Sequels 5 Things That Will Make or Break the Amazing Spider-Man Series

Picard Sisko

Prepare to be Assimilated
May 28, 2012
Reaction score
Here is the original article which talks about this:

This is what is mentioned, word-for-word:

5. Jamie Foxx Needs To Be A Great Electro
Jamie Foxx is a jack of all trades. The man can basically do anything and turn it to gold: he can sing, act, and even do stand-up comedy. If this reboot is going to hit it, Jamie Foxx needs to be on – he needs to be electric. Now obviously Electro is going to be taken in a different direction than what is seen in the comics, as he’s being played by Jamie Foxx, and it has already been revealed that the costume is going to be different. The reason Foxx is so critical to the series is because not many people like the Lizard in the last film, and the film-makers have to take the opportunity of the sequel to launch an even bigger villain.

I don’t believe that Electro is the biggest villain we’ll see in this series, but he certainly deserves his debut in film, and I feel will make or break this series. If Foxx nails it, then everyone’s faith will be restored in Spider-Man and the series will gear up for the third film and possibly the biggest Spider-Man film ever made. If this doesn’t work out, then we will have had two Spider-Man movies in a row have been made with villains that aren’t considered to be that great and people will be skeptical to go to a third movie.

Given the pedigree of his work, I really hope that Foxx can make this a memorable villain who fits the project.

4. Critical Characters Need To Be Introduced
This was one of my biggest problems with The Amazing Spider-Man. I understand that trading Mary Jane for Gwen Stacy was something that really worked, but I really missed Harry Osborne and J. Jonah Jameson. Harry has been Peter’s friend since high school, and he wasn’t seen once in the first movie, though J. Jonah Jameson being left out is more acceptable because he isn’t a crucial character, but he was so funny in the Raimi films that I was hoping to get my comic relief from him in that movie too.

I am happy to hear that Mary Jane, and Harry will be in the next film, and that J.K Simmons would like to reprise his role as Jameson. These characters inclusion in the next film will be something that greatly bolsters the quality of the film, and with the mystery of Norman Osborne still out in the unknown, hopefully Harry’s inclusion will help to reveal some of those details.

3. What’s The Deal With Norman Osborne?
Mr. Osborne is somebody that is mentioned often but never seen. In the first film, it is revealed that he is sick and has some sort of life threatening disease that Curt Connors was working on curing before he turned into the Lizard. There are a few things I want to know concerning Mr. Osborne. What disease does he have? How much time does he actually have to live? Will this contribute to his becoming the Green Goblin? Was he the man in the prison at the end of the first movie?

I think that the second movie will introduce Osborne along with providing at least a few of these answers. I have a feeling that Green Goblin will end up being the main antagonist in the third movie, and this movie should also serve as development toward becoming that character.

If Jamie Foxx can warm the seat for Green Goblin in an epic third movie, then this could be a series that goes more than three movies.

2. The Secret Behind Peter’s Parents
This is also one of my biggest problems with the first movie, more so than the last point. It seemed like the beginning of the film was centered around Peter finding out who he was, and what had happened to his parents, but as soon as he became Spider-Man, that all disappeared. Just because Peter finally gets a full-time role as a superhero doesn’t mean that the writers can string us along and leave us high and dry.

Although this is something I think that is completely original to the movie (the mystery behind his parents), this is something that intrigued me and something that I really want to find out. Hopefully this is something that further gets explained in the second movie.

1. Peter Needs To Become More Developed
When I say this, I don’t mean physically even though Garfield is a twig. Peter needs to grow in this film as a person. In the first movie he is a high school student unsure of his place in life and insecure about his identity with the mystery of his parents. Not only should he continue to dig and look for those answers, he needs to also grow up. He needs to get a job and start to mature behind and show more of a person behind the “geeky” teen that he was in the first one.

If Peter starts to mature and continue to embrace his role as Spider-Man along with learning how to become an adult, we will have an “amazing” time watching “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.” Still don’t like my jokes? I’m sorry, I’ll stop.

Did you like the first movie? Do you think the second has a chance to redeem itself if you didn’t? Let us know what you need to see in this next movie in the comments below.


I am confident enough that the Parents storyline (#2) and Norman Osborn (#3) will be explained. We are getting the critical characters (#4) the author mentions in the next movie, so there is that.

I do believe Peter's character will get more development, if done right. (#1)
About Jamie Foxx as a great Electro, only time will tell. (#5)

What do you guys think?
Last edited:
I think each one of those things is somewhat of a factor in making or breaking the series, some more crucial than others. Right now, I think, Jamie as Electro is a big one. People want to see a stellar antagonists. But I'm confident about Electro.

Another is the critical characters. The general public has already seen Mary Jane, Harry, Jonah etc. and are used to Kirsten, James and Simmons, so they're obviously going to compare the new cast to that of the old one. And if the new movie doesn't give these characters much to work with or do, some of the general audience is gonna be really critical about that. Audiences have shown some kind of attachment to Emma, so hopefully they will be this way with the other characters.

That's just me seeing it from the GP's perspective, but personally I'm confident about it all :yay:
Does anyone think that J.K. Simmons will and should reprise his role as Jameson? IDK if his incarnation would fit in Webb's universe. I only ask because he was interested in returning as the same character.

It could end up like the X-Men franchise. With TASM, it is clearly a reboot, where X-Men: First Class didn't seem to know whether or not it was a prequel or reboot.
Does anyone think that J.K. Simmons will and should reprise his role as Jameson? IDK if his incarnation would fit in Webb's universe. I only ask because he was interested in returning as the same character.

It could end up like the X-Men franchise. With TASM, it is clearly a reboot, where X-Men: First Class didn't seem to know whether or not it was a prequel or reboot.
I would love that. I can't see anyone else topping his J.J
Really can't see anyone else doing such a good job. Only John McGinley possibly...
No to Simmons returning. I loved him as Jonah as much as the next guy, but this is an entirely different universe. It would be sincerely out of place and would feel completely odd if he returned.
What do you think of the two actors I suggested?
I have no doubt about Foxx being good as Electro, he will be GREAT.
I'm more confident he'll be a great Electro after seeing him in Django Unchained.
I would agree with you on all of your points for the most part.

Couple thoughts

2. Peter's parents: You're absolutely right that this needs to be discussed further, but I will also be okay if they leave a few things open for a third film. That said, Webb probably can't afford to leave us hanging as much the second time around, or we will start to get frustrated and disinterested.

4. Introduction of Critical Characters: I definitely want to see more of the supporting cast. I had no problem with them keeping the cast smaller the first time around, but TASM had it's hands full dealing with the origin and making sure we had a chance to really KNOW Uncle Ben. With both of those factors being dealt with it will be nice to see some of the old gang come back into the fold. BUT I'll still be fine if they don't introduce EVERYONE. Sure, it would be nice to see the bugle staff, but if they are kept down to a smaller introductory role I'd still be fine with that. I'd rather we get to know Harry and MJ this time around, and limit JJ to a smaller (but juicy) supporting role.

As for casting; I absolutely LOVED J.K. Simmons as JJ, but I wouldn't want to see him return here. As Pac-Master already said, he wouldn't fit. I do think Sam Elliot would be an interesting choice. He has the gruffness of JJ but he'd be a bit more appropriately subdued for this iteration of the character.

Anyhoo. You've made some good points here.
I think one of the big factors is, Peter needs to be much more likable. I felt that Peter for the most part was portrayed realistically but he lacked some of the genuine sincerity one should feel towards him quite a few times. The whole rebellious, badboy/outcast shctick was taken a tad too far. I think Webb, Garfield and the writers should pay closer attention to Bendis' early work on USM to really nail how Peter should be portrayed.

Naturally, the villain has to be great also. The Lizard was a tad underwhelming and should have been handled much better but in as much as I trust Foxx' acting abilities to bring his A-game, it's not going to mean much if the character and the script isn't up to scratch.
I think Peter was very likable (arguably more likable than Tobey's Peter Parker in the Raimi trilogy). His character is still developing, so we'll see what they do with him over the next two films.
@Ajendo - i know what u mean about the early Ultimate comics. something about Peter in the last movie really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. they felt betrayed and it was exaggerated into him acting like a *****e, prick, *******, whatever other word.

i didn't have a problem with it really, i thought that Garfield worked &i understood what they were going for i think, but there is something to the character that the last one got a little too close to crossing.

cuz Peter Parker can't ever come off as being 'that guy'. like when u go to bed at nite and think about the day and some dumb incident pops up involving some guy at some place u were who thought he was really great and u realize what the perfect thing to have said or done to make him realize that he wasn't. Peter Parker can never act like that guy.

but really, most of us have been that guy at one point or another. at the very least. so if you're doing a movie in the kinda more modernized tone that Webb is going for, u can't just have the actor act like what a normal teenager would act like. it's really hard to do without stepping on the toes of what that character means to a lot of people.

and there's certain mis-steps that Webb or Garfield make, i think, in this translation that especially stick out to people. like the stuttering or obvious awkwardness at times. i think that's an almost conscious yank on the character to try to round out how they know that this goodlooking guy who really seems to have everything going for him is coming off like a self assured winner.

but it goes against Peter becuz it feels like two different absolute things. like if at a bar, you ordered a whiskey and coke and it came with all the whiskey on the top and all the coke on the bottom. and then plus, it just reeks of too much thinking. like little things will set u off as you are watching it and make u start thinking about what the actor is thinking about. which is the opposite of what actors should be doing.

so it's really important to get that about Peter right, but i feel like the older he gets the easier it is to do that. like the ideal age for Peter Parker is not 16, but 27. or maybe 31. and that's not cuz i'm 27 or 31, haha, i just think that's where the character really makes it's most sense.

i like Garfield tho. and i like Maguire too, but, obviously, Maguire wouldn't work outside of a stylized setting like what Raimi did. but i like them both.
i think a big thing too is editing the next movie so that it feels right.

i think that's my biggest problem with TASM, is it just feels like it doesn't move.
it's weird and i wish i knew more technical ways to describe what i mean,
but it feels to me like it never really hits any marks anywhere. like the target always gets pulled away right before we get to it.
or more like that we can never actually see what is going on with the target. it's either behind something and someone else's face is talking between us or i forgot them at work but someone says we hit the target unless i just walked in the room and there's something else to f$@king punch u in the face or a bunch of other things that felt like that.

but nothing really seemed to connect with me about it.
Its really difficult to read your posts. Need to fix grammar dude.
I think one of the big factors is, Peter needs to be much more likable.

I found Peter to be quite likeable.

Naturally, the villain has to be great also. The Lizard was a tad underwhelming and should have been handled much better but in as much as I trust Foxx' acting abilities to bring his A-game, it's not going to mean much if the character and the script isn't up to scratch.

I go into more detail about this subject here:

But (in short), if anything I found the Lizard to be the perfect choice for the 'first villain'. One of my biggest issues with the other Spidey films is that they used up their main villains in the first two films and left themselves with nothing for the third film. As in "the climax of the series". Something I felt hurt the series on a whole.
I'm glad they are building up to the Green Goblin this time. Hope it turns out big and epic.

Same thing with Nolan's Batman, it felt like he used the Joker too quickly. Would have been cool to have him as the final villain of the trilogy.
^ I agree and disagree. I think, initially, the choice to use the Joker in the second film was sound. The reason it fell apart (in my opinion) is because Heath Ledger died and they couldn't (or chose not to) use the character at all in the third one. But I agree that having the Joker in the second film, and then following that up by not even mentioning him in the third did hurt TDKR somewhat.

That's not to say TDKR failed (I have it on Blu Ray on my 'special' shelf, obviously I liked it), but that doesn't mean I think it was flawless. And you're right, the Joker is 'the big bad' in Batman's life. In fact I would also argue that he was the most charismatic and engaging character in the whole series. I do stand by the belief that if Heath hadn't died we would have ended up with a completely different (and possibly superior) final installment.

I guess we'll never know for sure.
I have to agree with the above statements. One thing I like about Iron Man 3 is Iron Man's biggest/more recognizable villain, Mandarin, is in it. The grand finale. It's going to be interesting to see where this leads with Norman.

I think the number one thing that's important is the parents storyline. It was made such a big deal in the trailer that it really needs to develop. For it to just vanish will possibly hurt the sequels. It will leave the audience wondering what was the point of bringing in that idea in the first place.
I don't think the parents storyline is going to disappear. That's part of the premise of the entire franchise.
Webb has even stated that the 'parents' story was going to be a returning element to the franchise.
I personally don't care for knowing anymore about his parents

Users who are viewing this thread

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"