The Amazing Spider-Man 2 If these two movies were the first how differently would it be critically?

[Em Dee]

Title says it all

 

[Airnick]

It depends, we're they still released 2012, and 2014?

 

[Em Dee]

Yep^

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

People would still call the first "eh", still **** all over the second, and Spider-Man would be in a terrible place. The Amazing lovers need to give the Raimi movies all the love they've got.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

If they were released in 2002 and 2014, I guess the RT score for TASM would probably be around 80% and for TASM 2 would be around 65%.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It wouldn't change much at all. Especially the second one as the criticisms of it had nothing to do with it being a reboot.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Poorly. Underdeveloped characters, et all.


I don't see the point in these threads.

 

[Visualiza]

The only difference is that there wouldn't be a superior set of Spider-Man movies to draw comparisons from, which would make the criticisms that much more difficult to deflect. Uncle Ben's death would have still been hilariously ill-conceived, all of the villains would have still been poorly written caricatures, the plot to both films would still amount to little more than shameless, contrived, and incoherent world-building, (speaking of which) the subplot with Peter's parents would still be uninteresting, uninspired, and mostly irrelevant to the current state of affairs, among so many others; I really could go on and on.

This sort of backhanded question gets asked pretty frequently, and what people don't seem to realize is that these reboots and remakes aren't compared to their predecessors for sinister reasons, it's done to highlight the shortcomings of these movies in an easily understood, topical manner, but when it all comes down to it, the flaws apparent in these movies are still very basic and inherent to these movies themselves. A better set of movies featuring the same hero only serves to give them context, not to mention make them all the more apparent.

Really though, hypotheticals like this are silly for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if these movies were released in any other period of time, be it a year or decade, they would be completely different. Let's also not forget about the creative decisions that were specifically chosen for the differences to the now non-existent predecessors. There's too many variables for anyone to answer something like this intelligently.

At the end of the day, this is another "How did you like this movie" thread, because in all likelihood, everyone's answer will be in some way reflective of their reaction to the movie. Those who hated it will say that the reception would be the same or worse, and those who loved it will of course day that it would have been much better.

 

[Em Dee]

It wouldn't change much at all. Especially the second one as the criticisms of it had nothing to do with it being a reboot.

Actually, a lot of criticisms had to deal with franchise fatigue and how they're tired of seeing the same old same old.

 

[Visualiza]

Actually, a lot of criticisms had to deal with franchise fatigue and how they're tired of seeing the same old same old.

And why do you think that is? It's because the filmmakers didn't do their job of crafting a compelling enough movie to shatter those sort of reactions outright. People don't say that sort of thing just because, but when you make a derivative, unoriginal cash-grab then those are the exact sort of responses you should expect to elicit. You don't get feelings of deja vu or SSDD for any good reasons; you get them because whatever it is you're seeing has been done far better before. Remaking, rebooting, or adapting a classic or well-loved work? Then you had better do an amazing job to wow both the naysayers and supporters alike. It's not as if it's impossible to overcome people's hangups over a previous franchise. The Departed says hello. Robocop? Not so much.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Poorly. Underdeveloped characters, et all.


I don't see the point in these threads.

Denial.

 

[spider-neil]

If SM1 (2002) didn't exist ASM would have been totally different movie. I felt sorry for the film makers because they were locked into the origin story but wanted to appear different (most notably by Ben avoiding 'great power').

So going with the thread title, it's moot because ASM would not be ASM if there were no SM1. In Hindsight they should have completely skipped over the origin. For me the origin was the start of the problems for the ASM franchise.

I see it like this;
No origin -
More time for the parents storyline -
Parents storyline resolved in the first movie -
More time for Harry and Peter relationship in the sequel

But bottom line, if there were no original trilogy the ASM movies would be completely different.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm sure that's probably true. For starters, I don't think they would have chosen Lizard and Electro to be the main villains.

 

[AnneFan]

I'm sure that's probably true. For starters, I don't think they would have chosen Lizard and Electro to be the main villains.

Indeed. They did the right thing in 2002 by using Green Goblin. When there is no guarantee a sequel will get off the ground, go big and make it count. Leading in to the 'big guys' like Goblin and Ock would have been a mistake back then. It's like having a cloud as Green Lantern's big foe in his debut film. Hip hip hooray. Just use Sinestro, who everyone wants to see.

 

[Dasher10]

Well, for one, we wouldn't have a ton of Superhero films and Sony would have sold the rights to Marvel around 2005.

 

[LizardMan07]

A well-chosen cast and sure-handed direction allow The Amazing Spider-Man to thrill, despite revisiting many of the same plot points from 2002's Spider-Man.

I think the consensus says it all for the first ASM film.

TASM2? It's problems weren't really related to rehashes like the first films were, I think it might have been lower, as people would have been less dissapointed with the first TASM, and consequently, maybe more dissapointed with the second? (Higher to fall)

 

[Morbius]

Great thread subject matter!

I think without a doubt TASM1/2 would get a better reception in this scenario; how many reviews began with a 'too soon for a reboot' declaration?

That said, SM1 is a far more slick movie than TASM1 - you can tell it's crafted by a more experienced Director than TASM1. I'm sure SM1 would, in this scenario be criticised for even existing, like we saw with TASM1, but it would undoubtedly receive better reviews than Webb's entry.

 

[Nemeres]

I think the first movie is super problematic no matter what, and I'd still have plenty of issues with it... but the argument of it being a "needless reboot" probably weighed a lot in its perception among the public and the critics. Without that, yeah, I can see it being a couple of points higher in stuff like the Tomatometer and the like.

Then again, I don't think the "needless" argument is that unfair. Context counts. You can't ask audiences to forget, for your benefit, what they've already seen, and the TASM filmmakers should have known that.

Now in the case of the sequel, there really isn't an excuse. It was a sequel like any other sequel, inasmuch as it didn't have something to be directly compared to, like TASM with SM1. It wasn't remaking anything in any way, like you can argue the first film was. It was its own thing, and as its own thing, it kind of failed (as much as I would take it over the first any day of the week).

 

[AnneFan]

That said, SM1 is a far more slick movie than TASM1 - you can tell it's crafted by a more experienced Director than TASM1

Agreed. SM1 is a fantastic movie, and still holds up pretty well.

 

[JOE]

Had the Raimiverse not existed this franchise would be on par with Thor's two movies, assuming they were just solo movies.

 

[Erzengel]

I liken X-Men and Spider-Man in regards to the CBM explosion of the past 14 years to Jaws and Star Wars of the late 70s. Jaws introduced us to a summer blockbuster and Star Wars set the standard.

After Spider-Man, studios realized how much a CBM could bring in.

I don't think the landscape would have been as saturated with CBMs if it wasn't for Spider-Man. I think a Spider-Man movie would have eventually been made but it wouldn't be TASM because it would of had more of a blank canvas. They wouldn't of had to use the Lizard, maybe they could have brought in MJ, etc.

 

[Spider-knight]

i would love it if spiderman would go back to marvel but him in the avengers was never really my interest from the beginning. i mean it'll be interesting to see andrerw garfield and dylan o'brian to interact with RDJ and mark ruffalo but him working for S.H.I.E.L.D is really odd for me considering that spiderman, the x-men, and the avengers have this certain love/hate relationship with shield whenever they interfere with their job and whenever shield is doing something drastic. also whenever when writers like roger stern and BMB put him into the avengers he is either written as a *****ebag or an immature talkative manchild. besides i'm pretty much interested in him teaming up and interacting with other characters of the MCU than put him in the avengers

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

It wouldn't change much at all. Especially the second one as the criticisms of it had nothing to do with it being a reboot.

I've seen some of the reviewers bring up that it's a reboot, they hadn't gotten over that.

 

[Oscorp]

Wouldn't change much given the competition.

 

[LizardMan07]

What would the reception be like if this series was the first CBM to use CGI? All the others used paddlepop sticks.