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

[Visualiza]

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

That's probably because the movie wasn't good enough to make them get over it. What's the first thing you think about when you get a bad haircut? "I wish this was as good as the last one." Have a subpar meal? "Would be nice if this was as good as that dinner from the other day." You all need to stop getting so hung up on the verbiage alone and start considering why people say what they say.

A lot of you think that you're making salient points with these examples, but all you're really doing is confirming the failures of these new films. People don't use terms like unnecessary, pointless, and rip-off just for kicks and giggles; there's always a reason behind it. If something new and similar is released that isn't superior to what came before it, then it's only human nature to express disappointment. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise, because you can rest assured that if the opposite is true, people won't hesitate to say so either. There's far too many examples of reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings that were successful and well received for this bias talk to have any merit.

Let's flip the script for a minute; if the shoe was on the other foot, how vocal would you all be? Would you call supporters of the new movies disloyal, irreverent, bandwagon jumpers? Sounds silly, does it not? That's exactly how people sound when they affirm that the only reason this franchise isn't well received is because of some irrational prejudice. There's no two ways about it really; it falls squarely on the shoulders of the filmmakers for not giving the people something to make them get over their hang ups.

This silly little assertion is a fairly disturbing false dichotomy as well, because it assumes that the only people who are being genuine in their assessment of these movies are the ones who enjoy them. Sorry, but that's BS of the highest order. Doesn't work that way; if you sincerely believe that people only hate these movies because they're new, then you also have to assume that there are just as many who only like them because they're new. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[LizardMan07]

There are some pretty crazy reviewers out there though, one guy compared the times square scene to 9/11.

Other than that, agree with your post

 

[Visualiza]

There are some pretty crazy reviewers out there though, one guy compared the times square scene to 9/11.

Other than that, agree with your post

Indeed there are, but for every one crazy reviewer, I could probably point out at least a dozen crazy fans as well. Hell, one good look at the comment section of even the mildest negative review illustrates as much. Regardless, I consider them outliers rather than the norm, so I really don't think that they can be highlighted to support anything conclusive.

 

[Frodo]

The fact is these films wouldn't have been made or scripted the way they were had the Raimi films not been made first , so asking if the critiques would be different is kinda iffy. The storylines, the characterizations ,etc are an opposite reaction to the Raimi films, so you can't really say these films would have gotten better reviews if the Raimi films didn't happen. I think you can ask what would have happened had James Cameron's Spiderman had been made and released.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah these movies as they are today wouldn't even exist had it not been for SM1-3. The only reason this series exists as it is, is to be different from SM1-3. I guarantee you that Sony had a meeting saying...how can we differentiate the two series. That's not how you make a movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah these movies as they are today wouldn't even exist had it not been for SM1-3. The only reason this series exists as it is, is to be different from SM1-3. I guarantee you that Sony had a meeting saying...how can we differentiate the two series. That's not how you make a movie.

I can somewhat see it if the previous take was really unpopular. Like I think Marvel was pretty justified in wanting TIH to have more action and be faster paced after all the criticisms that Hulk was too slow and boring. But they also didn't make any drastic changes to the main characters (Bruce, Betty, Ross), their relationships, or the general story. How successful Marvel was in doing this remains open to debate, but I understand why they made the choices they did.

Sony went about trying to re-invent the wheel when they didn't have to.

 

[Erzengel]

But they didn't try and redo the origin story with the Hulk.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But they didn't try and redo the origin story with the Hulk.

True. I'm talking about things like pacing and tone.

 

[Frodo]

The irony is we wouldn't have had the Webb films if Raimi had just agreed to the Spiderman 4 script. We would have had Spiderman 4 in 2011 or 2012. I think there's a fan narrative that SM3 was so bad and performed so badly, that Sony had to reboot the series. However, you've got to keep in mind that Sony was more than willing to make another Raimi film, and that while fans had problems with the films ,they were popular with the GA. The first two films at least were always popular with the GA ,where as the diehard fanboys at the time had issues with them.

It was only after Raimi left that Sony decided to do a Batman Begins style reboot which would address more of the fan complaints as a means of distinguishing itself from the Raimi films. In alot of ways the Webb films are Sony's response to trying to please the diehard fans who wanted Web shooters, a Peter who looked physically closer to the comic, a Spiderman who quipped, a fleshed out Gwen Stacy etc. The thing is though, as flawed as the original films may have been, they did have heart , and they were something that the public really clung to.

I do think in that sense ,these films have suffered because there are so close on the heels of the other ones , and Sony had to make an extra effort to get the audience to develop that same emotional connection they did with Peter, MJ, Harry, May, JJ, Doc Ock etc, from the original films. Instead, I think Sony has sort of taken for granted that the same enthusiasm for the Raimi films would bleed onto the Webb films, in terms of the GA. At the end of the day both franchises are profitable successes , but I do think some distance between the series would have helped .

 

[Human Torch]

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.

Yeah,that's it in a nutshell.They wouldn't have truncated the origin,no parents story, most likely,Harry wouldn't be GG first,they surely wouldn't have gone with Lizard & Electro as lead villains.The whole composition would've changed.(for the better,in all likelihood.) They tried too hard to be different from Raimi's films in some ways.

 

[SpideyK]

I think ASM would be recieved a little differently.

I still think people would **** on ASM2, though.

 

[Spider-knight]

If these films existed back then that means Sony would interfere with them

 

[OriginalMiles]

If their release dates stayed the same, I'd say they would be received a little better. Only a little.

If they were released when SM1 and 2 were released, I think they'd be received the same as those 2 movies.

 

[chaseter]

ASM and SM1...maybe...close.

ASM2 and SM2....hahahahahHahHahzgzfZgxvhjjkk

 

[GwensNeckBrace]

I think it would be notably different.
I mean, the Raimi trilogy was much more cheesy and problematic than Webb's so far, yet so many of the critics pan TASM films by comparing them to Raimi's.
Ah, well. Can't please everyone.