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

[PalmerTheThing]

I think reboot was the way to go, but quality has to be ensured for that game plan to work. These films are dancing pretty hard around that line.

 

[slimshady247]

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.

Nah. Just more revisionist history based off Spider-Man 3. I guess this is to be expected on this forum, and in this thread in particular. I mean, a camp-fest with horrible acting? No. Just no. That's more like The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I think Spider-Man 4 definitely would've been the way to go now that we've gotten two of these really very mediocre Webb films. As others have said, if that did poorly, then I would've understood a reboot.

Imagine how interesting it would've been even if it had taken a long time to get out and get right.

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.

Yeah, this. Look at X-Men. It recovered from the horrors of X3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine with First Class, and now we're getting Days of Future Past. People are still at least somewhat excited about that franchise, aren't they? And it's only slightly older than the first Spider-Man film (it came out in 2000 as opposed to 2002 as its starting point).

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].

Quoted for truth.

And you're definitely not the only one. There really isn't a reason for Peter and Gwen to be together. Her whole character is basically female Peter, and it's just stupid.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

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].

You're definitely not the only one. I felt the "romance" in the first movie was incredibly forced. Not only stuttering out asking her on a date, but also showing up to the first date through her window, arguing with her dad and ending it with revealing his secret, just awful storytelling.

I haven't seen the movie, don't plan on it until it comes to video or HBO, the first movie just completely turned me off on the character. I've always been a huge fan, but this series just feels like a mess and I really don't think Webb understands the character, Peter was an @$$ in the first movie, totally unlikeable. They completely screw the origin in downplaying Ben's death, Captain Stacy being the one to teach him the lesson on power and responsibility, um, no! This second looked even worse because from the trailers they're trying to do too much, tell an Electro and the iconic Green Goblin story, as well as foreshadow the Sinister Six, add Rhino as a cameo villain, tell a totally unneeded story of Peter's parents, etc... People complained that Iron Man had too much Avengers foreshadowing, this one they put the foreshadowing in the trailers!

What would bring me back to the franchise is Webb gone. You can reboot if you want, but don't do an origin again, the '90s Spidey and Spectacular Spidey cartoons started with him already as Spidey. Blade, Batman '89 and X-Men didn't need origin movies, Spidey doesn't need it. Use a new villain, Kraven would be great, Spidey's already established, Kraven's has believed JJJ's hype and come to NYC to hunt this menace. I actually just though of this, but I think there's a strong story there.

 

[Webhead38]

I think all films in a franchise either benefit or take on deficits based on the lasting impression of the previous installment. I think audiences were tired of a retelling of the origin again. And since the villain was not interesting enough to compensate the difference, the franchise is paying for it now. And I think putting the film out less than two years before the last is also a mistake. Had this come out next Summer, we would most likely have had a much better opening weekend, because there would have been more of an appetite for this character. I really like AMS2. And its ultimate fate will really be felt next weekend domestically speaking. This could be a film that gets all of its success overseas. Pretty much like the last Pirates film did.

 

[slimshady247]

I think an adaptation of Kraven's Last Hunt, though incredibly unlikely and probably way too dark, would be the best Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2.

But hey, why don't we just do Sinister Six and Venom and all that?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I think all films in a franchise either benefit or take on deficits based on the lasting impression of the previous installment. I think audiences were tired of a retelling of the origin again. And since the villain was not interesting enough to compensate the difference, the franchise is paying for it now. And I think putting the film out less than two years before the last is also a mistake. Had this come out next Summer, we would most likely have had a much better opening weekend, because there would have been more of an appetite for this character. I really AMS2. And its ultimate fate will really be felt next weekend domestically speaking. This could be a film that gets all of its success overseas. Pretty much like the last Pirates film did.

So franchise fatigue, as another user pointed out the Fast and Furious franchise should be suffering too then right;

The Fast and the Furious (2001) Opening ~$40 million, Total B.O. ~$144 million
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) Opening ~$50 million, Total B.O. ~$127 million
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) Opening ~$24 million, Total B.O. ~$62 million
Fast and Furious (2009) Opening ~$71 million, Total B.O. ~$155 million
Fast 5 (2011) Opening ~$86 million, Total B.O. ~$210 million
The Fast and the Furious 6 (2013) Opening ~$97 million, Total B.O. ~$238 million

Six movies and the past 3 continue to improve on the box office of the previous one, coming out every two years. Franchise fatigue is just a cop out for a bad movie. ASM 2 was also has the lowest RT score of every Spidey movie. If franchise fatigue was a factor the MCU movies would be declining, but they're BO is increasing.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Franchise fatigue isn't just a "cop-out." Although I am pro-reboot, I still hear a ton of people complaining about it being too soon. Spider-Man 4 wouldn't have gotten as much crap as TASM1 even if it was the same quality film. The reboot series came too quickly and people seem to not want it to even exist.

 

[Visualiza]

Franchise fatigue isn't just a "cop-out." Although I am pro-reboot, I still hear a ton of people complaining about it being too soon. Spider-Man 4 wouldn't have gotten as much crap as TASM1 even if it was the same quality film. The reboot series came too quickly and people seem to not want it to even exist.

It is when you fall back on that and that alone, without anything conclusive to support it.

So you've heard that "a ton" of people didn't want the reboot. Ok, but that's one perspective, your perspective, which is relative. Hardly what could be considered a conclusive gauge for overall public perception. Furthermore, I think that there are enough examples, and more importantly, recent examples, that show ongoing franchises on the climb rather than the decline. Problem is, none of us can be a fly on the wall for 300+ million individuals, so we can't really say what others think, can we?

The numbers and patterns are the best we've got, everything else about fatigue or whatever, is conjecture.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Go on Rotten Tomatoes and look at how many reviews say that rebooting was unnecessary. It is NOT just my perspective.

 

[Lord]

I just keep hearing people who know others that lost interest due to the reboot of such a well known franchise being made so soon, i myself know people saying that, at this point i don't think it's just conjecture.

Most other cases consisted on the ressurrection of dead franchises, and even then, it was usually needed a critically aclaimed film to win fans back, Spider-Man was big during the 2000s, it has a style and energy that won the general public, even with bigger special effects, the franchise still doesn't feel as impressive in terms of spectacle than the previous trilogy did.

And come on, reboot fatigue sounds very plausible to me, i don't think it's just about having too much super hero competition.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I just keep hearing people who know others that lost interest due to the reboot of such a well known franchise this soon, i myself know people saying that, at this point i don't think it's just conjecture.

Most other cases consisted on the ressurrection of dead franchises, and even then, it was usually needed a critically aclaimed film to win fans back, Spider-Man was big during the 2000s, it has a style and energy that won the general public, even with bigger special effects, the franchise still doesn't feel as impressive in terms of spectacle than the previous trilogy did.

And come on, reboot fatigue sounds very plausible to me, i don't think it's just about having too much super hero competition.

Thank you. Fact of the matter is, the reboot did come very quickly and it really pissed off a lot of people. The Raimi films were very popular and having yet another origin story only 5 years after Spider-Man 3 wasn't very appealing to critics and the GA.

I still hear a lot of people at my school saying, "why are they still making more?" Or, "Tobey Maguire is the true Peter Parker!"

 

[Visualiza]

Go on Rotten Tomatoes and look at how many reviews say that rebooting was unnecessary. It is NOT just my perspective.

Yes...it really is. I know you'd like to come up with any excuse that justifies this franchise underperforming, but that's not how it works. For every one you could point out, I'm sure that there are several who would say otherwise. There are those who are perfectly content with both universes, you know, and I do believe they outnumber the fanboys on both sides of the fence.

 

[Visualiza]

Thank you. Fact of the matter is, the reboot did come very quickly and it really pissed off a lot of people. The Raimi films were very popular and having yet another origin story only 5 years after Spider-Man 3 wasn't very appealing to critics and the GA.

I still hear a lot of people at my school saying, "why are they still making more?" Or, "Tobey Maguire is the true Peter Parker!"

If that's what people are saying then that should tell you something, although that something is probably not what you want to hear.

Not many people (if any at all, honestly) are begging for Pierce Brosnan to come back as Bond. The way I read that, and I could be wrong, is that this new incarnation clearly didn't do enough to supersede the impression left by the previous movies. In other words, they thought it was a weaker interpretation.

Now, I know how I feel, but that's irrelevant; that's just me. If that's the sort of thing people were telling me, then I'd interpret it to mean as I've said above. If I eat the same flavor of ice cream from a newer, different brand than I'm used to, and it doesn't blow me away, then guess what will be the first thing that comes to mind? That older, superior flavor that never let me down in the past. A simple example, but I think it applies to your anecdote. It's not just blind bias, in other words.

 

[Picard Sisko]

People have been saying this around the time that TASM1 was just announced, long before it was even released. Stop accusing me of making excuses, it is seriously very, very annoying.

 

[Lord]

Recasting Bond wasn't a new thing, rebooting James Bond was just that easy, not to mention how great it was. A better comparison for Spider-Man is if Disney suddenly decided to reboot Iron Man and Pirates of the Caribbean in 2017, or if Transformers was rebooted with a Cybertron film and no role for the military or humans, i think it's unrealistic to believe it they would still be grossing 1 billion so easily, yeah, people know what reboots are, doesn't mean they will easily accept them 10 years after the first classic, and with some of the public having grown with the movies.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Recasting Bond wasn't a new thing, rebooting James Bond was just that easy, not to mention how great it was. A better comparison for Spider-Man is if Disney suddenly decided to reboot Iron Man and Pirates of the Caribbean in 2017, or if Transformers was rebooted with a Cybertron film and no role for the military or humans, i think it's unrealistic to believe it they would still be grossing 1 billion so easily, yeah, people know what reboots are, doesn't mean they will easily accept them 10 years after the first classic, and with some of the public having grown with the movies.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Imagine if Disney decided to reboot Iron Man and re-tell his origin story in 2016? It would get slammed so hard.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So franchise fatigue, as another user pointed out the Fast and Furious franchise should be suffering too then right;

The Fast and the Furious (2001) Opening ~$40 million, Total B.O. ~$144 million
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) Opening ~$50 million, Total B.O. ~$127 million
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) Opening ~$24 million, Total B.O. ~$62 million
Fast and Furious (2009) Opening ~$71 million, Total B.O. ~$155 million
Fast 5 (2011) Opening ~$86 million, Total B.O. ~$210 million
The Fast and the Furious 6 (2013) Opening ~$97 million, Total B.O. ~$238 million

Six movies and the past 3 continue to improve on the box office of the previous one, coming out every two years. Franchise fatigue is just a cop out for a bad movie. ASM 2 was also has the lowest RT score of every Spidey movie. If franchise fatigue was a factor the MCU movies would be declining, but they're BO is increasing.

Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible are exceptions, not the rule.

The vast majority of third and fourth sequels make far less than the original first two movies.

and why are people expecting the Spider-man movies to rebound. They ALWAYS drop at the domestic box office. Even Spider-man 2 dropped.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Up until TASM1, SM2 was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film. Just shows you that box office doesn't really reflect quality.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes...it really is. I know you'd like to come up with any excuse that justifies this franchise underperforming, but that's not how it works. For every one you could point out, I'm sure that there are several who would say otherwise. There are those who are perfectly content with both universes, you know, and I do believe they outnumber the fanboys on both sides of the fence.

You don't remember how divisive the reboot was even before ASM1 was released?

Plenty of people bashed the very idea of a reboot long before ASM1 has even screened.

There's never been a more divisive superhero movie leading up to release..

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Took the words right out of my mouth. Imagine if Disney decided to reboot Iron Man and re-tell his origin story in 2016? It would get slammed so hard.

Or if Kevin Feige was fired and his replacement decided to reboot The Avengers with a re-hashed origin.

There would me mobs of fanboys demanding blood and rooting for the reboot to fail.

The case was worse with Sony because people would prefer they lose the rights to Spider-man.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Or if Kevin Feige was fired and his replacement decided to reboot The Avengers with a re-hashed origin.

There would me mobs of fanboys demanding blood and rooting for the reboot to fail.

The case was worse with Sony because people would prefer they lose the rights to Spider-man.

This. The whole rights situation kind of makes things a little bit more frustrating.

 

[kguillou]

If they were going to reboot it, all I asked was that they make it different and not a retread of what we saw in Raimi's films. They should've took more risks, do something bold and different like, say, have Uncle Ben survive and have Aunt May be the one who dies and teach Peter "With Great Power Comes...Yadda Yadda Yadda". That would have been interesting to watch and given us a different take on Spider-ma we haven't seen before.

 

[Visualiza]

You don't remember how divisive the reboot was even before ASM1 was released?

Of course I do, and I also remember that the same thing happened with Daniel Craig. I have no way to prove it, but I'd wager that Craig had less people on his side than Webb, Stone, and Garfield did.

Or if Kevin Feige was fired and his replacement decided to reboot The Avengers with a re-hashed origin.

There would me mobs of fanboys demanding blood and rooting for the reboot to fail.

The case was worse with Sony because people would prefer they lose the rights to Spider-man.

That actually sounds like a pretty funny scenario. I think I'd pay the price of a movie ticket to see that.

This. The whole rights situation kind of makes things a little bit more frustrating.

So what is it then, really folks. Are you all telling me that Spider-Man in film faces such an insurmountable uphill battle, and only because people won't let go of Sam Raimi, and nothing else? Really? So that's it then. Under no circumstances in this reality will a film in this franchise, and in this booming international (3D) market no less, outgross the previous franchise and win over the public. That's astonishing to me.

Aside from personal anecdotes, does anyone have any way to prove it? And before anybody goes there, I'm not saying that I have a way to disprove it, but that's my point - if you can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the reason why these movies won't reach the heights of the former franchise, then you can't keep saying that's how it is.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I would have been fine with a reboot for ASM1 if they just started with Parker already Spider-Man, Ben already dead, etc. Just put him back in high school with Gwen and do the Lizard plot, if they wanted to do that. But I didn't want to sit through essentially the same movie I just saw ten years ago for an hour before the new stuff started.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

It is natural for people to get up in arms about a reboot so soon. People grow attached to stories, and it sucks to see them thrown away so the slate can be clean again.

But the filmmakers behind TASM had a job - shut the naysayers up. If they had done their job well, more people would've rolled with it than they are now.

Batman Begins did it by offering a dark study about Bruce Wayne's character and his motivations. Casino Royale did it by revamping Bond to be more of a ruthless killer who happens to work for the "good" side, if it can even be called that.

So far, The Amazing Spider-Man has given us the cocksure Spidey of the comics and a retread of the origin story, which is fine by me. But the films - far too flawed to be great in my opinion - wouldn't be suffering from mixed to lukewarm reception if they been great films. That's the key thing: a successful reboot of a beloved franchise has to be GREAT to convince its audience that it was a good idea. That was how BB and CR won so many people over.

I don't blame Webb too much - it's clear Sony had its paws all over TASM, and I suspect they may have done it again with TASM 2. And Spidey has had quite an early reboot, so that's another problem going for it. The odds were stacked against the series to begin with, but that isn't a sufficient excuse for why this film series isn't as critically successful.