The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Paul Giamatti IS Rhino

[SlamAdams]

That's why fans don't have input on how these movies are made. They'd end up a mess.

Don't see how it would be a mess to have one to illustrate that things happen between movies

There are a number of action movies that begin with an intro scene that involves the end of what could have been a previous movie.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

^ The audience is presumably a bunch of idiots who would be confused by the fact that life goes on for Spidey and more supervillains appear between movies, apparently.

"Who the **** is that guy? Okay, I'm confused. I'm taken out of the movie now. Let's get the hell outta here."

 

[DigificWriter]

I can't believe someone actually face-palmed the idea of TASM 2 starting with a Bond-style action sequence involving Spidey going after an unannounced member of his comic rogue's gallery.

Regarding Giamatti, I'm of the opinion that he's going to have a prominent role in the story because they not only announced him as part of the main cast, they cast him as a seminal member of Spidey's rogues gallery.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I can't believe someone actually face-palmed the idea of TASM 2 starting with a Bond-style action sequence involving Spidey going after an unannounced member of his comic rogue's gallery.

Regarding Giamatti, I'm of the opinion that he's going to have a prominent role in the story because they not only announced him as part of the main cast, they cast him as a seminal member of Spidey's rogues gallery.

I can't believe some disagrees with my opinon! omg!

I've already voiced why I think an opening sequence with a super villain in the world that TASM has established is extremely stupid.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Why is it stupid? Because you don't like the idea? It's completely in keeping with what TASM 1 establishes, and with what the official synopsis for TASM 2 indicates, which is that Peter's been busy juggling life as Spider-Man with life as a HS senior. Having him fight an uncredited and unannounced villain at the start of TASM 2 would be totally in line with the universe established in TASM 1.

I can see your point about how it wouldn't have fit in the universe of the Raimi films, but we're not talking about the Raimi films.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Don't see how it would be a mess to have one to illustrate that things happen between movies

There are a number of action movies that begin with an intro scene that involves the end of what could have been a previous movie.

^ The audience is presumably a bunch of idiots who would be confused by the fact that life goes on for Spidey and more supervillains appear between movies, apparently.

"Who the **** is that guy? Okay, I'm confused. I'm taken out of the movie now. Let's get the hell outta here."

Like what? I'd like to hear about one that actually works- like without contrived exposition and that actually works in favor of the story. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Quantum of Solace, which picked up exactly where the last film left off. Also, it didn't include any supervillains or anything unexplained moments.

Well aside from the fact that the audience is generally composed of the lowest common denominator (or else we wouldn't be getting a 4th Transformers movie)-in the context of the more "realistic" tone established in TASM, supervillains just popping up apropo of nothing just seems cartoony and silly. Like I said- works great for the comics, but not a film you're expected to take halfway seriously.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Like what? I'd like to hear about one that actually works- like without contrived exposition and that actually works in favor of the story. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Quantum of Solace, which picked up exactly where the last film left off. Also, it didn't include any supervillains or anything unexplained moments.

Well aside from the fact that the audience is generally composed of the lowest common denominator (or else we wouldn't be getting a 4th Transformers movie)-in the context of the more "realistic" tone established in TASM, supervillains just popping up apropo of nothing just seems cartoony and silly. Like I said- works great for the comics, but not a film you're expected to take halfway seriously.

Lowest common denominator... lmao. The audiences are normal people, like you and I. There are idiots out there, but the majority is not as stupid and slack-jawed as you're inferring. Just because you think it's cartoony and silly doesn't mean the rest of the GA will. And I'm not talking about TASM, I was talking about the Raimi films. Anyways, like I said, I'm not going to keep going with this. It won't get anywhere.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

I really wonder how Rhino will look...

 

[Vid Electricz]

Lowest common denominator... lmao. The audiences are normal people, like you and I. There are idiots out there, but the majority is not as stupid and slack-jawed as you're inferring. Just because you think it's cartoony and silly doesn't mean the rest of the GA will. And I'm not talking about TASM, I was talking about the Raimi films. Anyways, like I said, I'm not going to keep going with this. It won't get anywhere.

The audience implication was a little harsh- But it's hard to argue otherwise when we keep getting movies like Transformers, Ted and SuckerPunch churned out over and over and over again.

Anywho- my opinion is obviously divergent with elmost every single other poster on this board who wants to see Rhino/Shocker in the opening minutes of the films. *shudder*

 

[Vid Electricz]

I really wonder how Rhino will look...

Grayish w/ a horn and Paul Giamatti's face.

 

[DigificWriter]

Anywho- my opinion is obviously divergent with elmost every single other poster on this board who wants to see Rhino/Shocker in the opening minutes of the films. *shudder*

I didn't say I * wanted * to see Shocker used at the beginning of TASM 2; I said that such a scenario would be perfectly in keeping with the synopsis for the film and with what the first film established vis a vis the TASM universe.

Also, I firmly believe that Giamatti's Rhino is going to have a fairly prominent role in the film.

 

[SlamAdams]

Like what? I'd like to hear about one that actually works- like without contrived exposition and that actually works in favor of the story. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Quantum of Solace, which picked up exactly where the last film left off. Also, it didn't include any supervillains or anything unexplained moments.

Well aside from the fact that the audience is generally composed of the lowest common denominator (or else we wouldn't be getting a 4th Transformers movie)-in the context of the more "realistic" tone established in TASM, supervillains just popping up apropo of nothing just seems cartoony and silly. Like I said- works great for the comics, but not a film you're expected to take halfway seriously.

Why it it silly? Why can't it be serious? Just because they don't stand around and narrate everything? It's science fiction and fantasy. Why can't there be a little mystery? Why does everything have to be poked and prodded with bull%^*+ narration just to trick people into saying "that would never happen but since they said that I'll ignore it?"

As for examples, 3 first Indiana jones movies off the top of my head. Quite a few James bond movies start that way. Quantum is not one of them.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Why it it silly? Why can't it be serious? Just because they don't stand around and narrate everything? It's science fiction and fantasy. Why can't there be a little mystery? Why does everything have to be poked and prodded with bull%^*+ narration just to trick people into saying "that would never happen but since they said that I'll ignore it?"

As for examples, 3 first Indiana jones movies off the top of my head. Quite a few James bond movies start that way. Quantum is not one of them.

It's silly because it's lazy. It's the school of thought that goes: "Oh it's just a comic book movie, Anything goes!" This is just a cop out to include whatever fanservice and fa-wankery you want.

I'm not sure what you're on about with the narration thing. Personally, I'm not a fan of voice overs in films.

These cold openings work for Indiana Jones and James Bond because they are human and their adverasies are human. There's usually little explanation or suspension of disbelief required. If you're going to introduce a super-powered character like Shocker or Rhino in the more "realistic" "serious" world TASM established, you'd better have a damn good reason or explanation behind it. Otherwise, you've got something goofy cartoon of a movie like Batman & Robin where crazy stuff like this happens all the time with little to no explanation.

 

[SlamAdams]

It's silly because it's lazy. It's the school of thought that goes: "Oh it's just a comic book movie, Anything goes!" This is just a cop out to include whatever fanservice and fa-wankery you want.

I'm not sure what you're on about with the narration thing. Personally, I'm not a fan of voice overs in films.

I don't mean narration. I mean unnecessary, wordy exposition. I don't like people standing around saying "Well, this happened because..." and then give a shoddy explanation. That is lazier than just going for it in my opinion.

These cold openings work for Indiana Jones and James Bond because they are human and their adverasies are human. There's usually little explanation or suspension of disbelief required. If you're going to introduce a super-powered character like Shocker or Rhino in the more "realistic" "serious" world TASM established, you'd better have a damn good reason or explanation behind it. Otherwise, you've got something goofy cartoon of a movie like Batman & Robin where crazy stuff like this happens all the time with little to no explanation.

I don't care how human the people were in Indiana Jones and James Bond, they literally dropped you in the middle of a story with absolutely no idea what was going on or what was supposed to be going on.

Spiderman got bit by a suped up Spider and than fought a man-lizard. No amount of explanation made that more realistic or serious.It was realistic and serious because under the science fiction were human characters going through human emotions that were handled in my opinion with the kind of respect they deserve. Batman and Robin explained exactly to a T how Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy got their powers. They were never made any broader than that (except for the frozen tear scene). It was super-lazy and a fine example of exactly what I don't want and sounds exactly like what your are asking for.

You are too concerned with superpowers. I don't care about superpowers. I don't want an adaptation of the Marvel Handbook. I only care that it is a good movie that takes its interesting characters and challenges them with an interesting plot. Explaining the window dressing doesn't make for a good movie. Plenty of superhero movies do that and they still suck. A prologue is mostly just for fun and eye candy but it brings with it a powerful message that Spiderman has been doing more than stopping pickpockets and purse snatchers. With one supervillain getting his butt whooped in the beginning, you establish a broader science fiction reality better, more excitingly, and more organically than Nick Fury stepping out of the shadows and saying (and I paraphrase) "you just entered a bigger world"

 

[Climperoonie]

I don't care how human the people were in Indiana Jones and James Bond, they literally dropped you in the middle of a story with absolutely no idea what was going on or what was supposed to be going on.

Spiderman got bit by a suped up Spider and than fought a man-lizard. No amount of explanation made that more realistic or serious.It was realistic and serious because under the science fiction were human characters going through human emotions that were handled in my opinion with the kind of respect they deserve. Batman and Robin explained exactly to a T how Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy got their powers. They were never made any broader than that (except for the frozen tear scene). It was super-lazy and a fine example of exactly what I don't want and sounds exactly like what your are asking for.

You are too concerned with superpowers. I don't care about superpowers. I don't want an adaptation of the Marvel Handbook. I only care that it is a good movie that takes its interesting characters and challenges them with an interesting plot. Explaining the window dressing doesn't make for a good movie. Plenty of superhero movies do that and they still suck. A prologue is mostly just for fun and eye candy but it brings with it a powerful message that Spiderman has been doing more than stopping pickpockets and purse snatchers. With one supervillain getting his butt whooped in the beginning, you establish a broader science fiction reality better, more excitingly, and more organically than Nick Fury stepping out of the shadows and saying (and I paraphrase) "you just entered a bigger world"

Times like these I wish Superhero Hype had a 'Like' button

 

[ThePhantasm]

If you're going to introduce a super-powered character like Shocker or Rhino in the more "realistic" "serious" world TASM established

I wish no one had ever ever used the word "realistic" in connection to a comic book film. Dang it, Chris Nolan!

 

[Anno_Domini]

If you're going to introduce a super-powered character like Shocker or Rhino in the more "realistic" "serious" world TASM established, you'd better have a damn good reason or explanation behind it.

Because a giant lizard was given enough explanation to see how such a giant lizard could fit into a "realistic"/"serious" universe where someone is given powers from a spider...

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Spider-Man universe should be kept as it is, it's not supposed to be realistic. Also, people shouldn't think that because of this realistic villains don't fit

 

[Vid Electricz]

I don't mean narration. I mean unnecessary, wordy exposition. I don't like people standing around saying "Well, this happened because..." and then give a shoddy explanation. That is lazier than just going for it in my opinion.

I don't care how human the people were in Indiana Jones and James Bond, they literally dropped you in the middle of a story with absolutely no idea what was going on or what was supposed to be going on.


Spiderman got bit by a suped up Spider and than fought a man-lizard. No amount of explanation made that more realistic or serious.It was realistic and serious because under the science fiction were human characters going through human emotions that were handled in my opinion with the kind of respect they deserve. Batman and Robin explained exactly to a T how Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy got their powers. They were never made any broader than that (except for the frozen tear scene). It was super-lazy and a fine example of exactly what I don't want and sounds exactly like what your are asking for.

You are too concerned with superpowers. I don't care about superpowers. I don't want an adaptation of the Marvel Handbook. I only care that it is a good movie that takes its interesting characters and challenges them with an interesting plot. Explaining the window dressing doesn't make for a good movie. Plenty of superhero movies do that and they still suck. A prologue is mostly just for fun and eye candy but it brings with it a powerful message that Spiderman has been doing more than stopping pickpockets and purse snatchers. With one supervillain getting his butt whooped in the beginning, you establish a broader science fiction reality better, more excitingly, and more organically than Nick Fury stepping out of the shadows and saying (and I paraphrase) "you just entered a bigger world"

Narration is lazy. Exposition is generally lazy, but these things are necessary in sci-fi/fantasy. It doesn't have to be characters standing around talking. That's not even what I'm asking for if you've properly understood my post. Not sure what you're on about with that.
For instance, we saw Peter get bit by a genetically modified spider. BAM. Spider-powers. That's suspension of disbelief. Connors injects himself with a cross species formula he created and becomes a giant lizard. BAM. Suspension of disbelief. These things are inherently absurd and we, the audience understand that and accept it for the sake of the story. There is a problem when you introduce an absurd element into a film which is not absurd (and TASM's world is grounded if we can go by TASM). There's a HUGE difference in introducing Dr. Connors and seeing and understanding why he becomes the Lizard and dropping the Shocker in the opening minutes (though they are both absurd). Get it? I'm concerned with the characters, not the superpowers. It needs to make "sense" within the framework of the story first and foremost, and fanboy pleasing action spectacle second.

Just "going for it" with no explanation is something we can expect from childrens cartoons and videogames.

If the film were to open by dropping us into the action with Spidey taking on some guys robbing a bank or whatever, that would be just fine- Just like the Bond and Indy films. That would be great in fact.

The problem arises when you introduce an absurd element (Shocker,Rhino) with no precedent or explanation for why they're there, in a world that has been established isn't running wild with super villains and that we are in fact meant to recognize as something more akin to our own according to Marc Webb.

It's a lazy cop-out to insist that since two absurd elements (Spidey,Lizard) were introduced, that the gates are now open for any absurd element to be introduced, no explanation required. Which is exactly what you insist by dropping Shocker in the opening credits. "It's a comic book movie" is the laziest cop out ever.

Yes. we all understand suspension of disbelief. Again, realism's got nothing to do with it. Spider-powers are inherently unrealistic. Yes, we know that and we accept it. This is basic storytelling.
You're taking what I wrote and you're interpreting it quite literally. I'm not even sure what you're on about here. It's not about "realism" or being "serious" . It's about the filmmakers establishing a tone and sticking to it. Not lazily dropping in fanservice characters with no explanation in a world with no precedent for it. Might as well be watching a cartoon at that point.

Unfortunately, in a movie like this, which is aiming for a more "grounded" approach (according to Webb- and which TASM accomplished quite well), we do need explanations for why absurd things happen. "It's a comic book movie" is not an explanation. It's lazy.
Not sure what you mean about being "too concerned with superpowers". What does that even mean? I wholly accept that a man can have electric powers or turn into a lizard as long as it operates under the films own logic.
Of course we're all concerned with it being a good movie with a good story- but the film must obey and be consistent with it's own internal logic. Though if you don't understand by now why throwing Shocker or Rhino in the opening minutes automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon, then I don't know what to say. We should expect more from our movies.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I wish no one had ever ever used the word "realistic" in connection to a comic book film. Dang it, Chris Nolan!

Talk to Sony-er... I mean Marc Webb for taking TASM in a more "grounded direction".

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I really think you're over-emphasizing the 'realism factor' when it comes to TASM. We're talking about a comic-book movie; Webb gave TASM a pastiche that was more grounded in reality than the Raimi films, but that's all this whole 'realism' thing is: a pastiche. Having another recognizable member of Spidey' s rogues gallery make a glorified cameo at the start of TASM 2 in no way, shape, or form 'automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon'. As I noted, it is totally in keeping with the film's synopsis and the parameters established by and in TASM 1.

 

[Vid Electricz]

^ I really think you're over-emphasizing the 'realism factor' when it comes to TASM. We're talking about a comic-book movie; Webb gave TASM a pastiche that was more grounded in reality than the Raimi films, but that's all this whole 'realism' thing is: a pastiche. Having another recognizable member of Spidey' s rogues gallery make a glorified cameo at the start of TASM 2 in no way, shape, or form 'automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon'. As I noted, it is totally in keeping with the film's synopsis and the parameters established by and in TASM 1.

Allow me to quote myself:

Yes. we all understand suspension of disbelief. Again, realism's got nothing to do with it. Spider-powers are inherently unrealistic. Yes, we know that and we accept it. This is basic storytelling.
You're taking what I wrote and you're interpreting it quite literally. I'm not even sure what you're on about here. It's not about "realism" or being "serious" . It's about the filmmakers establishing a tone and sticking to it. Not lazily dropping in fanservice characters with no explanation in a world with no precedent for it. Might as well be watching a cartoon at that point.

Making it "realistic" and making it "grounded" are two completely different things. The Nolan batfilms were not realistic at all, but they were grounded in a reality that made it easier to suspend our disbelief that these events were taking place. Same goes for TASM.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ There's nothing lazy whatsoever about using additional members of Spidey' s rogues gallery to start off TASM 2 - hypothetically - with a bang and demonstrate what the synopsis refers to in terms of Peter having a busy life trying to juggle his duties as Spider-Man with his normal life.

 

[chaseter]

We don't know where or how Rhino fits into the movie. He could be the main villain or just a side villain. I would think with an opening cameo...they would want to keep it secret.

 

[Venom'sDad]

^ I really think you're over-emphasizing the 'realism factor' when it comes to TASM. We're talking about a comic-book movie; Webb gave TASM a pastiche that was more grounded in reality than the Raimi films, but that's all this whole 'realism' thing is: a pastiche. Having another recognizable member of Spidey' s rogues gallery make a glorified cameo at the start of TASM 2 in no way, shape, or form 'automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon'. As I noted, it is totally in keeping with the film's synopsis and the parameters established by and in TASM 1.

That's debatable. That can go either way in some instances. The relationship between Peter & Gwen is certainly more grounded; as well as, Peter embracement of his new found powers as a teenager & the continue learning the limits or scope of it. Also, investigating and re-discovering his parents definitely bring a more human element, as it relates to Ben & May. The tone is certainly more grounded than Raimi's.

Yet, Raimi's films was fairly more grounded as well as far as the villains go thus far. Norman situation with the defense contracts and competitors was good motives for him rushing human testing, there by leading to split-personalities. We all know how real that can be giving the number a mass shootings taking place by those on prescription drugs that have not been tested for a numbers of years, but rushed to market...now we see the results of these strong hallucinogenic drugs.

Doc Ock taping into the brain with nano-technology, controlling functions, thoughts, and robotics. One don't have to suspend belief that an accident could have happen...bonding so close to the central nerve and medulla part of the brain, that an operation could prove deadly.

The plot for both of these villains is certainly more grounded, I think, than a humanoid Lizard's plot to create a world without limits. Point being, both directors have had their moments in grounded realities.