Friday, July 06, 2012

Hulk Smashes Spider-Man

The Internet would have you believe that I am the only person who thought "The Amazing Spider-Man" was overally pretty terrible. But, then, The Internet would also have you believe that a Rotten Tomatoes percentage means something relevant in film discussion (it doesn't) and that having negative opinions about the prospects of in-production films and/or advertising materials makes one inelligible to opine on the finished product; so you should take The Internet with a grain of salt.

In any case, I've got no problem being in the minority on this one; but I won't lie - it's nice to be agreed with by smart, insightful people. People like the mighty Film Crit Hulk, who has penned his highly-negative take on the film over at BadassDigest. You should read it. ALL of it.


cass said...

In fairness, you're not the only reviewer I've seen to make the twilight comparison... but you are the first one to think that its a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

The guy who made the "beat her up" game about Anita Sarkeesian is named Ben Spurr and now he is trying to defend his stupid self on his twitter account.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should take you with a grain of salt, since you've been whining about this freaking movie non-stop.
And when you were talking about the acceptance of the Avengers, I do remember you engrossing your argument using rotten tomatoes and meta critic data, but now it's not cool right?

And no, it's not a problem that you are a minority, you are fully aware that it's how you bitched and moaned about this movie that got people pissed at you, and how you are pulling stuff out of you butt to support your broken reasoning and then sticking your fingers at your ears and going "lalalalalala" when someone wants to confront you on that.

And no, I'm not gonna read the Film Critic Hulk. I know the all upper case text is the dude's shtick, but lower cases exist for a reason, the same one why people don't read books in all upper. So if the guy wants to sacrifice the readability and putting the reader's eye under stress for the sake of a joke, he can go screw himself.

And you do have problem being minority on this one, you wanted people to join you on the "Spiderlight" joke, you wanted people going "Moviebob was right all along", don't bullshit us man, otherwise why all these passive-agressive takes you are doing on twitter and now picking links to endorse your point of view, since two videos about the subject clearly didn't get the job done.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

You still don't get it.

This isn't about you not liking the movie. I've disagreed with you before but it didn't bother me this much like with this incident. This is about the fact that you had a big grudge against this movie before it was even filmed. How you would take anything being released about the film and spin it into a negative. You've even purposely twisted facts (and/or been conveniently ignorant of the truth) when talking about certain aspects to make the movie seem bad. For instance you keep bringing up that this movie was made just so that Sony can keep the rights. You failed to ever mention Sony's big financial troubles that could determine the future of the company. You make it seem it was just for pure greed which is false. It's about a company surviving. That's why they sold the Spider-Man TV rights back to Marvel.

This was never a case of you thinking a movie looks bad from the trailers. You see anyone giving you shit over you not liking the Alex Cross trailer? I personally didn't think it was as bad as you think it is but it doesn't bother me you thought it was terrible. You see the issue is you wanted this movie to fail no matter what the quality of this movie actually was. You've explicitly expressed that multiple times before you ever saw the movie. You've given two reviews for this and even though the second one you did was much better it was still flimsy. Your claims were contrived (e.g. calling rip offs of Nolan and Twilight) and not accurate (e.g. claiming Parker was no nerd or social outcast despite the movie making that more than clear).

If in an alternate timeline you were just disappointed that Spider-Man 4 wasn't going to be made, still had an open mind about this movie but ended up not liking it when you finally saw it I wouldn't even be commenting. But you chose to be very unprofessional. You were no different than the typical raging message board member. That's why I was disappointed in you. It was your behavior and how much you tried to stubbornly defend it in your unconvincing and dishonest official reviews.

And for the record, I am not clicking on that link and giving that site any hits. The site is owned by Devin Faraci who is one of the most odious internet reviewers/reporters out there. His rotten history reflects on him quite poorly. Literally I looked forward to your commentary because I thought you were better than that type. It's ironic (or telling) that you look up to such a creep.

Biiirdmaaan! said...


Just so you know, you finished your argument that Bob is awful for never giving TASM a chance (won't someone PLEASE think of the corporations!) by saying you refuse to read the link because you already know it's terrible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... oh man, let me catch my breath, one moment, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man. That's too good.

Zachary Paul said...

I love Film Crit Hulk. I read it today, and yea its a great and relevant essay.

It would have been great, though, if you had been even a tenth, or a hundredth, as insightful or discerning as Film Crit Hulk in your review of the movie too. I don't mean to say you should BE Film Crit Hulk, no. Its just all your videos a litttterrred with evidence that you ARE a smart and insightful person, and your Amazing Spider-Man was not smart, or insightful. It was a amusing and fun at times yes, but it was overall pretty damn terrible (Kinda like Amazing Spider-Man).

Granted you put a lot of thought and work work into other videos, probably more important ones, so there has to be a time went you let all that go and to review based on your visceral reaction to a film. But at least recognize that your review was exactly that? Recognize that you were determined to have that reaction from the film's inception? Thats not a failing, or a bad thing period. Its almost like you trotting Hulks excellent piece out on your blog to validate something, but you wouldn't need to validate anything if you would just admit you're human(and sometimes an irrational nerd!), man.

Cheers, keep up the good work!

Lord Slithor said...

So, Bob, once again it seems you defend your position by saying in a roundabout way that you and the "small minority" who hated the film are somehow intellectually superior, while those of us who liked it are mental midgets. Real classy. You really are getting to be more and more of a real-life equivalent to Comic Book Store Guy.

I know you're unapologetic about being an Elitist. That's fine. But what I don't like is you lording your sense of superiority over the perceived unwashed massed like you know better.

I read the first several paragraphs of Film Crit Hulk's review, but like Anonymous #3 said, the all-upper case text hurt to read, compounded by the fact that is was very pednatic, felt more like an endurance test. Frankly, I don't know if by linking to this article you're trying to either enlighten us or punish us. But it seems to reveal a sadistic streak, if you ask me.

So if you and your elitist pals want to sit ensconced in your nerd ivory tower, that's fine. I'll prefer the company of the great unwashed masses, thank you very much. To quote James T. Kirk, "I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

Taylor said...

No Amaz, you don't get it. You claim to be calling for understanding and against predetermined opinion, but you keep going on and on about how Bob didn't show any integrity while ignoring attempt after attempt to reinforce his opinions.

You say that his opinions are demonstrably wrong but don't actual realize why they aren't (You say he can't establish that it's aping Twilight and Batman Begins, but he explained point by point how it is and you're only able to debate that by nitpicking the tiniest in it and claiming that you don't see it) You say that it's not accurate to claim he wasn't a social outcast, but it's apparently unclear enough that both he and FilmHulk, (As well as I) didn't see it. Yes, Flash Thompson picks on him, but "the quarterback picks on him" is the laziest kind of film shorthand to establish a point, and flatly contradicts the way that the film plays him up as a rebellious cool guy James Dean pastiche (Just like Twilight played Edward.)

Now, you just complain because of your Spiderman 4 conspiracy theory as though that invalidates the whole review, but I don't buy it. Especially when you are declaring (proudly for some reason) that you won't read FilmHulk's opinion just because you don't like what someone else did. Everything you say is like that: Talking around the issues, finding exceptions to points. You call for understanding and against bias driven complaining but act resistant to any contradiction of your outrage.

Part of a critic's job is to get angry at bad movies. Roger Ebert has done the same thing in the past. I like it, it's good journalism. You have to point out the really lousy parts of really lousy movie and punctuate it with real emotion or else everything becomes wishy washy attempts at appearing "objective" that neuter the reviews.

I like Bob, and I liked THESE reviews. I agree with all his opinions on the movie. It really seems like all this is is you trying to validate your opinion of the movie by trying to invalidate his for technical issues.

Taylor said...

@Lord Slithor: Drop the martyrdom act, he didn't say that. He defended HIMSELF from the many people claiming that he only disliked it because he was biased.

Nicholas said...

@taylor: That is the thing though he says he does not care, and then has spent every waking moment since the original review trying to defend himself. It is a natural reaction to do this when criticized. However, if Bob truly did not care, he would not have gone to such lengths to do so.

I say this not because Bob should not be able to defend himself. He has every right. However, his repeated incistance that he doesn't care, and that he is fine being in the minority just add to the whole reason people are upset with him. He is being obsurdly stubborn and has been unwilling to admit any extreme bias. All bob has to say is:

1.) yes I am extremely biased on this subject.

2.) I would have hated the movie anyways, but I recognized I have been overly hot headed in regards to this incident.

3.) I do care that I am in the minority and it pisses me the F*** off that people disagree with me so passionately on this one.

He has been demonstrably clear in his rhetoric that all of these things are clear, and yet has simultaneously refused to admit any of the above. None of these things are bad. We are all human. His refusal to own up to his own humanity however, that is what is WRONG.

Biirdman!: reread the previous commentors post... That is absolutely not what he said. He stated that the site in question has horrendous ownership and does not deserve hits. He did not comment on the piece itself. Big difference. Similarly if Bob truly hated what sony had done and then refused to see the movie out of contempt for their motives, this would have been completely OK.

Taking any single action of Bob's in this incident out of context, none of them are bad. Putting them together, however, makes for an unfortunate line of decision making on Bob's part.

I admit fully that I disagree with Bob's opinion on this movie as much as is humanly possible, and this colors my opinions on them a bit. However, my problems are not with Bob's perfectly valid opinions, they are with the dishonest ways he has chosen to give them.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@Taylor Drop the tough guy tone. It's pathetic.

You missed everything I wrote because you're too busy wanting to join the hate train on this movie and wanting to defend Bob so quickly. I've answered Bob's criticism on this movie directly. Nothing was a "nitpick" on my part. If anything it was Bob trying to nitpick at anything to force his false claims that the movie was a Nolan and Twilight rip off. I proved his points wrong.

You claim that the "quarterback picks on him" is "the laziest kind of film shorthand to establish a point" is such a baseless argument. After all, Raimi never used that to establish who Parker was in his movie, right? And tell me, how did Raimi establish Parker as a nerd aside from Maguire not being considered a "hunk" by Bob's standards and him wearing glasses almost all the time before he gets his powers?

There's no hypocrisy in me not wanting to visit Faraci's site. I never gave an opinion about the article Bob recommended. It just belongs to a site I don't wish to visit because the owner of it (Devin Faraci) is no good.

This isn't about Bob being angry either. It's about Bob being unprofessional and making up his mind way before this movie was even made. It's ironic you bring up Ebert because not too long ago he also behaved unprofessionally. He published a review for a movie he didn't finish watching. He got lots of shit for it and he ended up apologizing.

More irony is in the fact that Ebert gave this movie 3 1/2 stars out of 4 and called it the second best Spider-Man movie after the 2nd movie by Raimi.

You may like these kinds of reviews but Bob has been better and more insightful than this. If I wanted illogical childish outrage I can visit any internet forum out there for it.

cdstephens said...

If you had no problem being in the minority then you wouldn't have made this post, just saying.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Bob whether or not the movie is bad, simply because I haven't seen it yet, so I can't make that call.

I can say however that Bob's review of the movie was definitely not his best work; just the sheer contempt in the review made it aggravating to listen to. The fact that he's been against this movie from the beginning and so he went into the movie already disliking it doesn't help things, and indicates confirmation bias.

As far as I can tell, it wouldn't have mattered if Spiderman was actually good or not, because Bob would have said it was bad anyway and pointed out all the negatives because he disliked it going in. It's like asking an anti-religion atheist to give his thoughts on the Bible, or a die hard creationist to clue us in on evolutionary theory; you rarely get anything of worth besides an hateful opinion.

Biiirdmaaan! said...

"how did Raimi establish Parker as a nerd aside from Maguire not being considered a "hunk" by Bob's standards and him wearing glasses almost all the time before he gets his powers?"

I can answer that one:

*poor posture
*universally picked on and teased (not just by Flash but by pretty much everyone who wasn't MJ or Harry)
*sat alone in lunch room
*geeky hobbies (school paper photog and chess club)
*constitutionally unable to get a full sentence out in front of MJ
*initial plan to get the girl involved buying a used car

And I'm sure there's a lot more. Seriously, there's something in practically every scene that establishes Peter as a full-on dweeb. Sam Raimi did a lot to build character in that film.

Also, how is it ironic that Ebert had a different opinion than Bob?

Taylor said...

I wasn't going for tough guy. I was going for condescending. Because you need to be condescended to.

You did not "prove" anything. That is not what prove means. You just disagreed.

Raimi characterized him at multiple points as a nerd. He chases behind the bus getting laughed at by everyone. He waves awkwardly at MJ not realizing she's looking at her friends. He walks around awkwardly and gets into the fight by clumsiness. Him getting picked on was one small part. In TAMS, it was done just by the shorthand. Otherwise Gwen goes for him almost immediately. Even getting picked on is not to make him look uncool but to make Flash look uncool for being the preppie who's picking on the poor tormented hunk.

Just because you don't agree with that (And always immediately point out to the one "But aha! Raimi did X" to try to instantly prove points) doesn't mean you proved anyone wrong. That's not what proves means.

So yes, please go on about the ulterior motive I have for saying this, but when it comes down to it you're just another raging internet guy and it's annoying that you act like you're crusading against fanboy rage.

cdstephens said...

On a side note, all caps aside (I realize that it's part of the joke and long time fans probably enjoy it, but it's hard to get used to) Hulk does a good job reviewing the film, and it's worth checking out. Liked it much more than Bob's review.

At least Bob has good taste in reviewers, haha.

As always, will be looking forward to the next Big Picture/Escape to the Movies.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@Biiirdmaaan! Do realize that everything you mentioned about the establishment of Peter as a nerd in Raimi's film also exists in The Amazing Spider-Man.

And perhaps I threw the word "irony" too quickly in regards to Ebert's thoughts on this movie. I just found it amusing that the person Taylor decided to use as evidence for his argument ended up thinking highly of this movie. It wasn't to prove Bob wrong in not liking this movie just that it's interesting how that one turned out.

Biiirdmaaan! said...


I think I see the problem. You actually just rewatched the 2002 movie. I understand, it would be an easy mistake. There's no shame there.

You should watch the new one. It's much worse ;)

Anonymous said...

I've been following Bob's blog for a while now and I feel bad for him because this guy can't post anything without people jumping down his throat and reading too far into anything he posts.

While raging about this movie before it came wasn't very professional, I think he got lucky and still came out on top about the quality of the movie and I'm positive most people here just like to take the opposite side of whatever Bob's stance is for the sake of butting heads. Maybe they think if they beat a critic in a battle of wits it will level up their internet cocks.

Plus, I'm sure some people have biased of their own because they probably went into the movie with their minds all ready made up they would like it just so they could rush home and comment on this blog and hope for a chance to get into a round of internet fisty cuffs with Bob.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@ Taylor Yes, you were going for tough guy. And it is pathetic.

Yes, I did prove Bob wrong. Read my response to him in the post he did for his second review of this film. An example is Bob suggesting that Captain Stacy was made to be like Bella's father. That is false because as I pointed out Captain Stacy's characterization is based on the Ultimate universe version of the character which appeared way before Twilight.

I already pointed out all the things of how Peter is established as a nerd in this movie in that post also. It's telling that you like Biiirdmaaan! point to certain things that are also included in this movie which means you are either purposely ignoring it or are bad viewers (e.g. walks around awkwardly).

Your arguments are desperate and weightless. All you have is calling me names and declaring that I haven't accomplished anything. You don't have any convincing argument proving that. All is see is someone rushing to defend Bob without actually thinking.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@Biiirdmaaan! No, don't worry. I got the diagnosis for you. You see you're trying to make up for your bad arguments with flat jokes.

There's no shame in admitting that you aren't funny. No one will know your real name anyway.

John said...

Bob. Normally I love your work but this is just BAD. I haven't even seen the movie and I know that whether it considered "Good" or not it's not worth two videos and a article about.

For the love of god, let go of this obsession with proving that this movie is shit and move on. I know I'm hardly the only one sick of it.

Your job is to review AND entertain. There is nothing less entertaining than fanboy preaching.

Anonymous said...

@AmazinglyDisappointed Dude, seriously, what is your angle? What are you trying to accomplish? Get Bob fired? Have him say, "You are right AmazinglyDisappointed. I was completely wrong about my own opinion of the film. I bow to your superior intellect." Is that what you want? Seriously, it is just a movie, who cares if you like it but someone else doesn't. It is just a piece of entertainment, move on to more important things in your life other then railing against a movie critic for having an opinion. I really hope you have something you do in real life that you can be proud of other then this little charade you are putting on.

Biiirdmaaan! said...

Oh noes! Someone on the internet said I wasn't funny! My world is over!

Actually, I apologize for going for the snark, but man, you are arguing terribly.

1. Just because it's like Ultimate Spiderman does not make it a good movie.

2. Just because Sam Raimi did something similar does not mean it works in the new movie (though there's no shame in borrowing from the greats).

You're absolutely wrong that TASM established Peter's nerditry in the same way Raimi did, anyway. Garfield's Parker got the girl, like, immediately. There was no conflict there. At all. It wasn't like he was sitting around silently while his best friend dated the girl he's loved since forever.

Overall, his character screamed more "mopey asshole" than "awkward nerd."

And finally, making and assertion is not proving, despite your protests otherwise. (I did go back and read your first comment in the other thread. It was unconvincing.)

If your arguments actually made any sense, it would be easier to respond to you constructively. I promise I'll try harder.

Anonymous said...

@AmazinglyDisappointed Here are a bunch of links to critics that didn't like the movie either. Go harass them as well since you are so passionate about this.,82044/

Aiddon said...

I think the scene that truly killed this film's version of Spidey was the scene near the end with Captain Stacy. That really just painted Spidey as a selfish, irresponsible, spoiled, unlikable brat.

xaszatm said...

@Aiddon Thank You! Finally, someone else who saw that. I thought that the film was okay, what dragged it down was that final scene.

AwkwardBeanMan said...

@AmazinglyDisappointed just wondering, what problem do you have with Devin Faraci? I've been following him for a while and I've quite enjoyed his writings. Admittedly, like Bob, he has taken a rather negative stance towards TASM, but that doesn't really bother me.

But you make it sound like he's done some real heinous shit. And don't let it bias your opinion of Film Crit Hulk, he's been writing for years at his personal blog at, which is definitely worth checking out.

Marcomax said...

Wow I'm really should stop wondering into these comments.

Anyway, I've been waiting for this article for a while but I'm going to wait until I see the movie tomorrow for context. In retrospect, it was Bob's constant appraisal of ASM material that got me interested in the film.

Anonymous said...

Ya know I liked the film didnt love it but at least I dont get personally insulted by Bob. I also dont feel unintelligent for liking the film. BUT for the people groaning and moaning that Bob didnt like the film OR are insulted that he is insulting people for liking the film.... grow a pair. Plenty of VERY insightful critics like A.O Scott, Roger Ebert and other people constantly insult people for liking a particular film. THAT being said plenty of smart, intelligent critics liked this film. Though I also do believe that Bob did use things like Metecritic and Rotten Tomatoes when explaining the Avengers SOOOO yea.

Anonymous said...

*I meant Metacritic

Anonymous said...

Okay so bias, unprofessional blah blah blah. Already been covered. Let's talk about how you 'n cruise-control-for-cool are wrong about the movie:

The two biggest hangups betwixt you two appears to be how Pete and Connors behave.

Let's start with asshole Pete and the carjacker. First, the movie is clearly presenting his behavior in that scene as a negative and it makes perfect sense within the narrative. In the space of a few minutes, he has a big fight with his uncle, confronts him for what is probably the first time about the fact that he was abandoned by his parents and then watches him die as a direct result of his in-action. It is blatantly obvious that his smarm in the car jacking scene is how he's releasing all the pent up anger and self-hate these events have caused him. This is to say nothing of the fact that he never behaves like this again.

Now for Lizzy. Apparently, the big problem is that Connor's plans and motivations come out of nowhere despite the movie making it as clear as it can short of hammer-to-face-obvious that he's being affected by the serum. It's really not that hard to understand how a guy who's growing scales on his fucking skin might start having ideas that are a more reptilian concept of 'heal the world'.

Does the movie have problems. Shit yeah. Petey's personal crusade - which is presented as the only reason he's Spiderman at all - get's dropped as soon as Lizzy shows up and is never mentioned again. Same for the Oscorp lackey. It could have been made clearer why Connor's took the shit to begin with, but it can still be logically intuited to those with half a brain.

At the end of the day, this movie has problems, but obviously nothing as bad as either of you guys have made it out to be. I'm just surprised you focused on these two particular moments since it's pretty obvious what the movie was doing in those regards. You're typically smarter than this, even if you don't know how to maintain perspective.

Aiddon said...


No kidding, I felt insulted that we're supposed to think said scene is supposed to be heartfelt. It wasn't, it was arrogant, selfish, and stupid. Plus it's just SO against Spidey's core character that it's insulting to the character

Aiddon said...

Also, Devin from BAD noticed something interesting about that 25-minute trailer edit: it seems to have REALLY big story scenes...THAT WEREN'T IN THE THEATRICAL CUT.

This definitely lends some credence to the film possibly having major studio interference.

Greg said...

Ugh, this place is a mess. It'd probably be best for everyone if Bob just stopped mentioning this movie altogether.

The Bagwellian said...

Okay Bob, I know you said you like this guy but I'm six paragraphs in and it is nigh unreadable. Concise, apparently, does not enter into this man's dictionary, the use of all caps is making my eyes tired, and the whole "talk in the first person like the Incredible Hulk" shtick got old quick.

The Bagwellian said...

I finally got through it but I shouldn't have to work that hard. I'm pretty sure it could have been cut in half and still make all the points it had to make and do so with plenty of style. And it just dawned on me that I'm spending time complaining about the prose of one film critic on another film critic's blog. I need more coffee.

Blue Highwind said...

Who would have thought the Incredible Hulk would better explain why this movie is imperfect? I finally see where Moviebob is coming from. But I still must respectfully disagree.

Yeah, a great deal of the Peter Parker character does not work because, again, he's an egotistical teenager. He was very selfish towards Uncle Ben, and equally selfish when hunting down Ben's killer. But that's Spiderman's arc here, he learns that since he has so much strength and can do so much, he should use his powers to save people - to do something nobody else can.

The romance between Peter Parker and Emma Stone isn't really one that builds, they're pretty much in love from the beginning, they just need to make it work. This isn't really a deal killer for me for two reasons: 1) I don't watch Superhero movies for their romantic B-plots in the first place - they're usually the least interesting parts of the movie, and 2) I thought Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were really likable people in this movie and they played off each other well, they seemed to actually enjoy each other's company. At some point its like, yeah, the plotting isn't perfect here but they're still entertaining people being entertaining. So I liked this part of the movie.

Hulk even admits that this movie is perfectly fine during his review, claiming that it has at least as many problems as "The Avengers" but does not "resonate". Well, as far as I can tell, resonating seems to just be a personal thing, because for me and a lot of people, this was the best Spiderman yet.

Maybe I just don't expect all that much out of non-Batman superhero origin movies. Since for the most part, they all have story problems, they all have rather tacked-on romances, and they all come off with terrible pacing problems. Spiderman was able to cover those flaws with likable characters all around, great action scenes, and some good humor.

This sure worked a lot better for me than Captain America, the movie where Steve Rodgers is somehow both a superpowered being and an actor playing Captain America at the same time, and the movie can't even stomach the courage to have a real WWII story so Captain America must fight ridiculous bad guys with fucking lasers. Or Green Lantern which actually did star a total asshole who learns NOTHING. Or Daredevil, or Hulk, or Thor, or even Spiderman 1.

Mister Linton said...

Bob, just admit you were terribly biased against this project from the start. That's all anyone in any of your threads want from you. Just say "I would have probably disliked this film anyway, but I really HATED it for various other reasons before I even saw it." This truth is obvious to everyone so there is no reason to continue trying to act as if it isn't true. It just makes you look silly.

Then again, I also realize it is very hard to say something like that when everyone is telling you to like I just did, so...

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@ Biiirdmaaan! You have reading comprehension issues. I didn't make any argument that the movie is good because it's like Ultimate Spider-Man. The Ultimate Spider-Man part came when I was proving Bob wrong for suggesting that Captain Stacy in this movie is a rip off of Bella's father from Twilight. You also don't seem to know what an "assertion" is. In my post I provided specific examples from the movie to prove Bob's claims wrong. That's not an "assertion".

You tell me my arguments are unconvincing yet you don't mount a good one at all. A nerd having a girl interested in him suddenly makes them stop being a nerd? Really? What kind of a extreme stereotype do you have nerds that you have limited your definition of one to? Especially when one has in mind that in the movie Gwen has very similar interests in science like Peter does. Also Mary Jane in the first Spider-Man movie is not disinterested in Peter. The only reason she doesn't end up with him right away is because she was with Flash for a bit and then later on Harry makes his move.

All this seems to be is that a "nerd" for you and for some others has to be the very extreme and decades old stereotype. He must wear 6 inch thick glasses, wear suspenders, have a pocket protector, smile goofy all the time, all girls are repulsed by him, everyone picks on him all the time unless they are other "nerds", universally "ugly", etc...

Seriously, this image of a "nerd" some are demanding is about as cartoon-like as the mustache twirling villain.

KevinCV said...

@James Your personal attacks against Bob these last few months have not been enlightening, nor were they conducive to any topic he may post about on this blog and in turn, makes you also look like arrogant scum.

So, what's the REAL reason you insist on being Bob's Moriarty? Yes, James. I fucking went there. Guess what? I don't care. Oh, and when you explain yourself, don't give us this whole "He's being intellectually dishonest!" and similar tripe because it makes you sound like a broken record. Give ACTUAL reasons, and back them up with EXAMPLES instead of just spewing off shit and expecting the "average person" to put two and two together.

SirRosser said...

Glorious! Simply glorious! A set of comments about a movie have elicited more and more-though-out responses than abortion, gay rights and presidential elections combined! I must say, though, that the fact that I'm loving this chaos has given me pause to consider whether or not I may actually be a horrible person... Nah, I'm fine with it. Also, wouldn't it be a trip if James was actually Bob THE WHOLE TIME?

Concerned Citizen said...


Short version: Talking with James is a waste of time. He will never change and you're only validating his behavior by giving it attention.

Long version: As much as I dislike people playing Internet Psychologist™, it's really hard to deny that James comes across as either Narcissistic Personality Disorder and/or full blown Psychopathy. Keep in mind that despite the "oh, he's just so vain" misconception, the former is even worse than the latter. Psychopaths might indulge in extreme, harmful behavior and still have a very limited emotional attachment to some people, but NPD has no spectrum; it just simply is the lack of empathy for others and a sheer selfish drive to manipulate everything and everyone around them for their own pleasure.

In either case, James has walled himself in a bubble of selfish cognitive dissonance and made it clear he won't ever change. His behavior, from the spamming to the attempts to get Bob fired to his blatant emotional manipulation (look at how he follows up all his apologies with more tedious harassment) to making false promises (claiming he'll leave Bob alone if he responds to him, but look; he's still here) to his completely unapologetic excusing of himself from the fact that he's committing actual, trial-and-lock-him-up crimes, shows that he has no conscience. Period. I seriously doubt he even cares the slightest bit about politics or Libertarianism because he has shown basically no comprehension of either its principles or even the most basic human dignity. All he's doing is taking out his frustration about his own powerlessness against an overworked internet writer that is too gracious and forgiving for his own good and using the angle of Libertarianism as a "justification" for what basically amounts to "I hate you so fucking much and want to make sure you know that".

Bob: James will never get get past his issues and the longer you let him think he can get away with it, the more dangerous he'll become. Just read any site about this kind of behavior and they'll all say the same thing. Don't be like that sad person that won't get out of an abusive relationship due to misplaced faith in a humanity he just doesn't have. Just click here or <a href=">here</a>, follow the directions, ask a tech-savvy friend at Screw Attack or The Escapist if you need help, and get rid of him for good.

Aiddon said...

I think about it this way with Bob being biased. A LOT of critics (including Bob) have gone into movies either not looking forward to them and end up liking them (like Real Steel) or go into them excited and end up DESPISING them (Monsters). Bob going into this movie with obvious bias does not invalidate his opinion. Objectivity is an illusion that people make up only when it's convenient for them

James said...

KevinCV: The answer is simple - I don't like Bob's attitude. I don't like his arrogance, his cynicism, his hypocrisy, or his egotism. I don't like that he comes out and says that he considers 98% of the people on earth inferior to him. I don't like that he gives politicians he likes a free pass when they do things he'd criticize another politician for simply because they suit his own agenda better. I don't like when he says that people he sees as "inferior" should have their rights restricted. The man is a narcissist, and whenever he says or does something I find wrong, I will call him out on it.

If it makes you feel any better, Bob isn't the only person I bother. I've made nasty calls and e-mails to radio pundits, political figures, and paroled criminals who I consider to be abhorrent.

James said...

Concerned Citizen: I think Bob has shown more examples of Narcissistic Personality Disorder than I have. Read his tweets and posts; Bob thinks he's superior to most of the planet's population. You're telling me that's not a clear sign of NPD?

Anonymous said...

Hey James, do you want to be the Pot or the Kettle here? Because if we're trading neuroses, I think you've got an Obsessive Personality and a bit of an Attention Whore streak going on.

Anonymous said...


So does everyone else dumbass.

KevinCV said...

@James Wow, if that's all it is that makes you hate Bob with such seething vitriol, I think you should get a fucking life. And this is coming from a 25-year-old guy who's struggling with the job hunt, a committed relationship, and grappling with having Asperger's since the day he was born. So, that's probably gotta sting something fierce.

Not only that, but if Bob prompts you to act this way, it actually worries me how much vitriol George Carlin's comedy would unleash within you if he were still alive commentating on Obama's presidency, the birthers, Glenn Beck's allegations that Obama is a socialist, and all this other shit that's happening. I was already pretty disenchanted with politics to begin with, but with all that's happened in these last few years, it almost makes wanna give up living in the USA all together.

Anonymous said...

These conversations are interesting and all, but the perspective we need to keep is that they're pointless. If you saw the movie, you know what kind of movie it aspires to be: fun, entertaining, a bit thrilling, but without any groundbreaking depth or thematic resonance. There are some cool visuals but no new ideas or real surprises. And it isn't trying to be the kind of movie that makes you think; it can't be held to that standard. There are really only two relevant questions:

#1: Do you, subjectively, find the movie entertaining? (I did)

#2: If you're a geek, does this movie have enough resonance with Spider-Man cannon to seem like a plausible version of his story? (It did for me)

This movie wasn't an attempt to be the One, Great, True Spider-Man movie. Nobody has ever even tried to make that movie. In fact, I don't think there's a single superhero film that meets that standard - in order to be that movie, the director would have to remove all archness towards the character, ruthlessly eliminate spectacle not necessary to advancing the plot, and single-mindedly work towards establishing high moral stakes without flinching away at the last minute.

The BEST this movie could be was "pretty cool", and it either was or wasn't depending on your own tolerances. I mostly had fun, so I forgive it's stupidities and the holes in its character arcs. Bob walked in mad, so he can't. Hulk thinks every movie has to follow a formula or it's bad (hence he thinks Avatar is better than this, when in my opinion both movies hit the same glass ceiling of schlockiness, with Avatar maybe losing out do to the naked cynicism of its screenplay).

But...guys...the central conflict here is whether a giant green lizard can turn all of New York into giant green lizards. There's not much to debate here.

Anonymous said...


Looking at even the most optimistic estimates of the national debt and world economy, the United States is irrevocably fucked. If we shut down the whole government and poured every last dollar of taxes into repaying the debt, it would still take a couple years (and that's using severe magical thinking right there). Better get your visa application to England or Germany in while you still can, but given the European Union is probably going to self-destruct due to Greece et al and probably bring about some mutually assured destruction, maybe the world in general is just fucked? We're living in a global society that has about twenty times more debt than there is actual money and all we can do about it is cling to the collective fairy tale of it being worth anything.

As far as this movie goes: I haven't seen it, but it seems like more shallow high-budget entertainment that doesn't take any risks. Why act as if Bob is the antichrist for recognizing that, realizing this is all basically a cockblock on Sony's part instead of an art or even shallow entertainment project, and lets that fuel passion into his analysis? I've seen plenty of blind nerd-rage reviews and these videos are not that. At worst, it just means you disagree with his assessment. He has zero cultural weight and I doubt very many of you will be talking about it months from now.

James said...

Bob, please read this article on Huffington Post:

Now I ask you again, how can you support Obama when his record is as bad as Bush's?

Merrick_HLC said...

Bob, I like you & agree with you most of the time, but when you get overly gripey folks like something you don't & go "ALL OF YOU READ THIS THAT AGREES WITH ME IT SUCKS" you really make James look like he has a shred of a point.

Yay, you have a critic who agrees with you, I didn't send you to read every positive review of it cause I liked it.

More people agreeing with you doesn't make you right any more than lots of people liking the film mean it's good & you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

@ Merrick HLC

Maybe he just thinks the article is well-written and captures a lot of what's wrong with the film from the perspective of an educated film writer? What's wrong with giving attention to a genuinely good article? And you really think James the raving, stalking lunatic with his Fox News pundit-speak looks good in comparison?

James said...

Anonymous: I don't watch Fox News, except for John Stossel.

Merrick_HLC said...

Anonymous: If Bob ever posted praise of articulate reviews that disagreed with his opinion that'd be believable.

And note I didn't say James actually was right about a damn thing. I said it made it look like he has "a shred of a point"

James is wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong wrong & needs the help of a good psychotherapist, but when Bob gets a burr up his britches about something and just refuses to let it go (ME3 ending debacle & this movie daring to exist) and often bashes anyone on the other side while singing the praises from the rooftops of everyone who agrees.... he does not act counter TO what James says.

In fact, if one removes the stalking aspect from James & leaves the "This is my point, agree with it or you're less intelligent/awesome than I am, and I will point this out as many times as I get the opportunity to" he bears a resemblance to James.

James said...

Merrick_HLC: THAT is why I go after Bob; becaue he continues to spout this insane "I'm always right and anyone who disagres with me is inferior" attitude. Look, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Bob NEVER admits when he's wrong.

Anonymous said...

It's not the job of a debater to argue against their position or present all the opinions that exist for "balance" and this goes a hundred fold more in the subjective field of narrative criticism.

Seriously, where did Americans pick up this stupid idea, anyway? I've only ever heard it as a way of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Sounds like the kind of thought-terminating nonsense Rush Limbaugh would throw out instead of actually presenting his own compelling counter-argument. I have never heard anybody ever say "I agree fully, but you fail to mention these opposing viewpoints".

Merrick_HLC said...

See. It's giving James ammunition, that alone is reason to stop.


Also I have to say, I find it so funny those who fanboy over Raimi's movies tend to bash those who fanboy over Nolan's Spider-Man movies.

To me they're both similar, the fanboys I mean.
"They're the best ever. We shall state that as an absolute fact & if you are negative towards them that is reason to disregard your opinion wholesale"

No. Just No.
Both are fine collections of films, but the fanboy claims of perfection are laughable.

Merrick_HLC said...

I so wish this had an Edit or "alert for more replies" feature.

To anonymous:
I'm not saying "You always have to point out those who disagree or present both sides" I'm saying when you are a HARDCORE advocate of one belief that is in the minority and latch on to whoever agrees with you & shout how awesome they are it becomes annoying after a bit.

As to refuting the points, that'd be easier if precise & valid points were made, but the vast majority of this is entirely subjective stuff.

They find the character of Peter lacking, unfulfilled, unrealistic & such in this.

I have precisely the same problems with Raimi's version of Parker.

I saw the first 2 Spidey movies opening day & saw the 3rd not long after, but those movies never made me care, at all for Peter Parker.

I cared about J Jonah Jameson, I cared about Harry & Doc Ock, but Peter himself was an annoyance.

Whereas FCH points to Spidey 2 as "The perfect comic book movie" I (And feel free to accuse me of being dismissive & rude here) honestly burst into laughter reading that line.

The Nolan movies, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, all did better jobs as comic book movies to me, translating the protagonist well as well as the villains.

The thing is I acknowledge this is subjective.

Dave from canada said...

No bob, you aren't the only one who didn't like it. You are however the only one stupid enough to mention on an almost weekly basis why this movie was going to be terrible only for nearly every one of your predictions to turn out to be false.

You are also the only one dumb enough to think you could do this, be wrong and NOT have peopel call you on it. So instead of being a man admitting you were wrong or simply admitting that you were incapable of making an objective assessment, you do what you always do when you find yourself in this position. You lash out and throw multiple tantrums. You did it with metroid and you are doing it here.

I myself just saw it. Easily better than any of the raimi movies and in my opinion, Better than avengers, especially from an action standpoint.

The entire theatre clapped when the lights came up. You may not like it, and some reviewers might (although most do) but alot of people seem to be enjoying the crap out of it.

Anonymous said...

"It's not the job of a debater to argue against their position or present all the opinions that exist for "balance" and this goes a hundred fold more in the subjective field of narrative criticism."

Reminds me of this.

Fallen Angel said...

So, in manner of responses to Bob's Amazing Spider-Man review(s), we have so far:

"Bob iz biased!"
"Bob's just a comic/Raimi fanboy!"
"Bob just hates Sony!"
"Bob haz lost all kredibility as critic!"
"Film Kritic Hulc's writing iz stoopid! I kan't reed it!"
"You didn't like Spida-Man! I DID! Waaahhh!"

...Am I missing any here?

(Yes, the hate has gotten that boring that I'm now categorising it. Sue me.)

SirRosser said...

I hereby make the motion that Fallen Angel be immediately declared "last sane person on the whole goddamn internet." Seconds?

Megabyte said...

Hey Bob! I was looking for a way to reach you directly but without finding one, this is the best I could do.

You might want to read this... kinda strikes me as up your alley.

dennett316 said...

@SirRosser, no, no I'm not with you. There's plenty of well written and reasoned counter points here (along with the nutbars) and he resorts to misspellings and typing in idiot speak to belittle said opinions while offering nothing to counter them. Why on Earth should anyone celebrate that attitude?

Anonymous said...

This story does it so wrong!

Franklin said...

Bob, is there any way I can have your e-mail? I wanted to share some ideas about spiderman, but some of them are actually kinda personal... I tried to find your e-mail here, on the escapist... with no success. Is there any problem with that?

I know It may be personal, or something but... I wanted a closed-message-thing-like with you.

If you may, My e-mail is (email-me, and I'll email back, again, if there's no problem with that...)

Chris Cesarano said...

I actually really enjoyed reading Film Crit Hulk's review and agree with a lot of what he had to say.

But he wasn't reiterating points he already bitched about leading up to the film's release suggesting he had already made up his mind, and he wasn't using hyperbole. He was taking the film on its own terms rather than bitching about how it was forced to be made by executives.

Film Crit Hulk wrote a smart, insightful review. Yours was anything but.

I am happy to disagree with Film Crit Hulk because I can see and agree with all of his points, even if I ultimately still enjoyed the film.

Aiddon said...

@Fallen Angel

No, you pretty much got all the bases covered. It's why I always find Bob's detractors hilarious; they literally NEVER have any new material or criticisms to throw at him.

Anonymous said...

@Aiddon that seriously how you think it works? Really?

Wow man,

Anonymous said...

Of course, the only people winning in this thread are Bob and Film Crit Hulk.

Deimos Masque said...

Saw it for the second time today. First time my fan boy milk was all over myself. So this time, after rewatching Bob's two reviews and reading the Hulk Critic.

I still liked it, Spider-Man fan here for nearly 15 years, though to be fare unlike Bob I didn't like the Animated Series and I -do- like Ultimate Spider-Man.

It gets dull after the bridge scene and doesn't pick up again until the climax. The changes they made the origin are no different to me that the changes made to Batman (no Mask of Zorro?), Iron Man, Thor (where -is- Donald Blake by-the-by?) or the Punisher.

That being said, I can really see how it isn't for everyone. I grew up loving Marvel's What if? series and DC's Elseworlds. The idea of changing things here and there to make a darker story isn't new to me, as even the publishers do that.

The Raimi movies are good watches but they have similar flaws to what Bob mentions. I could go through them all but I that'd be boring.

I will say that I gave up on the Raimi movies right when Spider-Man could lose his powers by not wanting them in Spider-Man 2.

To Bob, who I respect and like. I want to say that I do feel people have been attacking you rather too harshly. But at the same time, you said this wasn't as bad as Green Lantern, yet Green Lantern did not get the same level of vitriol from you.

Film Critic Hulk does a better job of making the same points, and being convincing because he doesn't go off in a rage. Perhaps that's the weakness of the video-review genre, I don't know.

Regarless Bob, don't go all "Spoony" on us. Be Linkara, be the better man and know that you're fans are here, and we will stay. You did come off as wanting to hate the movie, but for me that doesn't matter.

You're still the guy who put into words what I thought of Bayonetta, better than I could. You're the guy who kept me as hyped for the Avengers as I could be. And you were the one who reminded me, "Magneto is Right."

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Wow, this thread, like all Bob's other Amazing Spider-Man posts since the film's release, has really gotten out of hand.

If you think he's biased and want to hold him accountable, write The Escapist directly and complain to them. They pay him to do Escape to the Movies, after all.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I would do is call for anything that would hurt Bob professionally over this because, while I disagree with Bob's review, I didn't see anything inherently wrong with it, either. So I'll just chalk it up to us disagreeing on this particular film. I just get tired of people complaining for the sake of complaining.

As for the film itself, I liked it. It wasn't great, but it wasn't a complete wash, either. In the hierarchy of Spider-Man films, my order is Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. At the end of the day, they all have their pros and cons, and the definitive Spider-Man movie hasn't been made yet.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were MILES beyond Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. MILES. They worked really well together, and that always helps you feel for the people on screen.

I do wish, however, that we'd gotten a little bit more about how Peter and Gwen's relationship developed. It seemed like they knew each other a little bit at first, they showed interest in each other, and then they're having dinner at her house, making out on the balcony and he reveals he's Spider-Man. I'd like to think that the studio just forced them to take a chunk out and we'll get a bit more context in a Director's Cut later on down the line.

One thing I REALLY liked in this movie was the fact that when Pete got beat up (both in and out of his costume), he showed it, and the other characters reacted to it. Spider-Man doesn't have any kind of healing factor: when he gets hurt, he's affected the same way you or I would be. So the fact that Spidey took the kind of beatings he took in the Raimi films without a mark to show for it always rubbed me the wrong way.

As for Peter's character itself, a lot of the work was done through very subtle means. Yes, they didn't use the exact "With great power must also come great responsibility" line, but the heart of it was still there. Ben's spiel about how Pete's dad said if you have the ability to help people, you have the responsibility to? Yeah, that's the modified version of "with great power."

The reason it doesn't immediately take hold is that, unlike in the Raimi movies, Peter wasn't indoctrinated (for lack of a better word) with the concept because, as Ben said, they didn't talk about Pete's parents much, if at all. So yeah, it took him a little while longer than we'd expect to have the importance of that message brought home to him. The conversation/argument with Captain Stacy really seems to help bring the point home that Peter needs to see past his own pain and use the gifts he received to help more than just himself. The Uncle Ben voicemail at the end also helped cement that.

Oh, and the crane scene was by NO MEANS the stupidest thing ever seen in a Spider-Man movie. Dancing emo Spider-Man and the fact that SANDMAN killed Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 3 will forever hold that dishonor.

I could go on, but I've already taken up enough real estate here. So yeah, I enjoyed the movie despite its flaws and am interested to see if we get a Director's Cut on Bluray and how things progress if this universe is given a sequel. Peace out!

Aqua said...

Y'know, normally I'd defend Bob as it's only natural for a review of any sort to be biased and oppinionated. I mean, they all are, and we pick our reviewers based on how often we find ourselves agreeing with them and,or how much we have in common with them.

But this time I have to side with the 98% that the world can apparently do without. This is a bullshit move.

His first mistake of course was exhibiting so much bile for this movie before seeing it. The moment he pulled that, nobody was going to take his review seriously anymore.

Even ignoring that first one, he still might've pulled it off if he'd just left it at that. But no, a follow-up video because he knew he'd goofed up, and now THIS. One thing a reviewer should never do is try to defend his review.

Worst thing is, I was sure it was going to suck anyway, had gotten my dissapointment out of the way ahead of time, and shrugged it off. And even so, I still find this review to be in poor taste. Get your shit together Bob, you used to be better than this...

Anonymous said...

Look, at the end of the day, characters beat plot and ASM has better characters than any of Raimi's films. Garfield is a much better Peter, Stone is a much better girlfriend, Sheen is an infinitely better Uncle Ben.

It's nothing short of hypocritical to bag on ASM for a contrived and messy plot when that applies to every Spiderman movie. You just excuse Raimi because his films are meant to evoke the silver age comic era SM, which also featured contrived and messy plots, while the plot hang ups in ASM are far more present because the film has no such stylistic intent. Alright, fine.

The problem is all your complaints - and Hulk's - revolve around the plot and not the characters and the simple truth is that engaging characters will always take precedent over ever other aspect of film making.

So the script doesn't know who Peter Parker is? Doesn't matter, because Garfield does and his performance communicates this to the audience. Uncle Ben doesn't say the iconic line? Fantastic! Instead of hammering a phrase at us to the point where it has no meaning, Sheen makes us understand the intend of the line rather than just blurting it out for fan fapping. Hulk think Peter/Gwen don't work on screen. Clearly Hulk forgot just how terrible a character Dunst's Mary Jane was throughout all three of the previous movies.

At the end of the day, character wins out and ASM has it was where the previous films did not.

Anonymous said...

"One thing a reviewer should never do is try to defend his review."

If you're not willing to defend your stance, why even make one in the first place? No less than Roger Ebert went on record multiple times about why he considers the Transformers series toxic.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

One more thing about this.

To everyone who says that the little "promises that can't be kept are the best" bit somehow ruins the character of Spider-Man forever, read One More Day and tell me that isn't WORSE than the promise bit in every conceivable way.

Besides, that bit could lend a bit more depth/adversity to the Peter/Gwen relationship in a sequel. Who knows how they'll play it? Maybe Pete and Gwen try to date, but Pete starts to feel bad about going back on his word and breaks it off. Would that have ruined the character? Not from where I'm sitting.

We simply don't know how it's going to develop.

Anonymous said...

I swear people are watching a different movie. Peter and Gwen romance has no drama or conflict what so ever. It's pretty much mindless flirting then he reveals he Spider-Man and they make out even more. I know people don't think Bob has the right to compare to Twilight but it kind of is.

Also, Spider-Man wasn't funny. He is like a guy who doesn't know when to stop with a joke and keeps going thinking it gets funnier when it doesn't. If he would have just said "Do I look like a cop to you?" that would have worked but he keeps going and any humor is lost. It really is like watching someone who is a douchebag attempt humor. Also, I love how people say the Raimi movies were corny and had bad slap stick when this movie keeps using the "He broke something with his uncontrollable strength" gag a million times.

Film Hulk was right about that last line too.

OmegaWyrm said...

I need to get a browser add-on that will edit out any comment with the word "bias" in it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Also, Spider-Man wasn't funny. He is like a guy who doesn't know when to stop with a joke and keeps going thinking it gets funnier when it doesn't."

In other words, they got the character right. In the comics, he really does think that he's making with the funny and most of the surrounding characters find him annoying.

Anonymous said...

I know that if Bob had come out of this movie liking it, everyone here who is raging against his bias would still be all over him with "I told you so" and "time to eat crow" comments. In fact, people already did that back in his post where he mentioned that the initial reviews out of the UK were mostly positive.

Maybe Bob went a bit overboard in his 'It doesn't look good' predictions. Maybe he didn't do enough to state, 'but we'll see how it turns out'. That doesn't make his current opinion invalid. Nor does your attempt to prove bias. It is just one opinion, you can move on now. Unless you are somehow hung up on Bob's opinion and feel that his is much more meaningful than an average person's. Why else would you be spending so much time trying to debate it?

Anonymous said...

Honestly guys. This argument is still going on?

Anonymous said...

Bob is barley a blip in the vast toilet of the internet. Who cares what he says, both positive or negative?

Dave from canada said...


No, the fact that he literally is making shit up about the movie to find fault with makes his position invalid. That bit about lensflares was especially bad considering I can't remember a single lensflare in the film.

Actually...scratch that. Yeah the fact that he's been on a one nerd crusade against this films since before it was in preproduction invalidates his opinion. Because we have noway of knowing if he's being honest. Except for when he says things that are blatantly untrue. You have to make a choice. You can have credibility or you can use the media as a tool to bludgeon home your own personal agenda. You don't get both.

And incidentally, if he had liked it I'd bet money that multiple people would have given him props for admitting he was wrong.

It would have been a sign of integrity. But as we can see from the multiple posts on the same subject (something bob only does in this fashion when he knows full well he is making a losing argument, see Metroid) we ain't getting one of those anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

@Previous Anon

Is this really that hard for people to figure out? Are you all really this simple minded? Fine, I'll spell it out for you:

Bob's an entertainer first and foremost. His job is to make sure we stay engaged in his content and the main schtick he uses to do that is fast paced ala Yahtzee. But the big draw is how emotionally charged and blunt he is about what he talks about. He's portraying himself as a guy who cuts through the 'BS' (i.e. common social censorship present in non-internet discussions)to 'tell it like it is.' Whether it's a genuine character trait of Mr. Chipman or not is irrelevant. It's what makes him popular, it's his schtick. It's how he entertains.

But this concept of emotional honesty that Moviebob is meant to inhabit has come back to bite him in the ass. He's spent so much time being so clearly against this film for reasons that have nothing to do with a film's responsibilities to an audience, that when review time finally comes around, he's destroyed any trust we have that he'd judge the film on its own merits which is the responsibility of any film critic who considers themselves a professional.

But even taking that aside, the real sticking point that's got everyone up in arms is going right back to the issue of honesty. I'll hazard a guess that most of Bob's fans understood that this was going to be the case regardless of whether the film ended up being any good or not. No, what's sticking in their craw is the lack of emotional honesty from Bob by not admitting the painfully obvious bias he applied to this movie in his review, which runs directly opposite the Moviebob character he's established, because now it appears he's cowering from an uncomfortable truth rather than blithely acknowledging it. Now it's Moviebob, the guy who cuts through the BS to tell it like it is...unless it applies to him.

This Hulk thing is especially egregious because of how obvious of a deflect and redirect tactic it is.

Anonymous said...

@multimedia No, only bad writers make Spider-man that way but more importantly I know that the characters are supposed to find him annoying but the reader or the viewer shouldn't. You want see Spider-Man one liners done right, go watch any episode of the Spectacular Spider-Man.

Bobby said...

@ Dave From Canada, You may have enjoyed the film, but A)there was lansflare, B) I fucking hated it, and C) so what if Mr. MovieBob went in biased? If the movie had engaging, or actually had character growth/ development maybe he would have liked it more. But, Peter/Spidey, is quite literally, the same person at the beginning of the film, that he is at the end. There is also no real push to be engaged with him as a character- he's too dumb to know his parents are dumb ("where is he"? He is dead you twat), doesn't have to fight for or prove anything to Gwen, they simply like each, which would be awesome if they ever went on a real date and we explored their relationship. As for being a hero, he only goes after people that look like the guy that killed Uncle Ben (even after the dinner scene with Capt. Stacey, he only goes after the Lizard), or the monster he accidentally helped create. As such, he is never a proper hero. Everything he does is to save his own ass. Garfield and Stone have amazing chemistry though, and the score is solid, if a bit uninspired at times.

Dave from canada said...

@ bobby

Because the entire point of a review is to tell us about the relative quality of a film. If a person has decide beforehand that it is terrible than the review is worthless. And since bob decided this movie was a tool of the devil over 2 years ago, and didn't hav ethe integrity to tell people before the review

I'm not sure what movie you ere watching because if there was lens flares, it was minimal. Certainly not the super 8/star trek elvels bob is implying. But then again he also kept calling it gritty when the film is easily the most upbeat of the spider-man movies.

As for the no growth, I disagree. Peter starts the movie as a detached, largely selfish, bitter loner. He only starts fighting crime in order to get revenge. Over the course of the movie he realizes that being a hero is more important than getting even. Instead of just hearing the great power line and changing on a dime, he actually has to learn it over the course of the film.

When gametrailers reviewed rock band they specifically mentioned that they were owned by the same company...and thus there was a chance for a conflict of interest, That's due dilligence. Bob is less concerned with the truth than he is in getting his way (and I'm just gonna say it..I think he knows this was a good movie and just doesn't want it to be.)

Vinny Andreotti said...

Hey guys,

Not sure if this constitutes spamming, but If there's anyone that agrees with Bob's assessment of the Call of Duty franchise, as well as any fans of Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails, you might want to check out the latest post to my blog, which is a response to the news that Reznor is scoring the Black Ops II theme.

It's a relatively brand new blog with virtually zero traffic, which is something I'm hoping to change eventually. I'm not nearly at the level of Bob in terms of literary chops and insightfulness, but I think I bring a fresh perspective to certain issues.

If you're interested, check it out:

D.Cooper said...

It's always been apparent that Bob and his mass of fans are hipster elitist assholes who think they're better than the world. One guy posits that every detractor to Bob has the same arguments, giving examples in misspelled idiot speak, and never have any valid points.

For starters open your eyes and actually read what these people are saying, sure a lot of it is about his bias and what have you but they're all completely intelligent and well backed up. This isn't a bunch of idiots whining that Bob didn't like the movie, others even admit to disliking it. The point most are making is Bob obviously never gave it a chance, the amount of vitriol aimed at the movie before its release is a good example of that.

The other point they make is that Bob acts like he's of superior intellect to those that disagree with him. Literally saying that it's nice to be agreed with by smart insightful people. The people disagreeing with him have been smart and insightful, but he (much as he says he doesn't) obviously doesn't like being in the minority and being disagreed with, else he wouldn't keep posting about it and sharing articles with people who agree with him and he definitely wouldn't be acting like an asshole essentially claiming that the majority of people who disagree with him are blithering idiots. That's a dick move.

And the final point I've noticed is the fact that Bob continues hypocrisy as he often does by claiming that Rotten Tomatoes percentage is not irrelevant in film discussion and the scores on the site are not indicative of the film quality and thus anyone using that as an example is an idiot. But he used the scores before with The Avengers and he's using an outside review to prove help give his arguments some weight. That's all using Rotten Tomatoes is, it's a site that tallies reviews by professional film critics. Bob is a hypocrite.

The fact that most of Bob's defenders are completely bashing everyone who even posts anything intelligent or not is depressing. And then when people link other negative reviews and tell Bob's detractors to go harass those critics too. It's funny; we don't care that Bob didn't like the movie. It's the fact that he was unprofessional about the whole thing and keeps defending himself with crap like this, while obviously never understanding or reading what his detractors are saying.

But there's no point arguing, the radical fans will continue to spit venom at anyone who even calls Bob out on his bias an hypocrisy, and Bob like the members of the TGWTG team will sit on his happy little pedestal knowing he's free of criticism cause he and his fans will be damning anyone who sends any his way.