The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Do people prefer realistic to comicbookly

[Spidey-Lad93]

One of the main criticism this film got it was too much like a comicbook and the characters didn't feel real(The Rhino, Electro) but I don't understand that Spiderman is a comicbook character not every single superhero movie has to be like The Dark Knight and The Rhino was Criticized for being stupid but that's how I remember him from the comics and cartoons

 

[webhead731]

They have to find a good blend. Marvel has been doing well and I thought the last series did too. Hence why critics and audiences love all these films.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

They have to find a good blend. Marvel has been doing well and I thought the last series did too. Hence why critics and audiences love all these films.

I agree with what you said I honestly believe if this movie came out 10 or 15 years ago I think it would have been better recieved but after movies like The Winter Solider etc people expected more Realisc movies

 

[Visualiza]

It doesn't matter; as long as it's executed well and complements the movie, then this can go either way.

Tone is vastly overstated in the fan community in my book. Tone should fit the characters, setting, themes, and the movie as a whole, never the other way around. Often times, I've found that when filmmakers try to shoehorn a character and story into a particular tone, the entire production collapses as a result. Beyond that, there seems to be a fairly large contingent of people who think that a particular tone makes for a superior movie by default. Doesn't work that way. The tone of a movie, be it dark, light, fantastical, realistic, or any combination of the above, can be executed poorly as well, even if it is generally a good fit for a particular character.

Maybe I'm reading into your post wrong OP, but this seems like another veiled attempt at discrediting criticisms levied at the movie. The fact of the matter here is that there's a right way and a wrong way to do things, and for some of us, many aspects of TASM 2 (especially the tonal inconsistencies) fall into the latter category.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

The first movie was called a Dark Knight rip off so I can understand why they changed the tone for this movie

 

[Visualiza]

I agree with what you said I honestly believe if this movie came out 10 or 15 years ago I think it would have been better recieved but after movies like The Winter Solider etc people expected more Realisc movies

With regard to the bold, people have been saying this sort of thing about both of these movies lately, and I've gotta say, that's a very disingenuous, if not desperate, sort of praise to heap on these films.

I have yet to hear any solid reasoning to back up this claim, but even if there were...what does it matter? We're not in 1999 anymore, so we really have absolutely no way of knowing. Seems a very irrelevant, backhanded thing to say if you ask me. If a movie is legitimately good, it should stand on its own without hypothetical handicaps.

As for the Winter Soldier comment, again, I don't think you can back that up with anything conclusive. For every example you could hope to come up with, there's almost certainly one supporting the alternative. Avengers released just two years prior to TWS, and it was a hit without hyper-realism (which TWS didn't feature either, let's just be honest with ourselves, here).

If you liked the movie, then great; good for you, but you don't need to grasp at straws to discredit the tepid reception it's been getting. Some folks didn't like the movie, and they have their reasons...just as you did for enjoying it.

 

[Visualiza]

The first movie was called a Dark Knight rip off so I can understand why they changed the tone for this movie

*shrugs* If it was executed well enough, it wouldn't have been called a rip-off in the first place, irrespective of similarities. TDK itself isn't exactly the most original movie in the genre, let alone in general.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I prefer a good film.

For example:

I like Avengers but I find it overrated with fanboys. It's not the best CBM of all time but I'm not saying it's bad. I'd give it an 8.

With Cap 2, which I think is Marvel Studios's best CBM, had a balance of realism and comic book stuff.

With The Dark Knight, I love it but with Man of Steel I'm meh because realism doesn't work for everyone.

I love DOFP. I just love it along with Spider-Man 2.

My best answer is just give me a good film. That's all. It doesn't matter if it's realism or comic booky, as long as it's good I will probably love it.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

Batman returns got criticism when it came out for being too dark and that made the studios change their direction for The Batman movies and ended up with Batman Forever and That crap Batman and Robin I don't really care about what people think but I'm just trying to make a point how superhero movies has changed I don't think Spider-Man 2 would have been called the greatest comicbook movie ever if it came today it would have got great reviews but not acclaim like Days Of Future Past

 

[SpideyK]

I prefer a good balance between the two.

ASM was a little too serious at times.

ASM2 was a little too ridiculous at times.

I'm hoping ASM3 will find a good medium.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I really liked The Wolverine. First 2 acts are perfect but the three is very meh.

Still I loved how they had modern day Japanese influence in it.

I like it when the world in the film series feels real.

Burton's Batman felt very 1920s, 1930s with how people dressed, people acted, the cars.

Nolan's feels very modern and real.

I like how the X-Men film has had the government involved in the Singer films.

It just depends.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I thought the tone worked and fit this movie just fine, it was just a disjointed movie as it told several plots mixed together and wasn't focused.

Pacing and focus were the problems with this movie, not tone and not comic booky characterisation

It doesn't matter; as long as it's executed well and complements the movie, then this can go either way.

Tone is vastly overstated in the fan community in my book. Tone should fit the characters, setting, themes, and the movie as a whole, never the other way around.

Agreed with this.

I prefer a good balance between the two.

ASM was a little too serious at times.

ASM2 was a little too ridiculous at times.

I'm hoping ASM3 will find a good medium.

I mostly agree. The first was edgy and darker and people complained because it was too dark, the second was light and fun and people complained because it was too light.

In some ways they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'm hoping with ASM3 they find a middle between the two tones.

 

[Spider-knight]

the tone of the first movie felt like a real movie especially when you combine the cinemotography and the score it'll feel more like an emotion sci fi spielberg movie and it would've felt more l;ike that if sony chose what were shown in the deleted scenes and pre visualizations instead of the theatrical version.

the tone of the second film worked fine. it wasn't as batman and robin as people make it out to be. it felt more like a comic book movie and it wasn't as colorful as that ****** batman and robin movie

for the tone of the third movie only webb has to decide which tone to use whether it'd be for the second film, days of future past, or winter soldier the story marc has planned has to fit the tone

 

[The Joker]

I think the success of the likes of The Avengers and Days of Future Past show people love comic booky as much as they love a more grounded comic book movie like the TDK trilogy.

It's all about making a good movie. Whether it's comic booky or more realistic, it doesn't matter as long as the movie delivers quality.

 

[socool]

I think the success of the likes of The Avengers and Days of Future Past show people love comic booky as much as they love a more grounded comic book movie like the TDK trilogy.

It's all about making a good movie. Whether it's comic booky or more realistic, it doesn't matter as long as the movie delivers quality.

Bingo.

Though, I will say, I would've loved for Sony to have stuck with the realistic tone for this series. Think that could've been interesting. But no. We got a half-baked Avengers clone instead. Coooooooool.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Bingo.

Though, I will say, I would've loved for Sony to have stuck with the realistic tone for this series. Think that could've been interesting. But no. We got a half-baked Avengers clone instead. Coooooooool.

Can you blame them, people complained about it saying they wanted an Avengers-style tone.

I would've preferred the tone of the first movie to carry over but that opinion was in the minority

 

[socool]

Can you blame them, people complained about it saying they wanted an Avengers-style tone.

I would've preferred the tone of the first movie to carry over but that opinion was in the minority

Oh, no, I know WHY they did it. I probably would've been on board had the movie been better than it was, too, but Spider-Man just blends in now. In a world where superhero movies are nothing more than light-hearted team-up movies, Sony had the chance to have Spider-Man stand out--be different--especially now that Nolan's trilogy is over. He could've been the lone hero placed into a darker, more realistic world that acknowledged the comic books that it was based on but at the same time kept its distance from them. I'm not saying go full-blown Nolan, but the first film had the right idea. Like you said, the first films tone was perfect. They screwed it by throwing in the Lizard, but they had the right feel.

 

[Visualiza]

I think the success of the likes of The Avengers and Days of Future Past show people love comic booky as much as they love a more grounded comic book movie like the TDK trilogy.

It's all about making a good movie. Whether it's comic booky or more realistic, it doesn't matter as long as the movie delivers quality.

Nail on the head. Really, this sort of thing goes without saying, but I don't think that's enough for some people. It's yet another thread predicated on brushing aside criticisms and excusing the movie's reception.

I mostly agree. The first was edgy and darker and people complained because it was too dark, the second was light and fun and people complained because it was too light.

In some ways they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'm hoping with ASM3 they find a middle between the two tones.

I don't think so. They're only damned if they put forth a sub-par production, irrespective of tonal choices. When they get their act together and stop building these movies on contrived creative decisions, then more people will take notice and the reception will be more positive. It's happening right now with X-Men, and Sony has been put on notice.

It's an easy straw to grasp for, but the quality of a movie isn't dependent upon the type of tone it has.

Can you blame them, people complained about it saying they wanted an Avengers-style tone.

Yes I can. If they're so quick to flip-flop away from their intended vision, then it shows a distinct lack of confidence in the quality of their product. Furthermore, the answer to one extreme should never be the opposite extreme, it should be careful refinement no matter which direction is taken. I'm reminded of Man of Steel (yet again ), whereby the defensive fans cried foul about the action criticisms. The common thread among them was "OMG, first they said there was no action in SR, then they cry about too much in MoS! NO CREDIBILITY!!!" Again, the answer to one extreme isn't the other.

I've been seeing a lot of the same with this fanbase, and since the same platitudes continue to be parroted, it doesn't look like it will cease any time soon. With regard to extremes, this seems to be the approach that the studio has had towards this franchise since the first movie. They've made several creative choices for no other reason than to differentiate themselves from what came before, but the problem is that they don't do anything compelling with said choices, so more often than not, they come off as contrived. It's not as if this is an impossibly difficult nut to crack; as I said earlier, if the quality is there, then people will take notice. The Departed is a fairly good example of this. It would have been very easy for Scorsese and Co. to turn out a derivative, sub-par rip-off of Infernal Affairs, especially when you consider just how excellent that movie was. They knew that they had to knock people's socks off just to gain even a modicum of respect...and they absolutely delivered on that front. A lot of people talk a good game about some perceived bias for the Raimi films, but I call BS on that claim, because again, if what we were given was head and shoulders above what came before, or at least on par, then more people would be receptive to it. We've seen it happen too many times for TASM to be some sort of anomalous exception.

Now, people are bound to be skeptical, but how could they not be? Using myself as an example, I was very apprehensive about DoFP going in, even though I've thoroughly enjoyed everything that Singer had done with the X-Men franchise up to that point. That seemed an insurmountable premise if there ever was one (a far tougher nut to crack than another routine Spider-Man adventure), but yet again...the cast and crew delivered on all fronts and it showed immensely. My point overall is that these two Spider-Man movies could have kept the exact same tones and been much superior movies had the filmmakers executed their ideas better. I'm not even sure what to make of the inevitable third entry, but with one of their biggest strengths (few as they may be) out of the picture (Emma Stone), they've definitely got their work cut out for them.

 

[SpideyK]

In some ways they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

To some degree, yes.

ASM way too gloomy for me to fully love it. It needed lighter moments.

I did however NOT wish for over the top one-liners. They did not have to do that... At all. I do look past that stupid stuff and just enjoy the movie, but I'd prefer a movie where I don't need to turn my brain off like that.

 

[Human Torch]

This seems to be the current fad.Realistic/Dramatic/Topical is supposed to be better than "Comicbooky/Fantastical/Humorous,I guess.I tend to prefer the latter,but it really depends on the character/story that's being told.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

People - especially fan boys - confuse serious with quality, and serious with darkness.

It's because fans feel like if you don't take their favorite characters seriously, you don't take them seriously.

They also confuse comedy and levity with bad quality - unless it makes them laugh, in which case it's overlooked.

Case in point - RDJ as Tony Stark. Because he's charismatic and funny, everyone loves him making wisecracks throughout. But if he wasn't funny, fans would be constantly complaining that he doesn't take the role seriously, and that the Tony Stark of the comics isn't a wise-cracker.

 

[Doc Ock]

I prefer "comicbooky" to realism. But even comicbooky can have realism, and not in terms of the world but the characters. I prefer the fantasy and sci-fi elements to be in full swing, but that doesn't mean the characters can't have real-life issues. I'm sick of all this dark and gritty realistic stuff though, thanks TDK.

 

[Doc Ock]

I think the success of the likes of The Avengers and Days of Future Past show people love comic booky as much as they love a more grounded comic book movie like the TDK trilogy.

It's all about making a good movie. Whether it's comic booky or more realistic, it doesn't matter as long as the movie delivers quality.

Yeah, what it really comes down to is if the movie is good.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

This seems to be the current fad.Realistic/Dramatic/Topical is supposed to be better than "Comicbooky/Fantastical/Humorous,I guess.I tend to prefer the latter,but it really depends on the character/story that's being told.

The Avengers made one and a half billon dollars.

What in the hell are you talkng about?

 

[Visualiza]

The Avengers made one and a half billon dollars.

What in the hell are you talkng about?

He's talking about the general air of snobbery among certain fans. There's a lot of faux-highbrows that think angst = art, and put a premium on things like tone and melodrama above all else. Some folks don't seem to realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, in that certain creative choices aren't an automatic ticket to quality; they can be done every bit as poorly as they can be done well.

Damn near everybody loved Avengers; we all know that, but there's a contingent of fans around that have done their damnedest to downplay the strengths of that movie because it doesn't fit their criteria of superhero high art.