiler since its happened in the comics back in the 60's...

Anyway, Capt. Stacy dies in the movie. But unlike in the comics his death has ZERO! ZERO! Drama. In the comics Capt. Stacy is killed saving a child from falling debris when Spider-Man and Doc Oc are fighting. But Spider-Man is blamed for killing Capt. Stacy!
When Peter is trying to rush Capt. Stacy to the hospital Capt. Stacy stops him to say. “I know its you Peter! I've always known you were Spider-Man.” You know, since Capt. Stacy isn't retarded, and Peter isn't that great at hiding his secret identity.
He then makes Peter make a promise. In the movie its “Stay away from Gwen you'll only be bad for her, you'll only put her at risk!”... Which makes every comic fan in the audience go 'Snap'. But in the comics, the promise is “Take care of Gwen.”
Lets look at these promises. Now in the comics his promise is a little more difficult to keep... since Gwen is apart of the crew thinking Spider-Man killed her father, she HATES Spider-Man, I mean HATES him (But shes not aware that it was actually not Spider-Man... and well, Spider-Man is PETER PARKER! The man she loves, is also the man she hates! Can you say in a lispy voice DRAAMA!!!)
But the movie promise... well Gwen knows Peter is Spider-Man, and everyone knows its the Lizard that killed Capt Stacy... thus all drama in this death is sucked dry. That promise though... “Stay away from Gwen” (snap) How does Peter honour this dying wish?... He ignores it, and stays with Gwen... (snap & douche).


Eugene 'Flash' Thompson

In the original Spider-Man movie Flash is completely glossed over. You probably had no idea he was really even there. In Amazing however, he makes more of an impact as... the stereotypical psycho bully who tortures his peers. Its like he studied at fucking Cobra Kai!
They go to far in one direction then try to reel it in for a 'Oh he's sensitive' for like two seconds. I really hope that in the future, when they do Amazing Spider-Man Returns they bring Flash back and flesh him out a bit more.

Picture
Dr. Kurt Connors/The Lizard


This is the real meat for me. Like I said, I love the Lizard, and I have to say... he was kind of done horribly in this movie. Dr. Connors is a family man, and Spider-Man seems to always have them, and Dr. Connors safety in mind when battling with the Lizard.
In the movie Dr. Connors is just a single man and is free from all emotional ties... and well drama. The movie lacks it all over the place. There is also the complications of the Lizards plan. His thought progression lacks some logic.
He decides he wants to use science to make the world a better place where we're all healthy and happy. The only way to do so? Turn the world into lizards! This would make sense if there was some proper build up, like scenes of Doc Connors speaking creepily about how much he loves and admires reptiles, or even show how upset and traumatized he is about losing his arm. But the movie is to busy spending time on Gwen and Peter making googly eyes, that they cant have the villain be fleshed out.

Run Down.

The Tag Line to the movie was, “The Untold Story”. Which annoyed the crap out of me, since Spider-Man's origins not only had been told a thousand times across all medias, but once already in fucking movie.
Of course once seeing the trailer I realized the untold story was in reference to his parents! Oh, yeah that story was... told a few times already... Alright. But general audience isn't aware of Petes parents so I guess its untold.
Then I watched the movie... and I realized the untold story was actually in reference to the fact that every subplot in the movie is abandoned along the way. Here is how the movie goes.
PETER: “I want to know what happened to my parents!”
*Makes googly eyes with Gwen, get bit by spider.
PETER: “Cool! I have Spider powers!...Huh? Parents? Fuck them I have super powers.
*Make googly eyes with Gwen, Uncle Ben gets killed
PETER: “Uncle Ben! I'll find your killer!”
*Hunts down crooks who look like the killer, makes googly eyes with Gwen.
PETER: “I'll find your killer!... Whats that? A giant Lizard?
*Fights Lizard, googly eyes.
PETER: Holy Lizard! He turned that whole SWAT team into Lizards! Meh, I'll ignore them.
*Close on googly eyes and broken promises.

Disappointing. You have an team of Lizards and you gloss over them? They even had an opportunity to throw Vermin in the story if they wanted to just for an awesome mid movie fight and a lesser known villain. All in all, the movie was 'meh'. Would have much rather they went forward with Spider-Man 4.



 
I've been to busy to write, and haven’t been home at the right time to post any cartoons. So I'm taking some time to bust something out for you guys. Its an inside scope that may shock you...

I haven't seen 'The Amazing Spider-man' yet. I wasn't even a sure what day it came out. But I have seen 'TED'. I loved it, Seth MacFarlane's transition to film is a step in the right direction. 'TED' smacks you with the laughs and doesn't stop... Plus, Ralph Garman is in it!
Why would a comic fan opt out of a comic book movie to see something about a talking Teddy Bear? Well... Ralph Garman isn't in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' for starters. Yes it has Emma Stone and Dennis Leary, but again... no Garman. (And if they wanted to, they could totally shoe horn him in there).
Second, I was against a reboot of Spider-Man from day one. I remember they had JUST announced that Sam Raimi and the cast was returning for Spider-Man 4, then a week later we see the announcement that they'll be doing a complete reboot of the film series.
My problem was it was WAY to soon to reboot, also I like my movie series to move forward not backward. You may think, well of course they rebooted, Spider-Man 3 was awful!... Awfully successful. Now I know a lot of people hated it, but to hate it, they had to see it... Which means they paid money to see it. It made a shit ton.
I personally think 'Spider-Man 3' isn't as bad as everyone else thinks it is. Honestly when I ask people what they didn't like about it they have to arguments that they like to use. The first is his 'emo' haircut, second is this:

Which... okay, its cheesy, why does the cheese of the first two movies get a pass, but the cheese in 3rd is to much? I'm not saying 'Spider-Man 3' is a good movie, its pacing is painful, and they tried to bash in to much shit into a single film. But 'Spider-Man 4' could have won everyone back easy. It would just require Sam Raimi toning down his zanyness, and Sony's producers meddling hands.
But they decided to reboot. I said from the start that if they get more of Spidy's personalty right in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' it may be better. But then I saw the trailer and the Lizard who is one of my top 5 favourite Spider-Man villians design is kind of lame, and the tone looks like its trying to be to dark, and just looks... meh to me.
I never read much Spider-Man really dug J. Michael Straczynski (Pronounced Stra-...I don't know to be honest), but it wasn't until I picked up some Essential Volumes of Spider-Man that I got really into him. A lot of people (who don't actually read comics, but possess some comic book common knowledge) like to say, “But Amazing Spider-Man follows the comics more closely! Gwen Stacy! Gwen Stacy!” Well... with a slightly more educated opinion, I have to say... This movie based on the trailer looks like it deviates just as far away from the comics as the Raimi movies.
A prediction I made after seeing the trailer a few months ago was they'll gloss over Spider-Man's origins (The death of Uncle Ben) and Uncle Ben will die AFTER Peter has become a crime fighting Spider-Man.

This was my plot outline based on the trailer. A gloomy Peter Parker finds out some info about his parents who are scientist for Oscorp and decides to go talk to their old friend Doc Connors.
Arriving at the lab he sees Doc Connors working on a solution to regrow lost limbs. Peter with info from his parents old paper work helps finish the equation and results in creating the Lizard.
Peter wanders around the lab and gets bit by a radioactive spider, blah, blah, blah.
Peter starts using his Spider powers to try and solve the mystery of his parents deaths, and ends up getting the attention of Captain Stacy whose personalty has been swapped for J. Jonah Jameson. This gives us the 'Dark Knight' the police want to put down the vigilante shit. Giving Spider-Man a little 'edge'.
I believe Peter becomes Spider-Man before the death of uncle Ben because of the scene where Peter is having dinner with the Stacy's and discussing Spider-man... But Gwen also says, “Peter lives with his aunt and uncle... so being Spider-Man and still having a uncle kind of takes away from his origin of “With great power comes great responsibility.” But who knows. This could just be a editing thing. Its just in the trailers format how it appears.
Doc Connors becomes the Lizard and Peter realizing he helped create the formula feels he's responsible to stop the Lizard... then you guessed it, he does. After stopping the Lizard, Peter is about to quit being Spider-Man, but uncle Ben gets killed! And he realizes he has to stay Spider-Man.

But thats just how it appeared to me from watching the trailer and over analyzing it. Anyway, I need to get dressed, I'm going to go see Amazing Spider-Man. When I get back, I'll tell you what I think, and see if my plot guess is right.