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

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Venom/Eddie Brock were complete non-characters in SM3. A falling piano would've more interesting.

Green Goblin/Harry from ASM2 were actually attached to the story and characters. As Harry becomes more selfish he slowly becomes the goblin psychologically.

It's full character arc that feels natural and earned unlike most of Raimi's villains.

I agree that ASM2 Harry was a better character than Brock, but I thought Venom was better utilised than the Goblin personally.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I agree that ASM2 Harry was a better character than Brock, but I thought Venom was better utilised than the Goblin personally.

How so?

What was better than the death of Gwen in SM3.

 

[InJustice]

Venom/Eddie Brock were complete non-characters in SM3. A falling piano would've more interesting.

Green Goblin/Harry from ASM2 were actually attached to the story and characters. As Harry becomes more selfish he slowly becomes the goblin psychologically.

It's full character arc that feels natural and earned unlike most of Raimi's villains.

I disagree with the notion that Harry's arc feels natural and earned. The problem is that Harry's reason to conflict against Spider-Man is not only convenient, but also cliched as it relies on Spider-Man rejecting his offer. The whole Goblin transformation felt rushed and haphazard, seeing as how there wasn't really a reason to transform into the Goblin.

At least in the Raimi series, Norman Osborn's descent into the Green Goblin was the result of Norman being desperate to keep the military contract, and as such, an attempt to secure his company's future. Not to mention, Norman's rich guy/lust for power and vengeance acts as a contrast to Peter, who doesn't have the glamorous life and learns to use his power responsibly.

Even then, Harry's arc feels too same-y from Norman's because both characters are centered around using desperation to acquire something.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I disagree with the notion that Harry's arc feels natural and earned. The problem is that Harry's reason to conflict against Spider-Man is not only convenient, but also cliched as it relies on Spider-Man rejecting his offer. The whole Goblin transformation felt rushed and haphazard, seeing as how there wasn't really a reason to transform into the Goblin.

At least in the Raimi series, Norman Osborn's descent into the Green Goblin was the result of Norman being desperate to keep the military contract, and as such, an attempt to secure his company's future. Not to mention, Norman's rich guy/lust for power and vengeance acts as a contrast to Peter, who doesn't have the glamorous life and learns to use his power responsibly.

Even then, Harry's arc feels too same-y from Norman's because both characters are centered around using desperation to acquire something.

How is Norman's lust of power from SM1 any better than Harry self-centered struggle with mortality?

The lust for power seems cliche and evil for evil's sake compared to Harry's self-preservation which was the most realistic and personal reason a villain hated Spider-man ever explored in a movie.

 

[jmc]

I wonder what would have happened had Raimi gotten to do the film he wanted and where we'd be now. Let's say Spider-Man 3 is not just a box office success but on par with its predecessors in terms of execution and critical reception, the flow on effect for not just the Spidey films but the entire genre is interesting to think about. Maguire, Dunst and Raimi are signed for another 3 films - films 4 and 5 were rumoured to be shot back to back so lets keep that in place for 2009 and 2010 release dates respectively. And lets assume film 6 is made for 2012 and features the Sinter Six (appropriately) and acts as the swan song for Maguire, Dunst and Raimi. Imagine that coming out the same year as Avengers and Dark Knight Rises, you could argue that would be the event superhero film of that year. An interesting note would be that if Anne Hathaway had in fact played Black Cat as Raimi wanted we would have a completely different Catwoman.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

How is Norman's lust of power from SM1 any better than Harry self-centered struggle with mortality?

The lust for power seems cliche and evil for evil's sake compared to Harry's self-preservation which was the most realistic and personal reason a villain hated Spider-man ever explored in a movie.

Harry was underdeveloped to the point where you don't even know how you're supposed to feel about him. It seems like the movie is trying to present him as a sympathetic character but he acts like a *****e even to Peter who is supposed to be his best friend. His desperation for Spiderman's blood comes out of nowhere, Norman survived most of his life so why is Harry even desperate at all? Its so convenient that the moment Norman tells him about the "family disease" its the moment when he's starting to get the symptoms lol and to make things worse Peter decides go with him as Spidey and refuse to give him his blood!! Why would Peter even do that if he wasn't gonna give him his blood anyway, its just an excuse for Harry to turn evil.

The way I see it, as underwritten as Eddie Brock/Venom was in SM3 he was still a better character than GG in TASM 2.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

He's desperate because he's young, scared and he just witnessed the final result of the disease.

I agree that it's not clear if he's a good person or bad person but I felt that flowed from his character being damaged due to no Parental support.

He was discarded and shipped off, that leads to issues with self-worth and more so who he is is ambiguous because he doesn't even know who he is.

 

[spiderman2]

what you said and when desspert peole will sometimes do crazy things without real thinking about it.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

He's desperate because he's young, scared and he just witnessed the final result of the disease.

I agree that it's not clear if he's a good person or bad person but I felt that flowed from his character being damaged due to no Parental support.

He was discarded and shipped off, that leads to issues with self-worth and more so who he is is ambiguous because he doesn't even know who he is.

But he clearly has at the very least 40 years left to live, if he continues working on the cure he's gonna find it eventually. BTW now that I think about it why did they even kill the Spiders? In this universe Oscorp is extremely powerful, they have a bunch of secret labs and stuff and yet they ahve kill some petty spiders so they don't get discovered? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Was the idea of a reboot a mistake? Maybe not
It should have been better, maybe

I enjoyed the movies, not sure I'm satisfied with the reboot as a whole, but I enjoyed the movies

 

[Jumpman]

How is Norman's lust of power from SM1 any better than Harry self-centered struggle with mortality?

The lust for power seems cliche and evil for evil's sake compared to Harry's self-preservation which was the most realistic and personal reason a villain hated Spider-man ever explored in a movie.

So much this. The moment Harry finds out about the genetic disorder he has, every action he does in the film is based on that.

Hell, the plot of the film doesn't kick in until Harry learns of this life altering news. This is why I can't, for the life of me, understand the criticism that this film has no plot.

It may be simplistic but it does have a plot, 100%.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

The weird thing is, the reboot hasn't made much difference.

Forget the first Amazing Spider-Man, and go from Spider-Man 3 to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Apart from Peter and Gwen graduating, and Harry, with a few changes in details this could easily be Spider-Man 4.

 

[Oscorp]

I'm very glad they rebooted, even though I really, really like the past trilogy. Judging from the rumours, SM4 would have been a disaster. Raimi didn't get to do his thing anymore.

We got a MUCH better love interest in Gwen with this reboot. That alone is a huge plus.

However...as much as I liked TASM despite its flaws, TASM2 completely ruined it for me. I've already said this, but to me it's even worse than SM3. With that in mind, I don't think this particular reboot was worth it. I'd much rather have seen what Raimi could do with Vulture, and I can't possibly see this series get back up on its legs after this disaster. Especially now that Emma Stone can't save it.

 

[The Joker]

The lust for power seems cliche and evil for evil's sake compared to Harry's self-preservation which was the most realistic and personal reason a villain hated Spider-man ever explored in a movie.

Sandman stealing money to save his sick daughter. Just as personal and realistic.

 

[Shikamaru]

Harry was underdeveloped to the point where you don't even know how you're supposed to feel about him. It seems like the movie is trying to present him as a sympathetic character but he acts like a *****e even to Peter who is supposed to be his best friend. His desperation for Spiderman's blood comes out of nowhere, Norman survived most of his life so why is Harry even desperate at all? Its so convenient that the moment Norman tells him about the "family disease" its the moment when he's starting to get the symptoms lol and to make things worse Peter decides go with him as Spidey and refuse to give him his blood!! Why would Peter even do that if he wasn't gonna give him his blood anyway, its just an excuse for Harry to turn evil.

The way I see it, as underwritten as Eddie Brock/Venom was in SM3 he was still a better character than GG in TASM 2.

Norman had to rely on constant shady experiments to keep himself alive, Harry didn't. Which now he may be a lot more comfortable to do, given his state of mind by the end of the film.

 

[InJustice]

How is Norman's lust of power from SM1 any better than Harry self-centered struggle with mortality?

The lust for power seems cliche and evil for evil's sake compared to Harry's self-preservation which was the most realistic and personal reason a villain hated Spider-man ever explored in a movie.

You misunderstood, I didn't say that Norman's arc was centered around lust for power. I mentioned lust for power because it becomes a central point towards the mid-point of the movie (it signals the downward spiral from the Norman we knew at the beginning - who appears to be a sympathetic for a short while, to the crazed maniac we see towards the end of the film). Norman bases his decision on the well-being of his company. In other words, if he was unable to secure a contract with the United States military, his company would more than likely cease to exist. That's why he used himself as a guinea pig in the Goblin Serum experiment, he saw potential in something, but his desperation and impending doom towards his company clouded his judgments.

Harry's self-preservation arc is not even close to realistic, especially when you consider that Peter rejected Harry's offer because he didn't think that it would work out better for him. I can buy that it is Harry's desperation that clouds his judgment, but at the end, Peter was right. Without the suit, that just so happened to be near where Harry was, Harry would be dead. I'm fine with a villain having a personal reason to hate Spider-Man, but to have Electro and Harry's central reason for turning to villainy be Spider-Man, is a cliched direction and feels like lazy and convenient writing.

 

[DACrowe]

Venom/Eddie Brock were complete non-characters in SM3. A falling piano would've more interesting.

Green Goblin/Harry from ASM2 were actually attached to the story and characters. As Harry becomes more selfish he slowly becomes the goblin psychologically.

It's full character arc that feels natural and earned unlike most of Raimi's villains.

Really? Harry has no characterization and his friendship with Peter is lapsed by eight years. Red Letter Media said it right when they mocked "they talk about the old days like they were both 17 back then, instead of 10."

Harry needed a cure...for a disease that would kill him in 30 to 40 years. His storyline was rushed and incoherent, existing only so he could kill Gwen Stacy.

When Harry shows up at the end of the movie, it is even more of an afterthought than Venom who at least drove the conflict of the climax. I heard audience members groan when Harry shows up out of convenience. I would go one step further and say Venom is better than any of the villains in TASM2. They all sucked.

 

[OcStat]

So what if the disease might have taken 30+ years to kill Harry. Just because it took that long for Norman doesn't mean Harry had that much time. How do we know Norman wasn't pumping himself full of experimental drugs with beneficial or even negative consequences that altered his disease?

And why would Harry wait that long? Why wouldn't a young man who just inherited a billion dollar company try to cure himself as quickly as possible?

Harry's plan when he breaks out Electro is to have Electro fight him so Harry can capture Spider-Man and take his blood. Of course he is going to show up at the end, he told us so 20 minutes before hand!

But to each their own, it really seems some people are going the extra mile to let us know we shouldn't like this movie.

If SM3, TDKR, MoS, IM3, and TDW have taught us anything, it's that there's always something to enjoy in these films, and some people are gonna like it, love it, or hate it.

 

[Oscorp]

Really? Harry has no characterization and his friendship with Peter is lapsed by eight years. Red Letter Media said it right when they mocked "they talk about the old days like they were both 17 back then, instead of 10."

Harry needed a cure...for a disease that would kill him in 30 to 40 years. His storyline was rushed and incoherent, existing only so he could kill Gwen Stacy.

When Harry shows up at the end of the movie, it is even more of an afterthought than Venom who at least drove the conflict of the climax. I heard audience members groan when Harry shows up out of convenience. I would go one step further and say Venom is better than any of the villains in TASM2. They all sucked.

Not to mention the awkward and long silence when he shows up haha!

 

[kbrooksgohan]

No I don't think it was a bad idea. I feel like they captured Spiderman and Peter Parker's personality in this movie. I can give them a pass for the flaws of this film because I know they didn't set out to disappoint people. I know people who worked behind the scenes for the movie and I know that's not what they set out to do. I think Sin Six and Venom could be good ideas if they know how to approach them. It all depends on how they are written. I also think that ASM3 has it's work cut out for them and I'm sure they are going to work really hard to make it up to the people that didn't like certain elements of the film.

 

[Frodo]

Not to mention the awkward and long silence when he shows up haha!

That was hysterical. It seemed like somebody forgot their line or something.

 

[Lord]

OcStat, i respect your opinion of the movie, but even when there is something to enjoy, there are ways to evaluate a movie, enjoyment and quality are different, i can find enjoyment in even bad movies, as well as dislike Good movies because they bore me.

Not saying TAS-M 2 was bad, but many are simply finding it to have plenty of problems to make it good. And come on, Iron Man 3 was a great blockbuster movie, off-topic, i know

 

[OcStat]

OcStat, i respect your opinion of the movie, but even when there is something to enjoy, there are ways to evaluate a movie, enjoyment and quality are different, i can find enjoyment in even bad movies, as well as dislike Good movies because they bore me.

Not saying TAS-M 2 was bad, but many are simply finding it to have plenty of problems to make it good. And come on, Iron Man 3 was a great blockbuster movie, off-topic, i know

Yeah I get that, but all too often, with comic book movies that aren't of a certain caliber, to certain people, discussion devolves into a condescending "Really? You like Movie A? How can you with things like "A", "B", or "C"?". I can already imagine the conversations years down the line.

I'm probably the most easy going fella in terms of my enjoyment of CBMs, I personally enjoy all those movies I listed (Iron Man 3 is my personal favorite of that trilogy), but all those movies have gotten a very divided reception, at least here on SHH!

 

[Oscorp]

That was hysterical. It seemed like somebody forgot their line or something.

It was uncomfortable watching that at the cinema!

That's one of the many times the timing felt off in the film. Another example is the slow motion shots. They go on for way too long!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Really? Harry has no characterization and his friendship with Peter is lapsed by eight years. Red Letter Media said it right when they mocked "they talk about the old days like they were both 17 back then, instead of 10."

Harry needed a cure...for a disease that would kill him in 30 to 40 years. His storyline was rushed and incoherent, existing only so he could kill Gwen Stacy.

When Harry shows up at the end of the movie, it is even more of an afterthought than Venom who at least drove the conflict of the climax. I heard audience members groan when Harry shows up out of convenience. I would go one step further and say Venom is better than any of the villains in TASM2. They all sucked.

Harry was already showing signs of the disease (on his neck). He was clearly dying much quicker than his father, who had decades of gene therapy.

How did Venom drive the conflict of the climax??? Venom's appearance was extremely forced and obligatory in SM3. He's just thrown into the ending screeching and growling. He doesn't serve a purpose except to kidnap MJ which is the laziest plot device in a superhero movie considering Raimi used it for every climax of every Spider-man movie he did.

I don't see how Mary Jane being kidnapped and rescued for a third time is anywhere nearly as compelling as Gwen's death.

and unlike Harry/Gwen/Peter's relationship in ASM2, there is zero emotional investment in the characters in SM3. None of the SM3 character developments felt natural or rewarding. Gwen/GG2/Venom were all non-characters. The resolution of ASM2 paid off after building with genuine drama rather than cheesy melodrama that ultimately feels empty (I'm looking at you Topher Grace, James Franco, Bryce Dallas Howard and Kirsten Dunst).