• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Observing the criticisms 2: Conners

TheLastBlade

Sidekick
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Here comes one of the more legitimate complaints. While the actor himself was pretty good, his villain role... Not so much. I always told myself that no comic book movie needs to be the same as the source material, I can't help by feel that there was huge potential for him and Peter.

1. Removal of any sort of family: As anyone would know, the lizard was supposed to have interaction with his family. Sadly, that was cut out due to Sony or whoever idea it was. This is my biggest pet peeve about the lizard. While you saw that he wasn't a bad guy and his disability of only having one arm is understandable, there could've been great scenes featuring his son (NOTE: His son does appear in the deleted scenes) and any sort of dynamic he might've had with Peter.

2. His design: Even though it's something I don't usually pay attention to, let's face it, his design wasn't all that great... The lack of a lab coat and his face would be a good reason the lizard in tasm wont be ranking in best movie villains anytime soon.

3. Missed opportunities: As I've said before, there were missed potential in developing the lizard. To put more salt to the wound, he doesn't get enough screen time in developing this whole human weakness thing. If they developed this more, then I wouldn't have minded his family not appearing as much as I do now.
 
Connors/Lizard was weakest character of ASM or you could say better, his script was bad, but chemistry between Ifans and Garfield was solid so it felt just like TheLastBlade said, missed opportunity. We get half Connors and half Lizard at the end. They cut whole family angle of Connors (and that pretty much hurt his entire character and motive). Because Connors always wanted first his arm back to be complete person again and doing it for his family, then they come some other reasons (why he is in first place get position in Oscorp to make cure for Osbourne).

Lizard on other side was weaker character then Connors himself. It didnt felt like real, belivable and ready to do everything for his plans. He looked like beast and yet he was not beast. Connors was always a victim of Lizard actions, as Peter tryed to bring him to his senses and awake Connors somewhere in Lizard, mentioning his family. Family angle was missing completly. In movie he at end looked like as victim, but he really was not victim. His actions in someway were human and he was concious as Connors (or at least looked like this to me) when he saw Peter's face when he took of his mask.
 
This is probably in the wrong forum. Also spelled wrong. Just pointing that out.


Connors himself wasn't bad. He was actually well written and well acted. As with most origin story villains he lacked screentime. Many would complain that his cut family was a serious problem. But no one complained about Doc Ock having a family in Spider-Man 2. If Connors had had a family, people wouldve complained they copied Raimi's Doc Ock.

Lizard on the other hand had some weakpoints. The writing was goofy, "I'm getting stronger everyday!" bleh. And I understand the complaints against his appearance, though I grew to like it. But his plan was the worst part of the movie. However for me, that's not saying much. I love the movie. But it's worth pointing out his plan was almost identical to Magneto's plan in the first X-Men film.
 
My biggest problem with TASM. Completely uninteresting villain, one of my least favotires ever. Bland, generic as Connors, totally underdeveloped and a GG ripoff as Lizard. They totally botched him.

Rhys was nothing to write home about, either. I mean, he's not a bad actor and I was excited for him pre-release, but he was given nothing and he pretty much sleepwalked through the role, imo. Shame.
 
Although the movie does have some other problems, my one TRUE complaint is the villain. The rest of TASM is very well done, but the Lizard seems I have stepped out of a Horror B-Movie and forced his way into this really good comic book film. There is a part of me that wishes this movie didn't have a major villain and focused on the following:

-The Peter/Gwen relationship
-Peter hunting down Uncle Ben's killer
-The Parents storyline

I thought that Rhys Ifans was fantastic as Dr. Connors, but his character wasn't fleshed out well enough. Now that the origin is over with, TASM2 could spend more time developing the villains.
 
i woulda liked spider-man vs. swat lizards. the novelty factor alone. i wonder if they ever intended such a scene..
 
Lizard on the other hand had some weakpoints. The writing was goofy, "I'm getting stronger everyday!" bleh. And I understand the complaints against his appearance, though I grew to like it. But his plan was the worst part of the movie. However for me, that's not saying much. I love the movie. But it's worth pointing out his plan was almost identical to Magneto's plan in the first X-Men film.

It was a Comic book storyline with the lizard, while with Xmen it wasn't
 
Lizard had one good story in him and they didn't use it. It's so asinine it's almost a crime.
 
Lizard had one good story in him and they didn't use it. It's so asinine it's almost a crime.

I just dont understand why they didnt use a beast Lizard. It would be perfect for introducing Kraven later somewhere in storyline. Now if they use Kraven, you would just downside his role as not much of task for him. Lizard should rip-off Spiderman apart when he grabed him as wild animal, yet he decided to talk to him and unmask him. And later in storyline Kraven would hunt Connors to kill Lizard and Spiderman, as Spiderman would defend Connors because he didnt do anything wrong as only victim of Lizard actions (because he didn't remember part fo that). But from ASM that couldn't be done because, Connors was Lizard in every way (intelligent human with lizard abilities).
 
It was a Comic book storyline with the lizard, while with Xmen it wasn't

Hmmm... debatable. (As in I'd say they were both pretty comic book). But X-Men did it first and twelve years prior. So they already win the battle. However ASM will win the war. ;)

Lizard had one good story in him and they didn't use it. It's so asinine it's almost a crime.

Which one? Excuse my ignorance.
 
I loved ASM and imo this was the biggest sore spot. I thought Rhys did a great job with his performance even with the script limitations. Breaking it down into Connors and the Lizard.

Connors drawback came from not seeing his relationship with his family...he was wearing a wedding ring yet we never see one scene with his wife. It kept him from being a truly rounded person and left him as this cold scientist with no real human connection other than Peter or Richard. He would have greatly benefitted from even just a few small scenes...maybe something as simple as giving his wife and son a kiss before going off to work, a short convo with either one...something. The deleted scene with Billy was pretty good but on it's own there was no context and it wouldn't have worked. That scene coupled with a scene with him and Billy during 'good' times would have been substantial. Throw in one or two very short scenes with his wife and then another scene of Martha and Billy watching the news and their reactions as they showed Connors being arrested and found guilty of being behind "this terrorist plot."

I was very accepting of the Lizard's design. He could have been a bit scarier looking I suppose, for lack of a better word, but I get they were trying to keep Connors' look in the design. They didn't want to lose the man in the machine. The Lizard's plan was ok and something we've seen the Lizard attempt to do in other stories--turn the people into Lizards for the betterment of society. His plans at least were better motivated than the GG in SM1. I think the Lizard worked overall mostly because he doesn't require this mountain of a backstory and is a relatively simple villain to create storywise which is especially good for an origin movie. That being said, his whole development seemed rushed.
 
Ifans wasn't bad, but I don't see how the role, in any iteration, was well written. Amputees aren't all a bunch of whiny outcasts, yet they present Connors' plight as if we all should just assume that they are. And if you don't understand a villain's purpose, if his plot puts a big "?" over your head (and maybe even makes you roll your eyes), that's bad writing right there. Plus, the whole motivation of erradicating human weakness by Lizard-ing everyone is just DUMB. No amount of grandiose monologues can work against that.

I trust that they've learned their lesson. Foxx saying the other day that he was ripping off Dafoe's "Itsy bitsy Spider" bit is not encouraging, and neither is the "vengeful nerd" approach that they're taking, but at least I assume that after the poor reception to Lizard they'll want to make Electro a MEAN mothergrabber, NOT a "misunderstood guy with good intentions" again. Fingers crossed.
 
Why is Foxx taking Dafoe's "Itsy Bitsy Spider" not encouraging? It seems to be more of a nod to the original films than anything.
 
Why is Foxx taking Dafoe's "Itsy Bitsy Spider" not encouraging? It seems to be more of a nod to the original films than anything.

i'm guessing Foxx either forgot or hasn't seen the 1st spider-man movie, its probably better that way really

in all honesty i forgot Green gobling said it till it was mentioned on here because i haven't watched that film for a long long time
 
Last edited:
the itsy bitsy spider went up the water spout down came electro and wiped the spider out sounds so badass especially in the voice he was using and thats not even final product
 
Why is Foxx taking Dafoe's "Itsy Bitsy Spider" not encouraging? It seems to be more of a nod to the original films than anything.

Hm, maybe, but I didn't see it that way. I doubt it'll make it into the movie, actually, but he was talking about giving Electro catchphrases so as to set him apart from other villains and making him his own man (exactly what I want), and you'd imagine someone would have stepped forward and said "You know what, Jaime, that's taken, but how about we give you this other line". It's not a big concern, really, but it would have been cool to hear a badass quotable line from him, Bane-style, Joker-style.
 
It probably won't make it to the final film, but who knows? If Electro's character is done well, I don't think anyone would care enough to say, "HEY! He copied Green Goblin!"
 
It is kind of funny if they use that but not "With Great Power..." :oldrazz:

Yes, Lizard, a favorite growing up, sucked all around. By cutting out the family, he has no real motive. By removing that motive, Peter has less of a reason to feel obligated to save Connors from himself. And since that is the case, then the most interesting dynamic of Peter/Connors and Spidey/Lizard is lost.

Plus, the look sucked. Even the five seconds we see of him with a labcoat (3 of which are in deleted scenes) should have clearly shown anyone involved that that funky touch thanks to Ditko made the world of difference visually. He just looks boring without it. And let us not even talk about the facial design.

Such a waste.
 
Connors had his motives, which were driven by his desire to help other people improve themselves and become what he felt was superior. People often question why he chose to inject himself with the serum after transforming back to a human, but the reason for that is he was addicted to the formula. He wanted more.

Unfortunately, this is not nearly as interesting as what we were given in the comics; Dr. Connors was a married man who also had a son, Billy. His family were often put in danger, and that added to what made Lizard feel more human and sympathetic.
 
Which one? Excuse my ignorance.

Each time he transforms he becomes more feral and mindless and ends up threatening his own family (whether they wanted to actually have him eat his kid, like in the comics, was up to them). Since Webb/Sony/Arad/whoever wanted a more personal story, the scope should've been kept there, among families (the Parker and the Connors family).
 
Connors had his motives, which were driven by his desire to help other people improve themselves and become what he felt was superior. People often question why he chose to inject himself with the serum after transforming back to a human, but the reason for that is he was addicted to the formula. He wanted more.

Unfortunately, this is not nearly as interesting as what we were given in the comics; Dr. Connors was a married man who also had a son, Billy. His family were often put in danger, and that added to what made Lizard feel more human and sympathetic.

It's wrong they made connors a addict :whatever: connors never wanted to become lizard he only wanted his arm back and be with his family... yet when he transformed into lizard he could still be intelligent beast, not human with lizard abilities. he could still stick with his plan. maybe kidnapping regular new yorker's and experimenting on them, including his son Billy.
whole execution of lizard plan and whole lizard thing was pretty mediocre.

i wondered during movie if lizard was maybe more intelligent then dangerous beast.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"