The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes - Predictions?

[Picard Sisko]

Sigh. They left a little bit open for Harry's arc, but overall, the movie would have felt complete if there had never been a sequel. They took each movie one at a time, and there was very little planning for the future, Nemeres. UltimateWebHead never said that a film series couldn't succeed if the future wasn't well planned, but it certainly hinders it from growing in the long run.

For example, killing off Doctor Octopus prevented the possibility of there ever being a Sinister Six.

Also, not using John Jameson in SM3, but introducing him in SM2 also shows that Sam wasn't really thinking ahead (also considering he hated Venom, so John Jameson was probably just a throwaway character to begin with).

 

[Spideyfan117]

Sigh. They left a little bit open for Harry's arc, but overall, the movie would have felt complete if there had never been a sequel. They took each movie one at a time, and there was very little planning for the future, Nemeres. UltimateWebHead never said that a film series couldn't succeed if the future wasn't well planned, but it certainly hinders it from growing in the long run.

For example, killing off Doctor Octopus prevented the possibility of there ever being a Sinister Six.

Also, not using John Jameson in SM3, but introducing him in SM2 also shows that Sam wasn't really thinking ahead (also considering he hated Venom, so John Jameson was probably just a throwaway character to begin with).

The context of what he was saying is also important. It's part of a discussion on SM3 and, particularly, the "overcrowding" issue. If you view it in context, UltimateWebhead is alluding to the why SM3 had so much working against it compared to a franchise where things are more closely connected and ongoing. He didn't say that necessarily means subsequent movies couldn't have been better. But the ability to keep going instead of doing a "one and done" type thing does hinder certain kinds of potential later on (though it also has its own advantages over the ongoing approach).

 

[Nemeres]

Sigh. They left a little bit open for Harry's arc, but overall, the movie would have felt complete if there had never been a sequel. They took each movie one at a time, and there was very little planning for the future, Nemeres. UltimateWebHead never said that a film series couldn't succeed if the future wasn't well planned, but it certainly hinders it from growing in the long run.

For example, killing off Doctor Octopus prevented the possibility of there ever being a Sinister Six.

Also, not using John Jameson in SM3, but introducing him in SM2 also shows that Sam wasn't really thinking ahead (also considering he hated Venom, so John Jameson was probably just a throwaway character to begin with).

Killing off Doc Ock meant they did justice to the theme of the movie. I.e., a story well told. Putting Molina's Ock in Sinister Six would have been, to put it very lightly, a terrible decision.

I won't defend SM3, that movie's not an example of the Raimi movies at their best. But SM2 is, as is SM 1. I don't mean to bring down the new series' intention of planning ahead, but to exemplify the first two Raimi movies as the "wrong" way of doing things - that is what I got from the post, do correct me if I'm wrong - is sth I disagree with. When it comes to the handling of themes and story, they're mostly excellent, and that is what I expect from these movies. The importance of hinting at future villains pales by comparison. That's just me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The context of what he was saying is also important. It's part of a discussion on SM3 and, particularly, the "overcrowding" issue. If you view it in context, UltimateWebhead is alluding to the why SM3 had so much working against it compared to a franchise where things are more closely connected and ongoing. He didn't say that necessarily means subsequent movies couldn't have been better. But the ability to keep going instead of doing a "one and done" type thing does hinder certain kinds of potential later on (though it also has its own advantages over the ongoing approach).

Exactly. And it just shows you that it was very difficult for Raimi to find a direction to go in after Spider-Man 3. Not saying a sequel was impossible, but going "one movie at a time" makes the series feel less fluid. Marc Webb is mapping out his own film series, and there is obviously a blueprint for a trilogy (and soon to be cinematic universe), so finding a direction won't be as difficult in the long run.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Killing off Doc Ock meant they did justice to the theme of the movie. I.e., a story well told. Putting Molina's Ock in Sinister Six would have been, to put it very lightly, a terrible decision.

I won't defend SM3, that movie's not an example of the Raimi movies at their best. But SM2 is, as is SM 1. I don't mean to bring down the new series' intention of planning ahead, but to exemplify the first two Raimi movies as the "wrong" way of doing things - that is what I got from the post, do correct me if I'm wrong - is sth I disagree with. When it comes to the handling of themes and story, they're mostly excellent, and that is what I expect from these movies. The importance of hinting at future villains pales by comparison. That's just me.

You missed the mark of what he was trying to say. He never said that what Raimi was doing is "wrong," but that there are other ways to approach making a Spider-Man franchise, one of them being what Marc Webb is doing. There are obviously pros and cons to each, but I would have to say its smart to plan ahead. That's what the MCU is doing, its what Fox wants in on, and now Sony as well.

Its the same thing with the Nolan Batman films: while they were very good, I couldn't see them lasting as a long-term film franchise. It was a trilogy, and that's that. Same with Raimi's Spider-Man: it couldn't have gone on for way too long.

 

[Spideyfan117]

I don't mean to bring down the new series' intention of planning ahead, but to exemplify the first two Raimi movies as the "wrong" way of doing things - that is what I got from the post, do correct me if I'm wrong

Read some of his later posts. It certainly wasn't his intention.

When it comes to the handling of themes and story, they're mostly excellent, and that is what I expect from these movies. The importance of hinting at future villains pales by comparison. That's just me.

They're not opposing qualities. In fact, they can go hand in hand when the story deals with a certain villain (or any character for that matter) or event that requires it to fit a certain vision. I think Marc Webb handled the theme and story of TASM quite well. But I also appreciate that he's setting up something bigger to continue that story and, indeed, follow up on those themes. There's nothing wrong with that approach, nor with the one Raimi took.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Another point he is trying to make is that planning ahead makes it easier to include multiple villains in the future. For instance, TASM1 and TASM2 are establishing Norman Osborn's story, so by the time he actually turns into the Green Goblin, we won't have to introduce him and get to know him; that would have already been taken care of.

We are being introduced to Rhino and getting a tease of him, so by TASM3 that aspect will be over with. Same goes for any other "introductions" in TASM2, which will probably assist in forming the Sinister Six later down the road. Same principle works with the MCU films in building up to the Avengers.

Its almost like what Raimi was doing with Dr. Connors by having him show up in a couple of movies, except now it will actually go somewhere.

 

[Spideyfan117]

Its almost like what Raimi was doing with Dr. Connors by having him show up in a couple of movies, except now it will actually go somewhere.

Didn't the studio screw Raimi out of getting to use Lizard in a movie? I could have sworn I remembered reading that they didn't want him to use Lizard in one of the movies. I don't remember any details, though.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I do remember hearing something like that, but it wasn't confirmed. I think it was Vulture that they didn't want in Spider-Man 3.

 

[Nemeres]

Read some of his later posts. It certainly wasn't his intention.



They're not opposing qualities. In fact, they can go hand in hand when the story deals with a certain villain (or any character for that matter) or event that requires it to fit a certain vision. I think Marc Webb handled the theme and story of TASM quite well. But I also appreciate that he's setting up something bigger to continue that story and, indeed, follow up on those themes. There's nothing wrong with that approach, nor with the one Raimi took.

I would disagree about that. In fact, it's the way he handled many things in TASM that has me worried about the overreliance on "planning for the future" instead of focusing on the story at hand. But my comment was more in the Raimi movies' defense than an attack on TASM. Maybe I did misinterpret the gist in Ultimatewebhead's post, sorry if that's the case.

At the end of the day, Sinister Six is gonna be tricky. It's exciting to think about the mammoth battle sequences that will come out of that, but I'll admit I have trouble thinking of a template that a story of that sort could follow. Will the whole movie be one prolonged fight with little moments of revelations here and there, kind of like Harry Potter 8 was? Will it be like (lol) Scott Pilgrim, with one fight at a time? It's hard to think of a model for a movie like that. Kurtzman and Orci and that other Lost writer are at least fairly imaginative, so how they rise to the challenge is gonna be interesting to see, if nothing else.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well its going to be tricky, but filmmakers need to take risks in order to do something special. If Disney never took risks, we would never have the MCU.

And BTW, Orci and Kurtzman aren't working on the Sinister Six. That job is being left to Drew Goddard.

 

[Spideyfan117]

I would disagree about that. In fact, it's the way he handled many things in TASM that has me worried about the overreliance on "planning for the future" instead of focusing on the story at hand. But my comment was more in the Raimi movies' defense than an attack on TASM. Maybe I did misinterpret the gist in Ultimatewebhead's post, sorry if that's the case.

I know you disagree with me. That's perfectly fine. But these are things most critics seemed to praise with the movie, so I think a lot of people responded well to that aspect of TASM at least. But then, "professional" critical opinions aren't everything. I get where you're coming from, Nemeres. So I hope you don't think I'm attacking you or anything in these discussions. You do a great job of arguing your position and you're very civil about it.

At the end of the day, Sinister Six is gonna be tricky. It's exciting to think about the mammoth battle sequences that will come out of that, but I'll admit I have trouble thinking of a template that a story of that sort could follow. Will the whole movie be one prolonged fight with little moments of revelations here and there, kind of like Harry Potter 8 was? Will it be like (lol) Scott Pilgrim, with one fight at a time? It's hard to think of a model for a movie like that. Kurtzman and Orci and that other Lost writer are at least fairly imaginative, so how they rise to the challenge is gonna be interesting to see, if nothing else.

I'm quite curious about Drew Goddard's role in all of this. He was an unexpected element to throw in the mix.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Goddard has worked on:

1. Cabin in the Woods (Writer & Director)
2. Cloverfield (Writer)
3. World War Z (Writer) <-- Probably the only failure

He also has television credits for the following TV shows:

1. LOST
2. Alias
3. Angel
4. Buffy the Vampire Slayer

He is also writing the upcoming Daredevil TV series for Netflix.

 

[Nemeres]

I thought Goddard was handling the solo S6 film. Isn't TASM 3 or 4 gonna be about them vs Spidey?

Goddard's awesome, by the way. I'd love to hear that he's taking on one of the Spidey flicks, at least as a
writer.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I thought Goddard was handling the solo S6 film. Isn't TASM 3 or 4 gonna be about them vs Spidey?

No, we don't know what's going on with TASM3 or TASM4.

 

[Spideyfan117]

I thought Goddard was handling the solo S6 film. Isn't TASM 3 or 4 gonna be about them vs Spidey?

There's speculation, of course. But nothing official on what's going on in the main series. That announcement got people excited, but also extremely confused. :/

 

[FN Spider-man]

Kurtzman and Orci are goin to write TASM3 but let's just focus on 2 right now

 

[Picard Sisko]

Orci and Kurtzman are writing TASM3. Kurtzman is writing and directing Venom.

 

[Spideyfan117]

Orci and Kurtzman are writing TASM3. Kurtzman is writing and directing Venom.

One of the things I'm worried about. lol I like Orci and Kurtzman as writers. When they get it right, boy do they get it right. But Kurtzman's directorial debut, People Like Us, was just terrible. Maybe since this is something he's passionate about and he's got better backing it will be better.

 

[Picard Sisko]

"People Like Us" was a drama, and his specialty is action blockbusters. I think the reason why they are giving this movie to him is because its probably going to be a smaller production and willing to let him experiment with it. He is a huge Venom fan, so I think he will do much better than his directorial debut.

 

[Nemeres]

I know you disagree with me. That's perfectly fine. But these are things most critics seemed to praise with the movie, so I think a lot of people responded well to that aspect of TASM at least. But then, "professional" critical opinions aren't everything. I get where you're coming from, Nemeres. So I hope you don't think I'm attacking you or anything in these discussions. You do a great job of arguing your position and you're very civil about it.
.

Not in the least, man. I like discussing stuff.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

What were Harry's final words to Peter in SM1 if not planning ahead? And if its ability to grow and expand was so hindered, why was SM2 such a smash, critically and financially? Meanwhile, Webb's Spider-Man doesn't even have its first sequel out. They're setting things up so that the creation of villains flows more smoothly, I suppose, but other than that... what? The creative success of the TASM series won't rest only on well set-up villains. You may be getting ahead of yourself a bit there.

You've missed the point of what I was getting at with the development of a series of movies rather than just doing a one and done approach. I'm not gonna reiterate the point cause both Picard and Spideyfan117 have already done that. But I do want to reiterate the fact that I wasn't bashing on Raimi or his movies. He was successful in creating what he did and I still love both SM1 and 2.

 

[Naite22]

I was just wondering. How many regulars around these boards (like my self) will be lucky enough to see TASM2 already in mid-April? I know I'll be seeing it at the Galla-opening. My country's biggest theater - on April 16'th! Already got my tickets reserved ;-)

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'm in the U.S., so I have to wait for May 2nd to see it.

 

[Nicko-Ray]

I'm in the U.S., so I have to wait for May 2nd to see it.

UnitedStatesUnite