The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes - Predictions?

[TheLastBlade]

That Wolverine going back to the past sounds like garbage.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The funny thing is that Sony had much more interference in TASM than in SM3 yet SM3 is mostly blamed on Sony whereas TASM is mostly blamed on Webb.



Yep. That track has been used so many times by now that it's getting really cliché and generic to hear it.

All Sony did in SM3 was tell Raimi to use Venom. With TASM1, they did take a lot of control though I think it had a lot to do with the fact that the movie was kind of a risk. It was the film that was letting them keep the rights to Spider-Man for an extended period of time.

I think Webb is the reason why the movie didn't fail. Though it seems like he has a lot more creative control with TASM2. He chose to film in NYC, he formed the musical supergroup, and of course he could tell the story he wanted to tell now that the origin is done.

 

[TheLastBlade]

All Sony did in SM3 was tell Raimi to use Venom. With TASM1, they did take a lot of control though I think it had a lot to do with the fact that the movie was kind of a risk. It was the film that was letting them keep the rights to Spider-Man for an extended period of time.

I think Webb is the reason why the movie didn't fail.

I went back the see the special features of the movie. It stated a lot of interesting facts about what it could've been. One thing they definitely should've kept was the Lizard's family aspect. The divorced troubled child of Connors would definitely work. It'd be a convincing statement for his "world without weakness." Plus, it would have a bigger impact to the overall film. Since it's like what Peter is going through.

 

[Shikamaru]

All Sony did in SM3 was tell Raimi to use Venom. With TASM1, they did take a lot of control though I think it had a lot to do with the fact that the movie was kind of a risk. It was the film that was letting them keep the rights to Spider-Man for an extended period of time.

I think Webb is the reason why the movie didn't fail. Though it seems like he has a lot more creative control with TASM2. He chose to film in NYC, he formed the musical supergroup, and of course he could tell the story he wanted to tell now that the origin is done.

Not even that. It was just the symbiote. They wanted him to introduce the symbiote.

Somehow that caused Raimi to go on a bad writing spree and screw up the whole film. All cause of them Sony's.

 

[Nemeres]

Most people think the movie is "too busy" because Spider-Man 3 also had three villains. Pretty closed minded if you ask me, and even a little ignorant.

Can't blame them, frankly. SM 3 had its share of problems OTHER than too many characters, that's for certain... but that movie underlined the toxicity of putting so much stuff together in one movie. Example: You bring in Sandman, but you also have to deal with Harry's storyline. What to do? Well, leave Harry out of the fold for a while. How to justify it? Amnesia. LAME.

There's also the mandate to put Venom in. The result of their attempt at balance? Reduced screen time for Venom, and therefore unsatisfied Venom fans.

We fans have the immortal motto of "If done right, it can work". Sure, it's true. But let's be frank with ourselves for a second: just how often are things "done right"? How often do these filmmakers achieve the high goals they set for themselves? If the hits were more frequent than the misses, I doubt there would even be the talk of "too many superhero movies" that seems to be going around these days. But hope springs eternal, I suppose.

 

[TheLastBlade]

No seriously guys, did you see how AWFUL that Robocop trailer was? I bet no one is talking about it because they know it sucks.

On the subject of Spiderman 3, well, it had Harry goblin. That alone is worth skepticism.

 

[FN Spider-man]

Marc is good at knowing what works and what could clutter the movie which is why MJ was cut, if something is there that could hinder i'd say the work has already been done but what I hope for is no cuts to be made to this movie because there was cuts that didnt need to be made in TASM. I feel Marc is def in control of this one.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Can't blame them, frankly. SM 3 had its share of problems OTHER than too many characters, that's for certain... but that movie underlined the toxicity of putting so much stuff together in one movie. Example: You bring in Sandman, but you also have to deal with Harry's storyline. What to do? Well, leave Harry out of the fold for a while. How to justify it? Amnesia. LAME.

There's also the mandate to put Venom in. The result of their attempt at balance? Reduced screen time for Venom, and therefore unsatisfied Venom fans.

We fans have the immortal motto of "If done right, it can work". Sure, it's true. But let's be frank with ourselves for a second: just how often are things "done right"? How often do these filmmakers achieve the high goals they set for themselves? If the hits were more frequent than the misses, I doubt there would even be the talk of "too many superhero movies" that seems to be going around these days. But hope springs eternal, I suppose.

You keep missing the point. First of all, TASM2 does not have three main villains like SM3, as I've explained in that previous message on the last page. Second of all, Spider-Man 3 mostly failed due to poor writing. Do you not get that Rhino is only a small part of the movie? I guess not.

Its not that it put too much into one movie. Its that all of the subplots, whether it was Sandman, Harry Osborn, or the symbiote, had nothing to do with each other. There was no centralized story that connected them in any way, and they were all fighting each other for "main villain" status.

You even point out how they try and solve it, by having a villain getting amnesia, while another "dies" temporarily, and so on. This isn't happening here in TASM2, and I think its foolish to think that any Spider-Man film with more than one villain is going to be like SM3. As I said before, its ignorant.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Someone posted this last week and I thought I'd share:

I think it's funny that people are so quick to exempt Sam Raimi from an responsibility for Spider-Man 3, even though he's the damn director, and Spider-Man 3 is the only one he actually wrote. And sure, he didn't like Venom and didn't want to use him, but he instead wanted to make the film about his own sympathetic Sandman which is the worst part of this film. He's completely shallow with no depth, his relationship with his daughter is among the fakest i've ever seen, and most importantly, like he did in the 1st 2 films with the villains, Raimi has the incessant need to turn a non-sympathetic character into one. His motivation doesn't really come through, we don't really believe in it. It's incredibly forced, he takes up way too much of the film, and isn't interesting at all beyond visuals. This isn't even counting the Uncle Ben's killer retcon. The film would have easily improved with his exclusion.

From the opening dialogue (Peter narrating) you can already feel the mediocrity in the film. It's unnecessary, delivered in this very uninspired tone, which would follow with the most forced Stan Lee cameo, and only be a hint of the performances to come, a whole cast of people old and tired of the series, here for a paycheck. The whole film is a mess of conveniences, shallow over-drama, unbelievable dialogue, unrelated plotlines smashed forcibly together, Peter in tons of face-palming moments, and of course the same tired story structure already used in the 1st 2 films, recycled yet again. Always with a good guy turning bad, who happens to have a close connection with Peter, MJ is a drama queen that Peter for some reason is head over heels for, Aunt May is a plot device to get Peter out of a slump and not really a character, goes all Obi Wan on Peter and basically tells him "Use the force Luke!" (magical words of wisdom), MJ gets captured as the climax of the film, Peter gets his mask torn roughly half way off in the final fight, and the(a) villain kills himself.

Raimi may not have liked Venom, but Venom was hardly a surprise inclusion that he had to suddenly make do with. We see Raimi setting up the Venom plotline as early as Spider-Man 2. With the inclusion of John Jameson as an astronaut, telling us that he's going into space. If you couple this with the earliest teasers of Spider-Man 3 in which we see Peter watching a tv screen showing Jameson's shuttle crashing to earth, we know that they had planned on adapting this straight from how the 90's animated series introduced the symbiote, and of course by extension, Venom.

It's always "It was because that greedy hack Avi Arad forced Sam Raimi to use Venom, that killed the movie!" First, I wonder how much of you actually know who Avi Arad is. If you did some research you'd learn that he's one of the key individuals responsible for pushing to get Marvel into the film industry at all. Simply, studios didn't have much interest in doing comicbook films anymore, and Arad was one of the major people that got Marvel back on the map through film when they were going bankrupt, establishing the mainstream superhero films we have today. Note, he's also doing the same to get good video game films out there, ones not directed by Paul W S Anderson and Uwe Boll.

Film productions are a team effort people. Sure, Sony may have stepped in too much, but Raimi had a huge part in it as well. You could you tell their heart wasn't in it anymore, the cast was tired of it, Raimi wanted to move on to other things.

So to say Venom is why Spider-Man 3 sucked? Do you forget that he only had about 10 minutes of screen time if that, basically tacked on at the end? Surely, Venom was executed poorly, but he is far from the films greatest faults. He just pops up in the end like a cherry on top to the whole ordeal. Was the film not already a ***** sundae up to that point? Your telling me that it's the last 10 minutes that killed it?

And perhaps i'm exaggerating how bad SM3 was, as I still like it, if only for the action sequences, but hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. And that's this. Spider-Man 3's problems are rooted much deeper than Venom, and too many villains. It's at it's core, down to the writing which is the worst example of the faults of the previous films, delivered by a team who lost the drive to do it after Spider-Man 2. It isn't just Sony's fault, or big bad Arad. Raimi, and all of the cast had a major role in it as well.

TASM2 won't fail because it has 3 villains. It's all in the writing and delivery. That's what determines whether this becomes another Spider-Man 3/Batman and Robin, or a Batman Begins/TDK.

Let's not pretend that Spider-Man 4 (an uninspired sequel by a team long over it a long time ago) would be some how any less of a cash grab/ made to keep the rights with Sony than many claim TASM to be. Sony is a business, and of course they are going to do what's in their best interest. It's not like Fox, Marvel Studios are somehow any different in that respect.

But TASM offers a different look at Spider-Man, one that I've personally waited for, never feeling truly satisfied with the depiction of the character/universe in the Raimi films. And in between starting a new story and twiddling their thumbs trying to somehow make something of a 4th film in the original series, I feel Sony definitely made the right call.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I love the part where he says "Let's not pretend that Spider-Man 4 (an uninspired sequel by a team long over it a long time ago) would be some how any less of a cash grab/ made to keep the rights with Sony than many claim TASM to be"

excellent point

 

[Picard Sisko]

I love the part where he says "Let's not pretend that Spider-Man 4 (an uninspired sequel by a team long over it a long time ago) would be some how any less of a cash grab/ made to keep the rights with Sony than many claim TASM to be"

excellent point

 

[Lord]

That Wolverine going back to the past sounds like garbage.

I'm honestly more interested in that one than Amazing Spider-Man 2, even though DOFP's trailer was very weak. But we'll see by the end of the year which one will be better, hopefully, both will be great films. I'm hoping for both being great.

 

[Nemeres]

You keep missing the point. First of all, TASM2 does not have three main villains like SM3, as I've explained in that previous message on the last page. Second of all, Spider-Man 3 mostly failed due to poor writing. Do you not get that Rhino is only a small part of the movie? I guess not.

Its not that it put too much into one movie. Its that all of the subplots, whether it was Sandman, Harry Osborn, or the symbiote, had nothing to do with each other. There was no centralized story that connected them in any way, and they were all fighting each other for "main villain" status.

You even point out how they try and solve it, by having a villain getting amnesia, while another "dies" temporarily, and so on. This isn't happening here in TASM2, and I think its foolish to think that any Spider-Man film with more than one villain is going to be like SM3. As I said before, its ignorant.

Okay, I'll explain my point again: including many characters in a story implies a more demanding attempt at balance -- something that isn't always achieved. It can happen to SM3, TASM2 or Smurfs 14. It's even more delicate with superhero movies, where characters - in this case GG, Electro, Rhino, Norman, etc. - already bring in expectations around what they should be and do.

And how is it ignorant to speculate about a movie none of us has seen, yourself included? I think think I am getting your point: many characters doesn't necessarily mean a bad story "if done right". And I get that poor writing was the cause for SM3's failure. But that hypothesis can apply to TASM 2 just as easily. You're just assuming it won't. I hope it won't either, okay? But the possibility bears mentioning.

 

[spider_shadow]

@Lord

God,is that you?Do you look like Morgan Freeman?

 

[Picard Sisko]

So in other words, its no different than any other movie? Its just when people think that TASM2 looks too cluttered because it has three villains, "just like SM3." Its ignorant to think that TASM2 will be like SM3 because it technically has the same number of villains. Speculation is fine, but what bugs me is that everyone thinks that they should stick to one villain for each Spider-Man film just because they are too scared.
You mention characters, such as Norman or Rhino, who aren't supposed to have big roles in the film. Here are the main characters:

Peter Parker
Gwen Stacy
Harry Osborn
Max Dillon/Electro

Main Secondary Characters:
Aunt May
Donald Menken
Norman Osborn

Rhino appears in the opening chase, and comes back for a short fight scene. He is a tease. The rest are characters who also have smaller roles, such as Peter's Parents, Felicity Jones' character, etc. Its not as cluttered as you think.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I'm honestly more interested in that one than Amazing Spider-Man 2, even though DOFP's trailer was very weak. But we'll see by the end of the year which one will be better, hopefully, both will be great films. I'm hoping for both being great.

I lost interest in the X-Men movies long ago, sadly.

 

[FN Spider-man]

I'm honestly more interested in that one than Amazing Spider-Man 2, even though DOFP's trailer was very weak. But we'll see by the end of the year which one will be better, hopefully, both will be great films. I'm hoping for both being great.

That's my hope as well, I hope all the cbms this year will be successful

 

[Picard Sisko]

I do hope they all turn out well. I'm rooting for Spidey most of course, but I wish the best to all franchises!

 

[Spideyfan117]

All four of the big superhero films next year (I don't have any idea if any minor ones are coming out) look good to me. So I'm hoping they all turn out to be good. Especially TASM2. This is the first time I've been truly hyped for a Spider-man movie. I didn't follow too much of the marketing for the Raimi films and I was deadset against TASM (such a pleasant surprise for me), so if this movie pays off, I'll have had quite possibly the best experience I've ever had with a Spidey film.

 

[FN Spider-man]

I do hope they all turn out well. I'm rooting for Spidey most of course, but I wish the best to all franchises!

 

[JOE]

My hope is for 80+. However critics have a way of bashing Webb's Spider-Man for being too close to Raimi's. The 3 villain thing could be problematic as far as critics go. Without seeing the movie, I'd say 65-75% right now. Critics are dangerous, especially with the costume change that looks more similar to Raimi's, more of a reason to bash it for being "cookie cutter Spider-Man".

Anything less than 65% would be very disappointing. Anything over 75% and I'd be very pleased. It's a step in the right direction no matter how small the leap. Remember, there's still a third one waiting for us.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Hmm, I think if TASM1 can pull a 73%, where most of the complaints were "its the same movie over again," then TASM2 can at least get something in the 70s.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I want to clarify that RT scores don't mean much to me, but if it did get a 90%, then that would be cool. Its about time Spider-Man gets some critical acclaim again.

I feel the same. One major point of negativity that seemed to saturate the reviews for ASM was the whole 'reboot' and doing it 'too soon.' I wonder how much of that still exists in the minds of the critics and will it carry over to ASM2?

 

[TheLastBlade]

I do hope they all turn out well. I'm rooting for Spidey most of course, but I wish the best to all franchises!

Don't wish for Robocop to do well... That trailer was a piece of ****..... It doesn't deserve to live.... It has the worst music I have heard for a trailer yet... It sucks and it should go die, simple as that.

 

[TheLastBlade]

Roboco: MMMMMMMMMM!!!! LISTEN TO OUR CRAPPY FUSION OF HOP AND DUBSTEP!!!! WATCH OUR POINTLESS HUMAN REPRESENTATION OF FAMILY AND HOW ROBOCOP LOOKS LIKE A GUY IN A SUIT, RATHER THAN ACTUALLY LOOKING LIKE A ROBOT!!!!