The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Critic bias towards this franchise?

[Flint Marko]

Truth be told I've been worried about this movie for a while given how many villains are in it and how much they're trying to pack into it, seems like SM3 all over again. I'm still going into it very excited and will form my own opinion on the film regardless of what the critics say, as should we all.
Also, it's in the 70 percent range. That's not bad in the slightest. It will probably drop once it releases in America but for now, let's take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[BestGirl]

It's like having two different adaptations of a single book and one of them comes along a few years after the first, and it's worse. Calling the movie a cash-grab is a legit statement, technically all films are cash-grabs, but not all films are referred to as such. Context is important, how something is pulled off in comparison to its' peers is important. No film exists in a vacuum, and some people need to come to terms with this rather than just cry foul from the get go.

Exactly. All movies are made for money, but some have some display actual skill and artistry while others feel as though they were thrown together at the last minute.

 

[LizardMan07]

Truth be told I've been worried about this movie for a while given how many villains are in it and how much they're trying to pack into it, seems like SM3 all over again. I'm still going into it very excited and will form my own opinion on the film regardless of what the critics say, as should we all.
Also, it's in the 70 percent range. That's not bad in the slightest. It will probably drop once it releases in America but for now, let's take a deep breath and calm down.

If anything, it's better than SM3 as Andrew, Emma and Dane absolutely kill it. There's some fantastic moments, and there's some pretty "what" moments as well.

I think you'd enjoy it a little more than SM3 as the main focus is on Electro and the last two villians only really show up at the end, and [BLACKOUT]none of them get killed off venom style[/BLACKOUT]

I thought Joe's comment with the analogy of the book was really apt as well and perfectly described the views of critics who didn't like the film for the "reboot" reasons.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Are critics biased towards this franchise?

No. I mean no. Maybe it's the fact they are bad films. Look at the Original Star Wars Trilogy. One of the best trilogies of all time. Critics bashed Episode 1 & Episode 2 because they were bad and Star Wars is the biggest film series of all time (you may earn more MCU, but you will never be bigger than Star Wars. People bashed Godfather 3 after 2 great films because it was terrible. Why did Man of Steel get bashed? Because it was a bad film. Why didn't Dark Knight Rises get bashed? Because, as a film, it was good. Compared to the comics, is it good? Not all that much but you just a film as a film. You don't look at all the source in the film.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean they are biased.

 

[Picard Sisko]

There is definitely some bias towards the franchise, especially when you have a number of critics calling it "unnecessary" and saying that TASM2 is a "weird reimagining" of Spider-Man 2. Every film in the history of cinema exists to make money, and we know that SM2 and TASM2 are very different movies.

Of course there are also some legitimate criticisms towards the franchise that I think are completely fair in regards to character development, motivations, tone, etc. But considering that this franchise was rebooted rather quickly, there is still a lot of resentment towards it. "SIGH... they made another one. Do we really need this? Does this film need to exist?"

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I think that's the problem with TASM. It was rebooted too quickly. I mean they didn't give us time to miss Spider-Man. Took Superman 7 years to get rebooted, Batman 8, and we're coming up on 7 with Fantastic Four.

With Incredible Hulk, it felt more like a sequel to Hulk even though it's a reboot. The Amazing Spider-Man just didn't do anything overly new other than add things that DOES NOT MAKE THE STORY BETTER but make fanboys happy.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Even though the film was rebooted quickly, I expect a little more from "professional" critics. They should judge a film fairly and avoid using cheap criticisms like, "it's just a cash grab" or "it doesn't need to exist."

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

At the same time, it's the same origin as 10 years ago. I mean there are some things that are different but not much.

Uncle Ben died
Peter in high school
Peter bullied by Flash
Peter discovering he has Spider powers
Spider-Man wanted by the police
I can think of others but I'm not in the mood.

I mean with Batman, it didn't tell Batman's origin so it's easy for Begins too. With Superman, the world in 78 and 13 is 2 different worlds. Not the world has changed since 02 but not as much as 78 so to say.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The movie was different enough from SM1, but the real issue is that the same criticisms are being applied to the sequel.

 

[Nemeres]

Truth be told I've been worried about this movie for a while given how many villains are in it and how much they're trying to pack into it, seems like SM3 all over again. I'm still going into it very excited and will form my own opinion on the film regardless of what the critics say, as should we all.
Also, it's in the 70 percent range. That's not bad in the slightest. It will probably drop once it releases in America but for now, let's take a deep breath and calm down.

I didn't think that was an issue, funnily enough. The movie does feel "busy", but with other stuff. The villains take a backseat to that.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The issue with SM3 is that none of the plots tie in together. Sandman trying to get money to save his daughter, Harry getting revenge, Peter and MJ having relationship problems while the symbiote falls from the sky and make things worse, etc. It felt like 2-3 different movies crammed into one.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It felt like 2-3 bad movies crammed together.

 

[Picard Sisko]

It felt like 2-3 bad movies crammed together.

There was a point where I asked myself, "Is this even going anywhere?" Tough I think somewhere under that mess was a good movie that got lost under a pile of garbage.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

How many people who have seen ASM2 believe it's as bad as SM3?

Because ASM2 almost has the same RT score as SM3.

Is that fair?

 

[Picard Sisko]

To be honest, I always thought Spider-Man 3's RT score was a little too high. Maybe it's because it was living off the success of the previous two installments, but I think 63% is being nice. TASM2 has a much bigger uphill battle than SM3 ever did.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How many people who have seen ASM2 believe it's as bad as SM3?

Because ASM2 almost has the same RT score as SM3.

Is that fair?

A different time. Hard to try and find an equivalence imo.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Seems like critics were more forgiving towards Raimi than they were to Webb.

Isn't that possible?

Raimi was a critic favorite after SM2. Webb or more specifically the reboot was far more divisive among fanboys and critics.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Seems like critics were more forgiving towards Raimi than they were to Webb.

Isn't that possible?

Raimi was a critic favorite after SM2. Webb or more specifically the reboot was far more divisive among fanboys and critics.

As I said a different time. There was no TDK, Avengers, TWS, Iron Man, First Class, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, etc. at that point. What qualifies as a good comic book/superhero film has changed for critics in general imo.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The context in which a film was made is very important. If Spider-Man (2002) was released today as-is, I don't think it would be a critical success. But when you learn about its place in CBM history and how it raised the bar at the time, you can at least understand why it was a big hit.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

As I said a different time. There was no TDK, Avengers, TWS, Iron Man, First Class, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, etc. at that point. What qualifies as a good comic book/superhero film has changed for critics in general imo.

Well maybe the standards have gone up since SM3 but it's also possible some critics don't like the idea behind the reboot.

I believe some critics admitted to feeling that way in the reviews for ASM1.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well maybe the standards have gone up since SM3 but it's also possible some critics don't like the idea behind the reboot.

I believe some critics admitted to feeling that way in the reviews for ASM1.

The "reboot problem" wouldn't be a thing if the critics thought these movies were fantastic imo. You will always get outliers who hate just to hate, but the amount is to large to say it is just a group crying about it being a reboot.

 

[Picard Sisko]

How many negative reviews complain about the series being a reboot, just out of curiosity?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

How many negative reviews complain about the series being a reboot, just out of curiosity?

Well I recall a fair share of reviews back in 2012 complaining about ASM1 rehashing the origin story.

I couldn't give you an exact number though.

 

[Picard Sisko]

What about RT reviews complaining about TASM2 being unnecessary?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What about RT reviews complaining about TASM2 being unnecessary?

I haven't read many of the negative reviews for ASM2.

Maybe someone else knows.