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

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

And I think therein lies the problem, the re-boot hasnt improved on what came before, the only thing thats been improved from the Raimi movies is the romance story, but now that is, ahem, dead.

Nothing else has been improved though IMO.

 

[Picard Sisko]

A reboot shouldn't have to be "better" than the original franchise. And this new series improves in a lot of areas than just the romance... (e.g. better Peter Parker/Spider-Man).

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Actually every movie should strive to be the best it can possibly be. No matter the genre.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Right, it should strive to be as good as it can possibly be. But it doesn't NEED to be better than the original series.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

A reboot shouldn't have to be "better" than the original franchise. And this new series improves in a lot of areas than just the romance... (e.g. better Peter Parker/Spider-Man).

Then we simply think differently, to re-boot a movie 5 years after the 1st series ended you should be doing it to improve on whats come before. Simply put, they havent in any aspects except the romance.

While Garfield's Spidey is awesome, I thought Tobey's was as well, so this isnt something that has improved IMO.

EDIT: I havent disliked the new movies BTW, but they certainly dont live upto the 'amazing' tag either, and with the next movie being the notoriously difficult 3rd movie, I dont see things improving.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well as far as "improvements" go, that also comes down to opinion. I think the Spider-Man we have in Webb's series is waaaaaay better than what we got in Raimi's. Huge improvement in my eyes. And I think the casting in general is so much better in the reboot series.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I think damn near everything has improved in Webb's take.

Acting
Chemistry
Spidey's characterization
Spidey's movement and choreography
The Love story
The Tone

By tone I mean Raimi's films seem knowingly hokey in a "gee-golly" "aaww'shucks" kind of way (only worked in the first film for me by the way) while imo, Webb's take in this film embraces it's comic booky aspects with sincerity without the bit of irony of Raimi's films.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well as far as "improvements" go, that also comes down to opinion. I think the Spider-Man we have in Webb's series is waaaaaay better than what we got in Raimi's. Huge improvement in my eyes. And I think the casting in general is so much better in the reboot series.

Fair enough, I just dont find this series as engaging as Raimi's was, I am certainly not as interested in it as I was with the previous series. And as movies, SM1 and SM2 are better than TASM 1 and 2 IMO.

And TASM 2 wasnt the big improvement over the 1st I was hoping for. And I dont see any huge improvement coming with the 3rd movie either. This series has been good, but doesnt seem capable of going beyond that.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well I'm certainly not as "interested" as I was with Raimi's simply because this isn't the series I grew up with. I was about 9 when SM1 came out.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well I'm certainly not as "interested" as I was with Raimi's simply because this isn't the series I grew up with. I was about 9 when SM1 came out.

Well I was 19 when Raimi's movies started coming out so I didnt exactly grow up with them, but still I felt a lot more invested in it that this new one. I barely came to this thread until I saw TASM 2 a week or two ago were as I was on here every day from 2003-2010ish.

You havent seen TASM 2 yet have you? Hope you enjoy it anyway.

 

[Shikamaru]

From an adaptation point of view, I do think this reboot improved on the Raimi films. As I said when the first film came out, it's as if they wrote a checklist of everything that didn't work in the previous films and tried to apply it here.

From just a film perspective, I would rate TASM on par with SM2, granted I don't love that movie as much as everyone else does. Both get a 4/5 from me, which I consider a "good" (a 5/5 would be a "great"). Spider-Man 2 wins in story, action, and villain. TASM wins in character depth/study, tone, humor and Spider-Man essence. Haven't seen TASM 2 yet, but no Spider-Man film has been a 5/5 so far IMO. I think it's just more noticeable with this new franchise due to it coming out post-2008.

 

[Nemeres]

A reboot shouldn't have to be "better" than the original franchise. And this new series improves in a lot of areas than just the romance... (e.g. better Peter Parker/Spider-Man).

Then how can you expect critics to cut it any slack, if it doesn't improve on what came before?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think damn near everything has improved in Webb's take.

Acting
Chemistry
Spidey's characterization
Spidey's movement and choreography
The Love story
The Tone

By tone I mean Raimi's films seem knowingly hokey in a "gee-golly" "aaww'shucks" kind of way (only worked in the first film for me by the way) while imo, Webb's take in this film embraces it's comic booky aspects with sincerity without the bit of irony of Raimi's films.

I do get the sense the Raimi films laugh AT comic books more than they laugh WITH them.

The tongue is so firmly planted in the cheek it damn near pushes through.

 

[Lord]

I disagree, the style is like that because it's Sam Raimi's style and loves the genre so much.

 

[sl500jazz]

IMO, the "unnecessary" comments can be justified. There's always going to be a bit of an uphill battle with reboots. Especially one that came so soon after the first series. The film should able to convey the importance/meaning/rationale behind the reboot (other than studio business) through a truly unique vision, fantastic performances, and a well crafted story, etc. For film critics, a good film typically does not encompass more fidelity to the source material (ie: a wisecracking Spider-Man) like it does for fans . If the critics believe that the film fell short or was just another passable/okay Spider-Man film, then to them it may very well have felt "unnecessary".

And I don't think that slapping a popular director's name onto a film actually helps with reviews. If anything, it bolsters expectations of what the film will be like and leads to more disappointment/scrutiny if he/she delivers anything less than their previous body of work.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I do get the sense the Raimi films laugh AT comic books more than they laugh WITH them.

The tongue is so firmly planted in the cheek it damn near pushes through.

As much as I mostly dislike the Raimi films, I wouldn't go THAT far, but there is a sense he's saying "look at how goofy some of this stuff is!" while Webb presents it as it is.

I'm not saying Raimi gave us a satire, not at all but his brand of humor doesn't work well for the source material imo. He got it mostly right in the first film, which is why it's still the only one of his I like, and went overboard in the sequels.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

I think damn near everything has improved in Webb's take.

Acting
Chemistry
Spidey's characterization
Spidey's movement and choreography
The Love story
The Tone

By tone I mean Raimi's films seem knowingly hokey in a "gee-golly" "aaww'shucks" kind of way (only worked in the first film for me by the way) while imo, Webb's take in this film embraces it's comic booky aspects with sincerity without the bit of irony of Raimi's films.

Then you evidently haven't seen the second one. The cheese in the Raimi movies were never on the level of this film, it was nowhere near as distracting. Raimi never tried to turn any of his villians into walking cliches or sterotypes.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Then you evidently haven't seen the second one. The cheese in the Raimi movies were never on the level of this film, it was nowhere near as distracting. Raimi never tried to turn any of his villians into walking cliches or sterotypes.

Hmmm, I've seen the second one twice as a matter of fact.

You, evidently, don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the cartoony elements in TASM2 aren't there or not prominent. I'm saying the way it's presented is more sincere than Raimi's overall tongue-in-cheek way of storytelling.
Webb is saying, "You know what, Spidey comics have can be cartoony, can be silly, can be bright and colorful. I'm going to do that."
While Raimi says "Early Spider-Man comics are bright, a little campy, and a little silly. I'm going to do that, and poke a little fun at it too."

And I find Spider-Man 2 more cheesy in every single regard, and in a bad way. The acting, the dialogue, the chemistry between Peter and MJ...every single thing about it feels awkward and forced. The dialogue in that movie is so overwritten and cringe worthy it makes me face-palm. And I'm not saying this to be controversial. I've always disliked Spider-Man 2 and find it's universal praise truly baffling.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Hmmm, I've seen the second one twice as a matter of fact.

You, evidently, don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying the cartoony elements in TASM2 aren't there or not prominent. I'm saying the way it's presented is more sincere than Raimi's overall tongue-in-cheek way of storytelling.
Webb is saying, "You know what, Spidey comics have can be cartoony, can be silly, can be bright and colorful. I'm going to do that."
While Raimi says "Early Spider-Man comics are bright, a little campy, and a little silly. I'm going to do that, and poke a little fun at it too."

And I find Spider-Man 2 more cheesy in every single regard, and in a bad way. The acting, the dialogue, the chemistry between Peter and MJ...every single thing about it feels awkward and forced. The dialogue in that movie is so overwritten and cringe worthy it makes me face-palm. And I'm not saying this to be controversial. I've always disliked Spider-Man 2 and find it's universal praise truly baffling.

Raimi pulls off cheese much more effectively than Webb, Raimi's career was launched by it. Webb clearly didn't know what the hell he wanted to do with this movie, hell evidently this entire series.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I disagree, the style is like that because it's Sam Raimi's style and loves the genre so much.

Agreed. Raimi I don't think mocked the genre at all. I think he paid tribute to HIS era of Spider-Man. Things like Spider-Man taking his boot off and letting the sand out on a rooftrop are totally straight out of 60s Spider-Man, which was one of his best eras. This whole "cheese" argument has become a buzz word, and I honestly feel like people don't know what cheese is, nor understand the fact that Spider-Man, himself, is a cheesy character.

 

[bapi]

I think ASM1 was full of plot holes (for obvious reasons) but at least the movie was serious. Here the script is a mess and you've got characters like Max Dillon or Aleksei "something" and it's just hard to take this movie seriously. It really feels like Spidey for under-10 kids. And this is just my opinion and I know many fanboys are just happy to see Spidey on the screen but... come on! Foxx was on the screen for like 5 seconds and I already had to close my eyes...

 

[The Joker]

Raimi had his cheesy moments for sure, but they worked ten times better than some of the camp that was in TASM 2. It's no wonder people have been comparing it to Schumacher's Batman movies because there are scenes and characters that look like they came straight from them.

Raimi's humor on the whole worked well for Spider-Man, Webb's goes too overboard, especially with the villains.

 

[bapi]

Raimi had his cheesy moments for sure, but they worked ten times better than some of the camp that was in TASM 2. It's no wonder people have been comparing it to Schumacher's Batman movies because there are scenes and characters that look like they came straight from them.

Raimi's humor on the whole worked well for Spider-Man, Webb's goes too overboard, especially with the villains.

Absolutely this 100%!

 

[Picard Sisko]

Then how can you expect critics to cut it any slack, if it doesn't improve on what came before?

The films can be good in their own right.

 

[Picard Sisko]

IMO, the "unnecessary" comments can be justified. There's always going to be a bit of an uphill battle with reboots. Especially one that came so soon after the first series. The film should able to convey the importance/meaning/rationale behind the reboot (other than studio business) through a truly unique vision, fantastic performances, and a well crafted story, etc. For film critics, a good film typically does not encompass more fidelity to the source material (ie: a wisecracking Spider-Man) like it does for fans . If the critics believe that the film fell short or was just another passable/okay Spider-Man film, then to them it may very well have felt "unnecessary".

And I don't think that slapping a popular director's name onto a film actually helps with reviews. If anything, it bolsters expectations of what the film will be like and leads to more disappointment/scrutiny if he/she delivers anything less than their previous body of work.

You can easily say that any film you dislike is unnecessary. You can pretty much make an argument for anything and try to justify it but that doesn't make it so.