The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Based on ASM2's box office and quality, was rebooting a mistake?

[Upset Spideyfan]

Honestly aside from the differences that we fans argue about I don't think Webb's movies have been THAT different from Raimi's movies. We've had a similar origin flick + Harry Osborn in both series. I'd argue the quality in Raimi's first 2 has been better but really Webb's stuff has also just covered a lot of ground that was already covered.

The only major difference has been [blackout] Gwen's death [/blackout] but since it seems that as a result we're headed back for MJ in the third one, we'll be covering THAT ground again as well.

At least if they had kept going in the main canon they could have kept pushing Peter's life forward.

 

[spiderman2]

This is a hard one for me. When the reboot was annoced I was mad has I thought I would hate the amazing spider man and didn't like that they where doing the orgin again. But I ended up likeing it and I fell like the amazing spider man 2 is great but I think spider man 2 is still the best. I liked Andrew grafiled a lot more then tobey but still like tobey and I fell like spiderman charteristics are a lot better. I never noticed how much having spider mans wiscaking addes to the movies because we got almost none of it in spider man 3 but are getting a lot of it now and I love it. I fell like rami did a better job with villians but there are things I like about the new siers more then the rami ones. Part of me wounders what a spider man 4 would have been like with rami but then we may have never gotten Andrew. I fell like spider man 4 may have been a rebdetion for rami and could have been even better then spider man 2 maybe. I like the amazing spider man and love the amazing spider man 2 but part of me fells like spider man 4 could have maybe been better then the amazing spider man 2.

 

[Blade X]

I'm glad that they rebooted the Spidey movie franchise. Even though there are a number of things that I don't like about the rebooted movie franchise, the good far out weighs the bad. IMO, I prefer the rebooted Webb Spidey movies to the Raini movies.

That being said, I think that there are several reasons why the rebooted Spidey franchise isn't doing as well as the Raini franchise.

1. Spidey movie fatigue. People are used to seeing Spidey on the big screen and it's no long special or unique.

2. The reboot happened too soon after the last Raini movie.

3. The reboot is revisiting again and has spent way too much time retelling Spidey's origin, not to mention, retelling/rehashing the whole Peter/Green Goblin story. Moviegoers have seen this before.

4. It's not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

[spiderman2]

yeah when this seris is over the may need to not go into goblin again in the next serieas. I mean in the first one he was in spider man 1 and 3 and had harry find out about goblin in spider man 2 and now in this one we are probly going to see him sever times. I don't buy frainschis fatige. Iron man had iron man 1-3 and avengers so 4 in 5 years. The problem is that the amazing spider man was a reboot and did the orgin again and came shortly after a very successfully franchise. I think if the first franchise wasn't has successfully or had it been longer before the reboot people would inbrance it more. Also the amazing spider man 1 and 2 havnt been recived has while has spider man 1 and 2. Spider man needs a movie like the dark knight a movie that gets great reviews and has great WOM if that where to happened a lot of people would came back and they would get peoples trust back.

 

[Heretic]

There have been more Fast and Furious movies than Spidey movies, yet the last F&F movie was the biggest in the franchise.. I'll let you figure out which franchise has more actual potential for compelling stories.

The rest I think play a part.

 

[spiderman2]

spider man 3 and the amazing spider man 1 and 2 have all been given slightly good to bad reviews that is what has hurt. You bulid a franchise buy having movies to bulid on. Iron man 3 made a lot because of avengers and iron man 2 and 1. Dark knight had batman begins. I granti that if batman begins wanst recived has while has it was that dark knight wouldn't have made even close to has much has it did. Captian amrican even got better reviews the the amazing spider man 1 and now captian America 2 got great reviews its all about how good movies are most of the time other then maybe transformers.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think audiences are more willing to accept recasts than studios think.

Nobody cared when they recast Hulk and War Machine.

 

[Marvin]

I find it interesting they they figured they would do the entire harry story in one film whereas Raimi opted to 'do' it in three. That alone will tell you something about this new direction.
That being said, for all the people that would rather things be done in one film(see Man of Steel detractors), I'm sure there are some benefits to be found.

Harry and Pete as friends
Harry and Spiderman(pete) as enemies
Harry as Goblin vs Pete

The one thing they saved for later was the reconciliation. I do think Franco doing what was done at the end here would have been alot stronger given the arc of the raimi films.

 

[Visualiza]

Nobody cared when they recast Hulk and War Machine.

Truth.

 

[STARMAN]

I don't think they had a clear vision for rebooting the franchise.

 

[Serpico Jones]

My main issues with the Raimi films is the fact that the first film no longer holds up (it's a camp-fest with horrible acting) and the cast was much weaker than the Webb movies. Tobey Maguire has the charisma of a jellyfish and Kirsten Dunst is worthless.

 

[Visualiza]

I don't think they had a clear vision for rebooting the franchise.

Agreed. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt after the first one. This one validates the idea that they didn't...and if the next movie is just as bad, then that confirms it. I don't think a Sinister Six and Venom spin-off can save them in that case.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

While I haven't seen it, I will say this much.

We gave Joel Shoemaker more chances than Raimi. Raimi messed up on 3, Sony wouldn't give him enough time so he left. Joel messed up on Batman Forever, gets to do another Batman film.

I would have preferred to see Raimi at the very least have one more shot at Spider-Man films because he deserved to have one more shot. If Spidey 4 was bad, then reboot.

 

[Visualiza]

While I haven't seen it, I will say this much.

We gave Joel Shoemaker more chances than Raimi. Raimi messed up on 3, Sony wouldn't give him enough time so he left. Joel messed up on Batman Forever, gets to do another Batman film.

I would have preferred to see Raimi at the very least have one more shot at Spider-Man films because he deserved to have one more shot. If Spidey 4 was bad, then reboot.

It would be quite the redemption if the rights reverted and none other than Sam Raimi directed.

Seems like he's moved on though, but I can't blame him. He gave us 2 good Spidey flicks, and stumbled once. I can't hate the guy for that.

 

[Green Goblin]

I don't question that a Spider-Man 4 would have worked but the problem is that the series couldn't go on for much longer. They had killed off all his villains other than sandman who wasn't going to come back. Venom was f***ed, Gwen was f***ed, Harry was killed off and Peter was close to leaving college.

Peter was about to marry MJ, anyone who reads the comics will know that Marvel had trouble with the Marriage aspect (one more day).

If we look at what we knew about Spider-Man 4, the script getting 3 re-writes and Vulturess was not encouraging. Raimi did the honest thing and left because he said he couldn't get the story right.

As far as recasting goes I can't imagine Emma Stone playing Kirsten Dunst's MJ. I think Garfield couldn't work with the college Peter in the Raimi-Verse (which was the same high school character in the first movie.

I think when you break it down, rebooting was probably the best option long term. Had Garfield and Stone been younger I would have tried a Spidey 4 but the fact is in 2016 Garfield is too old and Stone wouldn't be as effective.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I don't mind Sony rebooted the franchise. Would Marvel Studios tell a more faithful version of the comics? Sure, but I feel Webb and company have corrected a lot of the mistakes from the past but they've also created new ones of their own as well.

However, I don't feel all blame should solely be put on Webb. I feel they need to get rid of Avi Arad. And I've felt that way since "SM3." I also feel if this sequel had been maybe 10-20 minutes longer it would've helped it in some areas but also they should've just eliminated the Dr. Kafka scenes altogether. They were tonally out of place and didn't serve any purpose. It felt like watching a cartoon character.

That being said, I still think "ASM2" is a -B movie. It has its flaws but so did every other Spider-Man film to date. There's so many hammy and corny moments in the Raimi films that get overlooked by fans. All these movies have been imperfect but neither Raimi or Webb are better than the other. While "Spider-Man 2" is my favorite Spider-Man film, it too, as I said, has its flaws and wears them well.

I think people just expect too much from superhero movies because they want the next "The Dark Knight", "Avengers", or "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" but they forget that these movies are still based on comic books and in comic books themselves you're going to find campy, eyeball-rolling moments. However, at the same time, if Electro had been developed and written better, he could've been as great of a villain as Dr. Octopus, but DeHaan is right up there with Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. His performance was great. Maybe a bit rushed but he sold it what was given to him.

 

[Spooderman]

While I haven't seen it, I will say this much.

We gave Joel Shoemaker more chances than Raimi. Raimi messed up on 3, Sony wouldn't give him enough time so he left. Joel messed up on Batman Forever, gets to do another Batman film.

Well, Batman Forever wasn't more messed up than 1989 or Returns.

The reboot has failed to do anything worthwhile and this incarnation of Spider-Man will be forgotten when the next incarnation comes along....sort of as the middle child no one cares about (box office and critically rated).

Unless the next Spider-Man series is even more forgettable. Which I hope it's not.

 

[Visualiza]

I don't question that a Spider-Man 4 would have worked but the problem is that the series couldn't go on for much longer. They had killed off all his villains other than sandman who wasn't going to come back. Venom was f***ed, Gwen was f***ed, Harry was killed off and Peter was close to leaving college.

Peter was about to marry MJ, anyone who reads the comics will know that Marvel had trouble with the Marriage aspect (one more day).

If we look at what we knew about Spider-Man 4, the script getting 3 re-writes and Vulturess was not encouraging. Raimi did the honest thing and left because he said he couldn't get the story right.

As far as recasting goes I can't imagine Emma Stone playing Kirsten Dunst's MJ. I think Garfield couldn't work with the college Peter in the Raimi-Verse (which was the same high school character in the first movie.

I think when you break it down, rebooting was probably the best option long term. Had Garfield and Stone been younger I would have tried a Spidey 4 but the fact is in 2016 Garfield is too old and Stone wouldn't be as effective.

Why am I not surprised that you would say that. If you know Spider-Man like you let on, you would know that there are an innumerable amount of stories, villains, and supporting characters that could have been implemented. Venom and Harry Osborn getting killed in no way throws the mythos into any sort of gridlock. Don't sit here and try to act like Spider-Man 3 was the final nail in the coffin; the way things played out was due to circumstance, nothing more.

Several other franchises have recovered from worse, I see no reason why this should be any different. Either way, for better or for worse, we're stuck with what we've got for the foreseeable future.

 

[Tony Stark]

At some point Maguire was going to be replaced. He was 32 when SM3 came out, he'll be 39 this June.

To be honest, it won't be much longer for Garfield either who will be 31 in August. It was ridiculous him and Stone playing teenagers, they should have changed the premise of the story for after high school, or gotten different actors.

When Nicholas Hammond did the TV series, they made him a 20 something graduate student. I felt that worked for that series, and could have worked here.

 

[Visualiza]

At some point Maguire was going to be replaced. He was 32 when SM3 came out, he'll be 39 this June.

To be honest, it won't be much longer for Garfield either who will be 31 in August. It was ridiculous him and Stone playing teenagers, they should have changed the premise of the story for after high school, or gotten different actors.

When Nicholas Hammond did the TV series, they made him a 20 something graduate student. I felt that worked for that series, and could have worked here.

No doubt. What amazes me is that these movies managed to linger about in high school without so much as meeting another classmate of theirs, outside of Flash Thompson.

I think the college storyline, if well adapted (meaning MJ, Harry, Flash, and all), could have made for a much stronger drama, as well as doing a better job of establishing and developing all of Peter's relationships.

 

[Frodo]

I still think a reboot was the way to go. The execution is were Sony has stumbled imo , and its because they got greedy and have ultimately, imo written alot potential future storylines into the corner with ASM2. They had the actors and the director, but ultimately ,the same meddling which begat Spiderman 3 really inhibited the storytelling of ASM2.

Going forward, my hope is that Sony will slow down, step back, and let a fresh pair of eyes and new creative team really evaluate how to move forward. Don't worry about World Building BS , focus on the characters , then use a good villain(s) who actually fits the story.

Cause if they don't, the next film will end up being Spiderman 3 redux at the rate and the corner cutting , and character cramming Sony is trying to pull. Alot of the mistakes Sony has made were avoidable. The silver lining is that there are alot of lessons that can be learned and a big room for improvement moving into the next one.

 

[dodgers2213]

Love the Peter Parker Gwen Stacy arc, best love story in a Comic Book movie, nothing beats it.
The conclusion to the love story is simply amazing, heartbreaking as you gained value from it throughout two films.
Best portrayal of Spiderman across the two films.

The reboot could have bombed but it didn't in my opinion

Imo, it's far away from Amazing. The love arc in ASM1 is really really bad. I disliked the direction to have Garfield stutter his way into a relationship with Gwen. I found that frustratingly bad and not believable. There is no reason for them to be together. I could not stutter, shy away, choke up while attempting to talk to ANY girl and get her to even want to discuss yesterday's HW assignment, much less fall madly in love with me.
However, in ASM2 they were both far better. I went in thinking, ok they're together and I dont care how they got there anymore. Fresh start. ...and I really felt the chemistry this time around. I Enjoyed some fluid, natural, believable dialog.
Comic book movies don't really capture romance too well. I think I'd put Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter higher for a romance in just 1 movie.

 

[Visualiza]

Imo, it's far away from Amazing. The love arc in ASM1 is really really bad. I disliked the direction to have Garfield stutter his way into a relationship with Gwen. I found that frustratingly bad and not believable. There is no reason for them to be together. I could not stutter, shy away, choke up while attempting to talk to ANY girl and get her to even want to discuss yesterday's HW assignment, much less fall madly in love with me.
However, in ASM2 they were both far better. I went in thinking, ok they're together and I dont care how they got there anymore. Fresh start. ...and I really felt the chemistry this time around. I Enjoyed some fluid, natural, believable dialog.
Comic book movies don't really capture romance too well. I think I'd put Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter higher for a romance in just 1 movie.

This whole time I thought I was the only one.

It's interesting to me that some of the common criticisms and the praise apply to the opposite movie for me. Whereas I didn't really see the Twilight parallels in the first film, it's glaring in the second. The romance, while forced, stilted, and unbelievable in the first, it was a lot more organic and endearing in the second. Then again, so much emphasis was placed on it that it managed to bog the whole story down anyway; it's a bit of a zero-sum game when all is said and done. So many missed opportunities, and all so they could say that they [BLACKOUT]killed Gwen Stacy[/BLACKOUT].

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

i dont mind a reboot i just wish they had both been of a much higher quality. also i feel they were made far to quickly hence the public burn out

also you have to factor in the fact that marvel have basically cornered the market on these types of movies and sadly asm just doesnt hold up, when the public have got used to standard

 

[Human Torch]

well, batman forever wasn't more messed up than 1989 or returns.

qft