The Amazing Spider-Man 2 |SPOILER THREAD| Enter Marcs Webb
- Thread starter Toa TAK
- Start date
- Status
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I laughed at "Peter is the most selfish asshole 'hero' on the screen and the movie doesn't even know it." It just kept finding new ways for Peter NOT to learn from any mistakes, or have anything be his fault, so he can keep being totally awesome.
Put me in the "LOVED IT" camp. I went in with lowered expectations and left a fan. The fights were extremely well shot, Peter and Gwen's chemistry was just through the roof. God, Emma Stone is beautiful. And adorable.
I wasn't a big fan of Harry's 'birth' as the Goblin though. I could see how the serum could have turned Harry insane, but this was a bit much. His descent to insanity felt a little forced. Electro was well done. He was nuts from the beginning... And Harry DID tell Electro to make Spider-Man bleed.
I just, I don't know. Maybe it will be like with Pacific Rim (loved it at the theater, hated the Blu-Ray). Maybe it won't. But I left the theater extremely satisfied. As far as I'm concerned, if they can continue with this quality (and Garfield), Sony can keep Spider-Man. They have renewed my faith in them with this movie.
I wasn't a big fan of Harry's 'birth' as the Goblin though. I could see how the serum could have turned Harry insane, but this was a bit much. His descent to insanity felt a little forced. Electro was well done. He was nuts from the beginning... And Harry DID tell Electro to make Spider-Man bleed.
I just, I don't know. Maybe it will be like with Pacific Rim (loved it at the theater, hated the Blu-Ray). Maybe it won't. But I left the theater extremely satisfied. As far as I'm concerned, if they can continue with this quality (and Garfield), Sony can keep Spider-Man. They have renewed my faith in them with this movie.
Bryce could've been any fucking character, it sure wasn't Gwen except for the blonde hair.
Were they mistakes? I felt a-hole peter in the first one was intentional, and it's way way way toned down in the second. Uncle Ben is intentionally downplayed as a random act of violence in order to put more emphasis on other people in Peter's life. Captain Stacy. His Father. Gwen. There's a massive theme of self-sacrifice running through the film that they're trying to go with (not always successfully) with the "This is going to happen to you eventually, too" theme underscored in the background.
They've set up Black Cat perfectly, in that Gwen died not because she was helping, but because she was a soft target linked to Peter. Black Cat is explicitly not that type of relationship for him, and it also lets you set up "Peter you haven't seen anyone in months, let's set you up on a date...." for MJ.
I don't think they always achieved what they were going for, but I appreciate the attempt to tell a story that explicitly wasn't the Uncle Ben one.
She was far better than any love interest from the last trilogy. One of the best, if not the best things about this franchise.
I never looked at the Uncle Ben thing that way.
Anyway, I think you're giving the writers too much credit, because what you're proposing doesn't sound like too bad of an idea at all. Would be surprised if they were competent enough to go down that path based off how unfocused this movie felt overall.
broncobuster
Banned
I agree, or used to agree. People always brought up Peter talking off his mask in SM1-ASM. ASM2 is the first to keep him in the mask until the very end. It worked better than I expected.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Great critique about everything wrong with the movie.
Is Sculli secretly Film Critic Hulk?
The inevitability of death is a big, big thing with these two movies, enough so that I could actually see them actually pulling the trigger on him dying at the end of the Garfield films.
The article above addresses this stuff though.
This is a pair of writers who feel a great need to VERBALIZE EVERYTHING AND SLAP YOU ON THE FACE WITH THEIR THEMES.
And we're going to say that they were so trusting of their audience as to make a subtler point about Peter in this one?
He still acts like an asshole, it's just that the writers bend the world around him (like underlining Gwen's death as HER decision, not as a result of him) to make him seem justified.
I don't agree with this. The only scene where Peter removing his mask was dumb in any of the Spider-Man movies was TASM after the Lizard fight. Besides that it was never a big deal, and in this film they find a nice balance. Garfield has great charisma behind the mask, some argue his Parker is better behind the mask. So I have no problem with him keeping it on in most of his Spider-Man scenes, what a silly complaint. I fail to see how it was done any differently or better in Raimi's films.
I think that would be a dark ending for a Spider-Man movie, but some of the talk about the Sinister Six movies doesn't elude from that happening though. It even sounds like they're implying it. I don't think they would go through with it though.
Yes, I said some of the movie was dumb. Not all of it like you said. Not bullshit, you were actively going out of you way to be act shitty. It was originally just two sentences I posted, then I was talking to someone else over it, then you got a rage boner because apparently I thought your favorite part of your favorite movie was dumb.
You say that I am fishing for arguments when all of your posts come down to "Fuck you. Why are you responding to me? Looking for trouble?"
That was really bad, and I've stated how cowardly the writers are for slipping that in there. I still think Peter is to blame for keeping her from going to London. They honestly should've left the, "I make my own decisions" crap out of the movie. But yeah, partially blaming Gwen for her death, shame.
Er, they're not doing that at all? She doesn't die because of her decision to save the day - she turns out to be completely justified as he couldn't take Electro down alone. She dies because of her connection to Peter, because she's in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Kirsten Dunst was pretty good looking though not exactly great Mary Jane.
Er, yeah they did completely do that. They shifted the blame away from spider-man and onto either Gwen or no one at all. I guess you could argue either way but they really beat you in the face with the whole "IT'S MY CHOICE I WANT TO BE HERE YOU DIDN'T ASK ME TO BE HERE PETER I CAME HERE ME ME ME ME" so yeah. Regardless of how you want to read it, Gwen's death is supposed to be 100% Spider-Man's fault, no questions, no vagueness.
Same reason why Connors hasn't gone public with Spidey's identity I guess.
edit: Villain logic: Peter is the reason why Connors is in prison, doesn't have a second arm again, Peter's dad abandoned their entire partnered research and regressed everything involved, and the whole world is not lizards - he could definitely have a grudge lol.
Well Connors doesn't hold a grudge with Peter, Harry kind of does.
Yes, it's his fault in that she gets targeted to get to him. But that's the point here, as I saw it- they never had a choice. Dating, not dating - the choice was an illusion. The instant Peter mentions his on-again, off-again girlfriend to Harry, she's doomed.
Harry is also in a prison for crazy criminals because he murdered Peter's girlfriend after stealing a super suit from OsCorp. I don't think he is in much of a position to hold press conferences.
Right, but they most definitely put some of the blame on Gwen, I have no doubt about that in both of my viewings. I'm not usually anal about how they use the source material, actually, I almost never am lol. But Gwen's Death in the comics wasn't at all her fault. I thought it was handled well in the film, but there are a few things I would've changed.
MeBecomingI
Member
Well, having watched it on Sunday night, I came away thoroughly happy. A lot of people in this thread and a lot of the reviews made the movie seem like pure shit which I just do not understand. I felt it was one of the better superhero films out there and better than most of the current Marvel output, with the exception of The Winter Soldier.
It had issues, but as a huge Spidey fan, it just felt right. They did a lot of great things and they had fun with the movie.
Honestly, having just watched the Raimi films a few days ago, I'd say SM2 = ASM2 > SM1 > ASM > SM3.
I look forward to more. Shame this will probably end up being the worst grossing one... it was easily the better of the two ASM movies and deserves a lot more than what it will likely end up at.
It had issues, but as a huge Spidey fan, it just felt right. They did a lot of great things and they had fun with the movie.
Honestly, having just watched the Raimi films a few days ago, I'd say SM2 = ASM2 > SM1 > ASM > SM3.
I look forward to more. Shame this will probably end up being the worst grossing one... it was easily the better of the two ASM movies and deserves a lot more than what it will likely end up at.
Doesn't Connors say stuff about how he wants to protect Peter after the climax of the first movie? There isn't a grudge.
Sure, the same issue is still there though. Some blame was still shifted off of Peter and IMO some of that blame was even shifted to Gwen.
oh yeah you're right, he totally saves Peter from falling off of Oscorp I forgot lol
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I won't point to my tag if you won't.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I saw it. It's one of those movies that can be easily torn apart by nitpickers.
The sad thing is that the things I sort of enjoyed about it are extremely superficial and don't really help make it good (the daylight swinging, suit, occasional cool effects). My main gripe with this one (and the original as well), is that it tries to be too much and comes off as a clumsy mess going through the motions, cramming in as much as it can to set up for future installments. Motives and actions are glanced at in place of depth.
Watching a movie like this I find myself feeling as if I were being fed pig slop; a project that lacks any sort of passion and just rushes through to get the next one out. I think that is disrespectful to the audience and I can't really find enjoyment in it.
About Peter being a cunt, well, he is, but I wouldn't blame him so much for not giving Harry his blood. This is purely nitpicking, but I feel it shows a little why Peter is a cunt. The scene at the beginning when Spider Man first meets Giamatti; he is being a smartass instead of stopping him (which would have been easy), they continue to drive into the incoming traffic crashing and completely destroying a few cars, it isn't until Jamie Foxx is in danger that Spidey jumps to the rescue. Fuck that innocent people that were driving those cars, right? I guess it was ok because he was busy making wisecracks. That shit wouldn't fly with Tobey's Peter.
3/10
The sad thing is that the things I sort of enjoyed about it are extremely superficial and don't really help make it good (the daylight swinging, suit, occasional cool effects). My main gripe with this one (and the original as well), is that it tries to be too much and comes off as a clumsy mess going through the motions, cramming in as much as it can to set up for future installments. Motives and actions are glanced at in place of depth.
Watching a movie like this I find myself feeling as if I were being fed pig slop; a project that lacks any sort of passion and just rushes through to get the next one out. I think that is disrespectful to the audience and I can't really find enjoyment in it.
About Peter being a cunt, well, he is, but I wouldn't blame him so much for not giving Harry his blood. This is purely nitpicking, but I feel it shows a little why Peter is a cunt. The scene at the beginning when Spider Man first meets Giamatti; he is being a smartass instead of stopping him (which would have been easy), they continue to drive into the incoming traffic crashing and completely destroying a few cars, it isn't until Jamie Foxx is in danger that Spidey jumps to the rescue. Fuck that innocent people that were driving those cars, right? I guess it was ok because he was busy making wisecracks. That shit wouldn't fly with Tobey's Peter.
3/10
I'm not defending ASM2 with this statement (although I did enjoy it more than this writer), but since when did overly simplistic, cookie-cutter storytelling become something worth jumping through hoops to praise?
Sure, Kung-Fu Panda, and dozens upon dozens of other flicks like it, are neat and tidy, but very few of them make a lasting impression or leave lingering thematic questions. They're structurally boring films.
I get that writers need to understand the grammar of cinema before they fuck with it, but advocating Kung Fu Panda as a masterpiece of structure is going a bit too far in the other direction. You might reply that the writer's not really doing that...but he sort of is. He brings that movie up just about every fucking time he doesn't really like a blockbuster.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
What he's doing is using one of the clearest, simplest and thus most obvious examples of hero character development in film.
ASM/ASM2 doesn't have any development to speak of.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
And that's after over 4 hours. smh.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I still find it hilarious that people were defending ASM for the longest time, saying that Webb was a genius/visionary who was playing the long-game, setting up dominoes of consequences that would rock Peter out of his cuntitude and into the hero we know throughout ASM2.
Man, this was a load of hot shit, but I felt like I could see some small glimpses of potential in there. ASM1 was just a boring slog, this one had some moments that I felt could have been a part of something better, like the opening action sequence or the concept of the best friend becoming the hero's greatest enemy (and holy shit like they expected us to believe that these two were friends with that dialogue...?!).
But man, the script and the bizarre tone just really stamped out anything that this movie had going for it. And since Gwen's dead, now the best actor out of the leads is gone too, so have fun with that in the next film!
And I would be ok with having an asshole teenager protagonist; it would be an interesting take on the superhero genre, but they still for some fucking reason clearly thought that Peter's still a good person, what with the ridiculous Gwen "it's MY choice" speech and basically every Sally Field scene. Seeing Dane Dehaan just reminded me of how much better Chronicle depicted highschoolers with superpowers anyway.
But man, the script and the bizarre tone just really stamped out anything that this movie had going for it. And since Gwen's dead, now the best actor out of the leads is gone too, so have fun with that in the next film!
And I would be ok with having an asshole teenager protagonist; it would be an interesting take on the superhero genre, but they still for some fucking reason clearly thought that Peter's still a good person, what with the ridiculous Gwen "it's MY choice" speech and basically every Sally Field scene. Seeing Dane Dehaan just reminded me of how much better Chronicle depicted highschoolers with superpowers anyway.
And clearly Webb and co. weren't interested in just adapting Spider-Man into the formulaic bullet points of the hero's journey. You might argue that the result is a cluttered and incompetent piece of shit... but to suggest that the movie "could've" taken a simpler, less structurally convoluted approach? Well, no shit.
Film Critic Hulk's message is what's off for me. He always preaches this "back to basics" approach for filmmakers... It's an unoriginal criticism...and honestly, I don't think it's very helpful if you actually want to understand where ASM2 goes astray.
If you jot down all the characters and their individual roles in the story ...ASM2 has much more in common structurally with TDK than it does with Kung Fu Panda. Scarecrow vaguely fits the Rhino role. Electro is Joker. Harry/Goblin is Dent/Two Face. Rachel is Gwen. I'd argue the story even has a similar shape. Don't misconstrue this as praise. I'm just arguing that clearly Webb was going for something more like an ensemble piece...with multiple characters, subplots, and points of views. He didn't want to tell a "simple story", for better or worse. If anything the first film was him "failing" at adapting Spider-Man into the hero's journey. ASM2, if it is a failure, is a failure of a different sort... In my eyes, at least.
My point? If the filmmakers were going for something a bit more structurally complex, then why not compare the result with more successful films that had similar goals?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
He does mention The Dark Knight in there and in the comment section.
WHY DOES EVERYONE READ THAT PROBLEM AS "TOO MANY VILLAINS" WHEN THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?
WHY DO WRITERS CONTINUALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT SCREENTIME ISN'T ABOUT POSITIONING THE LOGISTICS OF WHY PEOPLE DO WHATEVER, BUT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MEANING OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS? THE REASON THE DARK KNIGHT IS GREAT EVEN THOUGH IT HAS TWO VILLAINS IS BECAUSE BATMAN AND THE JOKER'S BATTLE (WHICH IS NOT JUST PHYSICAL, BUT A SUPER CLEAR REPRESENTATION OF ORDER VS. ANARCHY EXPRESSED IN EVERY DRAMATIC WAY POSSIBLE COMPLETE WITH CHOICES) IS LITERALLY A BATTLE OVER THE FATE OF HARVEY DENT. ALL THEIR STORIES HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. THERE IS NO ACTION THAT IS OUTSIDE THE POINT AND THE THEME. WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT MAKES IT A LASTING MASTERPIECE... SO WHY HAS NOBODY TAKEN CUES FROM THAT TACT? WHY DO WE KEEP SETTLING FOR AWKWARD PLOT-BASED TEAM UPS?
Awkward plot-based team-ups like in Spider-Man 3 where Venom has to approach Sandman near the end, "Hey I know our stories aren't even tangibly related to each other, but we both hate Spider-Man or something, you ready to team up for the big finale?" "Uh sure thing, weird black alien thing I've just met", or ASM2 Electro who seems to be in entirely different movie/narrative than everything else.
WHY DOES EVERYONE READ THAT PROBLEM AS "TOO MANY VILLAINS" WHEN THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?
WHY DO WRITERS CONTINUALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT SCREENTIME ISN'T ABOUT POSITIONING THE LOGISTICS OF WHY PEOPLE DO WHATEVER, BUT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MEANING OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS? THE REASON THE DARK KNIGHT IS GREAT EVEN THOUGH IT HAS TWO VILLAINS IS BECAUSE BATMAN AND THE JOKER'S BATTLE (WHICH IS NOT JUST PHYSICAL, BUT A SUPER CLEAR REPRESENTATION OF ORDER VS. ANARCHY EXPRESSED IN EVERY DRAMATIC WAY POSSIBLE COMPLETE WITH CHOICES) IS LITERALLY A BATTLE OVER THE FATE OF HARVEY DENT. ALL THEIR STORIES HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. THERE IS NO ACTION THAT IS OUTSIDE THE POINT AND THE THEME. WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT MAKES IT A LASTING MASTERPIECE... SO WHY HAS NOBODY TAKEN CUES FROM THAT TACT? WHY DO WE KEEP SETTLING FOR AWKWARD PLOT-BASED TEAM UPS?
Awkward plot-based team-ups like in Spider-Man 3 where Venom has to approach Sandman near the end, "Hey I know our stories aren't even tangibly related to each other, but we both hate Spider-Man or something, you ready to team up for the big finale?" "Uh sure thing, weird black alien thing I've just met", or ASM2 Electro who seems to be in entirely different movie/narrative than everything else.
Hey, the Hulk critic should have a lowercase version up at this point or something.
They could've made Electro into something bigger and scarier, but he came off cheesy in the wrong ways once he went full villain.
Although, I did love the scenes with him and Harry. Loved those.
Seriously, once the finale hit, I couldn't take him seriously or his awkwardly inconsistent cg face anymore.
They could've made Electro into something bigger and scarier, but he came off cheesy in the wrong ways once he went full villain.
Although, I did love the scenes with him and Harry. Loved those.
Just saw it. Well, unlike the first film, I actually found this one entertaining at least.
The actor for Harry was good (still like James Franco more, but...), the action scenes were nice, the Peter-Gwen chemistry was good as always, and whenever Spidey's on screen, I was smiling.
I got a lot to nitpick about the film, though I think everyone else in the thread covered it. I felt Electro was a weak/meh villain, the parents subplot remains just as boring/uninteresting as it was in the first film, the plane scene was unnecessary, and music was very hit and miss with me (mostly miss...)
Wasn't a -bad- film I guess...it was entertaining, but ehhh, don't really have any interest in rewatching it. :/ Spider-Man 2 remains my favorite Spidey flick...oh well.
The actor for Harry was good (still like James Franco more, but...), the action scenes were nice, the Peter-Gwen chemistry was good as always, and whenever Spidey's on screen, I was smiling.
I got a lot to nitpick about the film, though I think everyone else in the thread covered it. I felt Electro was a weak/meh villain, the parents subplot remains just as boring/uninteresting as it was in the first film, the plane scene was unnecessary, and music was very hit and miss with me (mostly miss...)
Wasn't a -bad- film I guess...it was entertaining, but ehhh, don't really have any interest in rewatching it. :/ Spider-Man 2 remains my favorite Spidey flick...oh well.
NotMyRealName
Banned
The villians in these movies look incredibly awful. Like, really bad. If whoever is in charge of the villain design got to design SpiderMan he would literally look like a cross between a spider and a man.
I don't think I've seen it discussed much here, but I thought the slow-motion/bullet-time stuff was a great way to represent Spider-Sense. I tend to hate Zach Snyder style slo-mo, but it very much makes sense in ASM2. Did they do that in the previous films as well? I only noticed it in ASM2.
It forces you to read more slowly and contemplate what he says. It's brilliant.
He's not talking so much about simplicity as he is clarity of purpose.
You should read up on Hulk's takedown of the hero's journey at some point. It's good stuff--and based on the "destiny" element that's always in Kurtzman/Orci films, I'm fairly confident that the hero's journey stuff was an element of this film as well.
The issue isn't so much about simplicity as the film's a muddled mess of a bunch of stuff that doesn't work. So what if it's following the TDK model? It doesn't benefit the film, which is ultimately broken on a thematic level.
That's another thing I wanted to touch on, too.
I heard a lot of critics didn't like the slo-mo in the movie. But after seeing it twice, I really don't see the problem. It's not like a Snyder film where it's there every twenty seconds, every time it was used it was used well, I thought. I liked it.
And there were a few instances in ASM1 if I remember correctly, like at the final swing.
Shogmaster
Member
I still think Spidey's greatest weakness is his villains. They are all so terribad...
Sinister Six is gonna be just an awful mess. Please don't do it Sony. NO MAS. No mas...
Sinister Six is gonna be just an awful mess. Please don't do it Sony. NO MAS. No mas...
- Status