The tone/mood for ASM2

[mayo23]

Yes...and yet people are speculating like crazy like things are already for sure...

I'm just pointing out the obvious that some people tend to forget. We will never officially know until 2014.

[mayo23]

I wasn't talking to you. Wasn't talking to any particular person, actually. Just saying stuff.

[mayo23]

It's cool man.

[Vid Electricz]

Originally Posted by mayo23

Yes...and yet people are speculating like crazy like things are already for sure...

I'm just pointing out the obvious that some people tend to forget. We will never officially know until 2014.

Sure, there are some things we won't officially know until it's released, but there are some things we do know- and from there, we speculate. That's like what half of these boards are filled up with. Speculation.

(the other half are arguments about costumes)

So yeah, we know that Jaime Foxx as Electro will be the main villain of the film- which is fine. So unless Electro kills Gwen, then she won't be dying til the third film- which is just weird and dumb.

[Vid Electricz]

Originally Posted by AllanGordon

I don't get where you're getting the whole "if she doesn't die in 2, she has to die in 3" thing. There are very likely going to be more than 3 movies. We haven't even been introduced to Norman yet, and for all we know, we still won't by the end of TASM2. Gwen could die in movie 4 or 5 for all we know.

All we know right now- and as far as we've been told, is that Sony has planned this as a trilogy. Sure, maybe there'll be more, but there's been no announcement.

I'm just trying to figure out logically, how they're going to fit these events/characters into the next two films.

Also, I'm going by the classic three act structure generally used in action/adventure/sci fi/fantasy films such as this.

[Vid Electricz]

Last I heard was that it was planned as a trilogy. Interesting to know they backed out of that though.

The only way I'd compare TASM as a series to the MCU is if there were characters like Venom who had his own film, but would appear in a Spider-Man films. In terms of their own individual series, Iron Man has got a third coming out, Captain America a second and Thor a second.

The only concern I have is seeing one of my favorite characters done justice in these films and there's certainly no rush. But like I said, how often are these films successful after the 3rd one? It's a shame when a great franchise is squeezed until it's dead (Pirates of the Caribbean for instance. The 4th movie was a shameless cash grab).

Hope I'm wrong!

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by AllanGordon

I would say the MCU collectively count as a series and they've had 10+ successful films.

[JaredRmz]

What if we have Gwen not dying but just getting away from Peter, in an spectacular spiderman style, and in the meanwhile peter can be dating Mary Jane, you know, so kids won't be traumahized.

[AnneFan]

I think Peter and Gwen could remain tight throughout the drama of TASM2. Maybe little dramas such as foreshadowing her doom, not listening to Gwen's father, etc. MJ introduced as a character that gets on with Peter, but not in the same way as Gwen. Yet. With Gwen and Peter still close by the start of TASM3, she is killed by the villain. Peter is distraught. And MJ is there to console him about it. Not full on romantically, but there for him. And perhaps that's where we are left. These two have their whole lives ahead of them and what happens, happens.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

Last I heard was that it was planned as a trilogy. Interesting to know they backed out of that though.

The only way I'd compare TASM as a series to the MCU is if there were characters like Venom who had his own film, but would appear in a Spider-Man films. In terms of their own individual series, Iron Man has got a third coming out, Captain America a second and Thor a second.

The only concern I have is seeing one of my favorite characters done justice in these films and there's certainly no rush. But like I said, how often are these films successful after the 3rd one? It's a shame when a great franchise is squeezed until it's dead (Pirates of the Caribbean for instance. The 4th movie was a shameless cash grab).

Hope I'm wrong!

Bond - 23 movies with the 23rd movie argubly one of the best.
Mission impossible - 4 movies with the 4th movie being one of the best

People will always come out to see a movie if there is a compelling/engaging story to see, it's when the subject matter seems tired and wrote that people stop going to see a perticular franchise.

[Tacit Ronin]

The tone should be like Skyfall, serious, playful, mature, jovial, melancholy, hopeful.

[Vid Electricz]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Bond - 23 movies with the 23rd movie argubly one of the best.
Mission impossible - 4 movies with the 4th movie being one of the best

People will always come out to see a movie if there is a compelling/engaging story to see, it's when the subject matter seems tired and wrote that people stop going to see a perticular franchise.

I agree- but when you've got critics and the general audience feeling like the first movie out of the gate (TASM) is already stale and lacklustre without a particularly good story or compelling characters- it doesn't bode well for the franchise.

From my comment at the top of the page:

I can't count James Bond as the character is constantly being reinvented with a new actor and the successive movies don't ever have anything to do with one another (CR and QoS exempted).

The Spider-Man series are all continuous, linera stories, all linked together- and s far as I know, they're not planning on recasting Garfield (and everyone else) after the third (or fourth) film. Or maybe they will and we'll get another reboot in 10 years time.

Personally, I didn't care at all for Skyfall. CR and Quantum were both wonderful though. Skyfall was just a case of a director who didn't know his place and wanted to try something "outrageous" just for the sake of leaving his mark on the character.

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

I agree- but when you've got critics and the general audience feeling like the first movie out of the gate (TASM) is already stale and lacklustre without a particularly good story or compelling characters- it doesn't bode well for the franchise.

According to RT, the majority of critics and audiences found ASM to be quite satisfying.

[Vid Electricz]

I just don't remember anyone complaining that Batman Begins-when it came out-was a stale retread/remake with a weak storyline and poorly developed characters. These are common complaints concerning ASM.

Anyway, isn't a 75% like a "C" grade?

[Anno_Domini]

Because...Batman Begins wasn't a retread. We have never gone through the origin of The Batman before as Batman '89 is really viewed as only a 'Rise of Batman' kind of film without giving us the origins of why Bruce would even become Batman to begin with.

The storyline wasn't weak because of the origin, although it may had faltered in certain parts of the third act(which was the weakest act in the film, imo; the first act is the strongest of the film as well as being the strongest first act in the entire trilogy, imo).

And the characters were developed at a fine rate except for the villains, which is the case for 99% of origin CBMs. Ra's is further developed in TDKR which is helpful for the entire characterization of Ra's al Ghul, but sadly...Crane slowly devolved in the trilogy from some minor villain to a cameo. And because of that, Scarecrow is the villain in Nolan's trilogy that definitely needs to return in another Batman film and given a much better representation.

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

I just don't remember anyone complaining that Batman Begins-when it came out-was a stale retread/remake with a weak storyline and poorly developed characters. These are common complaints concerning ASM.

Anyway, isn't a 75% like a "C" grade?

Why do we need to reference BB? It's possible to make a point without using Batman ya know

There are common complaints with ASM yet there are also common threads of praise. I think the RT critics score is at 73% which is a 'C' but it still represents the majority.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by UltimateWebhead

There are common complaints with ASM yet there are also common threads of praise. I think the RT critics score is at 73% which is a 'C' but it still represents the majority.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-amazing-spider-man

What does the 'D' rating of 66 represent for Metacritic? Lol.

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-amazing-spider-man

What does the 'D' rating of 66 represent for Metacritic? Lol.

66 is above 50 which = the majority.

[Anno_Domini]

A 'D' is good enough for you then?

Just because it's "above 50" doesn't make it great ya know.

[UltimateWebhead]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

A 'D' is good enough for you then?

Just because it's "above 50" doesn't make it great ya know.

I don't rate the movie at a 'D' but that's not what's in question here. 66 still represents the majority percentage of critics.

[Anno_Domini]

And how is 66 even good?

[UltimateWebhead]

It shows that the majority of critics had good things to say about ASM. The majority of the general audience agrees. Sounds good to me.

[Anno_Domini]

Hey, if you think that's good enough, all the more power to you, lol.

[UltimateWebhead]

It doesn't have to be good enough for me. The majority has spoken and they are in agreement that ASM was favorable and look forward to the sequel. I also don't count negative reviews that use the "too soon" or "origin done over" arguments as their basis for their negativity. If someone wants to dislike ASM; I've no issue with that, however it should be based on the film itself.

[Jexx]

I believe the metacritic '66%' is the average review score, not the percentage of critics that favored the movie.

..but in metacritic movie reviews, 66% is still above average..