The Amazing Spider-Man 2 IGN: "We've Seen 33 Minutes of the ASM 2"

I've seen that 55 second clip where he approaches Electro at Time-Square, and on its own I think it's truly fantastic. And if Spideys only remark towards him is "Yo. Sparkles!", right before legitimately trying to help him (as seen in the clip released), then I can't quite see how that would be such a problem for the dude giving his thoughts about the "tonal shift"? Peters heart might be broken in a "million pieces", but he has a job to do, right...

Maybe right after that Time-Square sequence, Peter will feel all confused, going right back to Gwen and talking things further out with her. Gwens decision to go to an out of state college, along with Spideys first ass-whopping by Electro, I think will be the first major chink in the armor for Peter in this movie? And from thereon, I think(hope) the movie will take a permanent turn towards the more serious (even though jokes/quips can still be there in places).

I will either end up feeling the movie, or I won't. God, I hope the first!
 
Last edited:
Abrupt tonal shifts are the price of having constant wisecracks.

As a Spider-man fan I think it will be an acceptable trade off.

Spider-man usually quips under stress or even dire circumstances. As long as he doesn't have a punchline if or when Gwen dies, it should be fine.
 
Nothing could be worse than
Tony Stark cracking a joke 10 seconds after Pepper fell.

Anyways, one can't spell ignorant without IGN so screw them!
 
You can't really do a Spider-Man movie without tonal shifts like this. He does that sort of thing in the comics all the time. If it's too "campy" people will complain and if it's too "dark" people will also complain.
 
Nothing could be worse than
Tony Stark cracking a joke 10 seconds after Pepper fell.

Anyways, one can't spell ignorant without IGN so screw them!
lmao

Though the tonal shift complaint didn't come from IGN. They actually gave the most positive reaction from all of the news sources, which is pretty shocking.
 
Why show half the movie to people before it's released. Sure it could provide good word of mouth but it could hurt the movie just as easily

I think this has more to do with the reboot stigma than anything else. Sure, in most respects ASM pulled in some decent coin and was positively if not mildy received. However the stigma was still there, redoing the origin and trying to differentiate from Raimi whenever and wherever they could. The second film is usually the make or break film when it comes to reboots and so in turn Sony has stepped up their marketing. I don't think they had much of a choice really. Could it have hurt the movie? Absolutely. But look at all the positive remarks coming out from those screenings. Spidey needs some good word of mouth.

The things I've highlighted has me worried quite a bit though! But I HOPE that I won't feel it as strongly as this dude apparently did, once I see it my self... But I really hope it doesn't ruin anything.

Tonal shifts huh? Isn't that a staple from Spider-man comics...one minute he's having a heart to heart with MJ and then boom, there's some kerfluffle going on and he's off as Spider-man to save the day. Doesn't sound like a tonal shift is bad thing. Sounds like they did something right, imo.
 
Why show half the movie to people before it's released. Sure it could provide good word of mouth but it could hurt the movie just as easily

If a movie is likely to generate a negative reaction, then the studio won't have any sort of early screenings. This action is undertaken in order to prevent major critics from publishing bad reviews ahead of a film's scheduled release date. So when a studio is willing to show so much content before the scheduled release day, it is usually a sign of confidence on the part of the studio that the film will more or less be critically unassailable. Examples of awful films that were not screened for critics include items such as Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, The AVP films, Snakes on a Plane, Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun-Li etc.

For more information on this practice, head to the following link

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotScreenedForCritics


Has sony done something like this in the past? They do seem to be very proud of their movie, that's for certain.

Sony is hemorrhaging cash at the moment. They just announced a $1.1 billion loss. They are selling off their Sony Vaio PC unit and are currently restructuring their TV unit (possibly to later sell it off as well). Even with the success of the Playstation 4, Sony has been tumbling wildly out of control.

In case you are not aware, Sony currently plans to release a Spider-Man film every year: an action that is sure to fatigue the franchise faster than you can say 20th Century Fox and X-Men. Sony is in desperate need of a game saving play and they seem to be investing heavily in Spider-Man being their salvation from total destruction.
 
The tonal shifts are going to sit right with some, and not with others. At least Latino Review said the thing they loved most, more than the great action scenes, was the dialogue between Peter and Gwen. Their relationship feels so natural and organic in the film, and really stands out! :up:
 
In case you are not aware, Sony currently plans to release a Spider-Man film every year: an action that is sure to fatigue the franchise faster than you can say 20th Century Fox and X-Men. Sony is in desperate need of a game saving play and they seem to be investing heavily in Spider-Man being their salvation from total destruction.

Well I think when they say a "Spider-Man film every year," they mean a Spider-Man related film each year. So that includes spin-offs. By the time the franchise gets fatigued, we'll already by at part 5 or 6 of the main Spider-Man films, so maybe that'll be the time when they start making less money or Sony goes out of business.
 
If a movie is likely to generate a negative reaction, then the studio won't have any sort of early screenings. This action is undertaken in order to prevent major critics from publishing bad reviews ahead of a film's scheduled release date. So when a studio is willing to show so much content before the scheduled release day, it is usually a sign of confidence on the part of the studio that the film will more or less be critically unassailable. Examples of awful films that were not screened for critics include items such as Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, The AVP films, Snakes on a Plane, Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun-Li etc.

I would assume that they would have to be confident in the film to show a good 33 minutes of it.
 
I know this probably isn't the case, but the only concern you might have for a studio showing so much of the movie is because they aren't confident about it and they show off the only good footage they got in order to generate that good word of mouth. Again, I doubt this is the case. I get nothing but positive vibes about this film.
 
I know this probably isn't the case, but the only concern you might have for a studio showing so much of the movie is because they aren't confident about it and they show off the only good footage they got in order to generate that good word of mouth. Again, I doubt this is the case. I get nothing but positive vibes about this film.
Not to mention the fact that some people have actually seen test screenings and gave positive reactions. The only time I get somewhat negative vibes is when I hear everyone else on the internet trashing the film constantly.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear people are liking this film.

I knew Marc Webb would learn from his mistakes with ASM1 to bring his A game to the table this time around, and I even gave the first ASM a 7.5/10.
 
Glad to hear people are liking this film.

I knew Marc Webb would learn from his mistakes with ASM1 to bring his A game to the table this time around, and I even gave the first ASM a 7.5/10.

I believe the issue for the first ASM is the difficulty in establishing this film series as being independent from the last series. While not every film needs to be an origin story (Daredevil did well in this area), I believe Webb was put in a challenging position: how to establish a new film series for an existing film world while at the same time differentiating the initial story.

I suspect that had Webb kept in some of the content that was removed from the film (the "untold story" content), that the film's reception would have been a bit better than it was. Every other deviation is an attempt, as far as I see it, to make this film really stand out from its predecessor. To that end, I would say that Webb was successful with that goal.

I am just glad that we are finally getting the proper costume and far more quippage.
 
Last edited:
Well I think when they say a "Spider-Man film every year," they mean a Spider-Man related film each year. So that includes spin-offs. By the time the franchise gets fatigued, we'll already by at part 5 or 6 of the main Spider-Man films, so maybe that'll be the time when they start making less money or Sony goes out of business.

20th Century Fox already did this when they had Wolverine spin-offs of the X-Men franchise. And even though there are only two of them, the franchise was nearly worn out. I believe DoFP is getting audience attention because old characters are returning and the original director is returning. It is like a proper third film for those who lament the existence of The Last Stand.
 
I remember Marc saying that he had a script without the origin, but it just didn't work. It would have been confusing for the GA because it wasn't clear enough that this was NOT a part of the Raimi films. There was also some kind of disconnection because it required a lot of prior knowledge of Spider-Man from the comics. The fact that this reboot was made 5 years later is why he wanted to re-tell the origin, that way he can establish this new cinematic universe. It was tough to go through no doubt, but now there is this sense of freedom.
 
I've only watched the first trailer. So nothing has been spoilt for me.
 
20th Century Fox already did this when they had Wolverine spin-offs of the X-Men franchise. And even though there are only two of them, the franchise was nearly worn out. I believe DoFP is getting audience attention because old characters are returning and the original director is returning. It is like a proper third film for those who lament the existence of The Last Stand.

Well if Sony manages to release spin-offs that allow for main Spider-Man entries to come out every 3 years or so, it could work. Part of why the X-Men franchise wore out is because the third movie was awful, and the first spin-off was dreadful.

As long as the majority of these Spider-Man films are GOOD, it shouldn't wear off too quickly. All depends on a number of things at this point.

If the Venom film turns out to be successful, they can start a mini-franchise or series of films right there. As long as the spin-offs bring enough diversity, it could work. But yes, sooner or later, the series will tire out. Maybe by then Sony will either sell the rights back to Marvel or they will have another franchise to work with and be able to release Spider-Man movies every 3-4 years.
 
I remember Marc saying that he had a script without the origin, but it just didn't work. It would have been confusing for the GA because it wasn't clear enough that this was NOT a part of the Raimi films. There was also some kind of disconnection because it required a lot of prior knowledge of Spider-Man from the comics. The fact that this reboot was made 5 years later is why he wanted to re-tell the origin, that way he can establish this new cinematic universe. It was tough to go through no doubt, but now there is this sense of freedom.

Cool, I didn't know they had a script without the origin. I am really curious in getting that script.

:hubba
 
I remember Marc saying that he had a script without the origin, but it just didn't work. It would have been confusing for the GA because it wasn't clear enough that this was NOT a part of the Raimi films. There was also some kind of disconnection because it required a lot of prior knowledge of Spider-Man from the comics. The fact that this reboot was made 5 years later is why he wanted to re-tell the origin, that way he can establish this new cinematic universe. It was tough to go through no doubt, but now there is this sense of freedom.

I agree that Webb had the onus of showing that this series was different from Raimi's, and that more than likely necessitated the need for yet another origin story. However, there are ways to start off a franchise without pumping out an origin film. The first X-Men film jumps right into the X-Men already being the X-Men. Now, Fox eventually developed a prequel that serves as an origin story, but that was after three films that only had brief mentions about the beginnings of the X-Men.

I honestly wish more films would take for granted the fact that these characters are American mythology. These are well known tales retold for generations through comic books, video games, television shows or just good old fashioned conversation. People already know the basics about the most well known of our myths. Heck, the old George Reeve's Superman series had Superman's entire origin down to a ten second blurb in the opening credits. No one is really going to be all that confused about the general premise for characters like The X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman.
 
So a lot of sites were able to see the first 30 minutes this week right? Only one negative?
 
So a lot of sites were able to see the first 30 minutes this week right? Only one negative?
Yeah, pretty much. Only cracked.com gave it a negative, saying that most of the issues with TASM1 are still present. I kind of just rolled my eyes at that one. How credible is that site anyway?

But otherwise everything else is positive. The general "complaints" are some awkward tonal shifts, ADD editing for action scenes, and a few others I can't remember. But nothing major. The most positive review came from IGN, and the reporter said that every single thing in those 33 minutes was perfect.
 
Did IGN really say anything negative about the movie?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"