The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes - Predictions?

[AF3619]

TASM2 is definitely the movie that will prove whether or not the reboot was worth it or not. Although it doesn't have to blow everyone away, it should at least be VERY good. At least.

it will, buy I'm afraid that the "too many villains" backlash is going to affect the acceptance of the audience

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well, no, that would only make the audience have doubts prior to seeing the film. But if the villains are handled well, then it shouldn't make them dislike them movie in the long run.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

To me there is a genuine sense people have about a films quality. A well written film that delivers the goods on all fronts will be fine. People/fans will always nitpick these things, but if that's all they can really do then it's a win.

Criticize TDKR's plot all you want, but it can't be ignored or forgotten in terms of the sheer scope of what Nolan was trying to do with that series. It has so many great qualities that it transcends any faults it may have. The cinematography alone is worth repeat viewings, it's breathtaking.

Some people may say the Avengers wasn't cinematic enough, or had too much humor in spots for their taste, but the amazing characterization and interaction between characters, the myriad of great lines, the balance between the action and moments of levity/humor is simply unmatched in the genre. I hadn't been to a film that had that kind of audience response in a long, long time. It can't be denied.

This is what I want from this series. As long as there are no gaping holes or terrible execution, small complaints are easily put into perspective. You are right Picard, an excellent (great) film will stand the test and be able to weather such things.

 

[Picard Sisko]

If this movie is a success, it will also prevent people from freaking out every time a Spider-Man film has more than one villain for future installments.

"YOU MEAN IT HAS THREE VILLAINS?!" THIS IS GOING TO SUCK!"

 

[Nicko-Ray]

If this movie is a success, it will also prevent people from freaking out every time a Spider-Man film has more than one villain for future installments.

"YOU MEAN IT HAS THREE VILLAINS?!" THIS IS GOING TO SUCK!"

Haha. True. Good point.
It's also the marketing standpoint I guess. If Rhino isn't that big a villain, though all the promos are making it seem like he has quite the screen time, I guess you can't blame people for thinking he's in it like that. The trailer shows couple shots of him, he's also included in the theater banner with all three of them. Gives the perception that he really is in the movie.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I can understand why people would get worried, but I think in the future, people will learn that 3 villains is not synonymous for disaster.

 

[Nicko-Ray]

I can understand why people would get worried, but I think in the future, people will learn that 3 villains is not synonymous for disaster.

Think it's 'cause of this?

 

[Picard Sisko]

People associate "3 villains" with Spider-Man 3 unfortunately. Of course having three villains complicated things for that movie, but that isn't THE reason why it failed.

 

[FN Spider-man]

^ That is what I find really ridiculous

 

[Picard Sisko]

Every film in TDK trilogy had multiple villains. Didn't Thor, Iron Man 1, and the X-Men films have multiple villains as well?

 

[amazingly atiba]

when i was a kid i use to think that the only reason spider man 3 had 3 villians is so the title would make sense. aha good ol days

 

[Picard Sisko]

There was no cohesive storyline in Spider-Man 3. Nothing made sense. All of the plots were crammed together into one film.

What was the main story for SM3? Harry Osborn getting revenge? The symbiote? Peter's relationship with MJ? Sandman? Nothing fit together!

 

[FN Spider-man]

Gwen Stacy getting thrown under the bus

 

[SpeterMan3]

What was the main story for SM3? Harry Osborn getting revenge? The symbiote? Peter's relationship with MJ? Sandman?

Yes.

Spoiler

 

[Picard Sisko]

Point being, the movie didn't fail because it had 3 villains.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

One big advantage that this new series has over the previous trilogy is how they are able to plan for future movies. They're setting up a larger universe and they can plot out the entire thing now as opposed to how Raimi and co had to deal with things. For Raimi there was never a plan-ahead type construction to the movies at least not for SM1. I don't think Sony had enough faith in the product to allow that to happen. It was more like, let's see how well this first one does and we'll take it step by step. I can understand that line of thought seeing as how superhero movies weren't really as popular as they are now. Both the Superman and Batman franchises had flamed out. It was the start of something new.

IMO that was something that hindered the ability of the previous trilogy to grow and expand and so by the time they got to SM3, it was prob tough to draw up something inspired. Again, imo, it looked like they tried for 'bigger is better' with the movie and tried to throw too much into the pot. The multiple villains weren't really the issue for the downfall of the movie yet I think people tend to associate the crowding of the movie as the main fault because it's such an easy thing to see. Without much analyzing you can look at SM3 and say, well it just had too much going on at once and there wasn't enough time to have all those characters make an impact. I think had Raimi had the ability to plan ahead for these movies, SM3 could have been much better. Smaller introductions of the villains in SM2 or even SM1 for that matter and then you wouldn't have the problem of multiple villains in the same way SM3 ended up. And being able to plan ahead for the remaining movies in that trilogy would have opened up the possibility of telling a different story or stories with more room to create.

That's how ASM2 is ahead of the curve so to speak and if they are planning this out properly we'll see this develop nicely. Because of the whole multiple villain angle and how people tend to associate with them as a result of SM3, we get these negative remarks and complaints. It's just an easy thing to see on a superficial level.

 

[Picard Sisko]

One big advantage that this new series has over the previous trilogy is how they are able to plan for future movies. They're setting up a larger universe and they can plot out the entire thing now as opposed to how Raimi and co had to deal with things. For Raimi there was never a plan-ahead type construction to the movies at least not for SM1. I don't think Sony had enough faith in the product to allow that to happen. It was more like, let's see how well this first one does and we'll take it step by step. I can understand that line of thought seeing as how superhero movies weren't really as popular as they are now. Both the Superman and Batman franchises had flamed out. It was the start of something new.

IMO that was something that hindered the ability of the previous trilogy to grow and expand and so by the time they got to SM3, it was prob tough to draw up something inspired. Again, imo, it looked like they tried for 'bigger is better' with the movie and tried to throw too much into the pot. The multiple villains weren't really the issue for the downfall of the movie yet I think people tend to associate the crowding of the movie as the main fault because it's such an easy thing to see. Without much analyzing you can look at SM3 and say, well it just had too much going on at once and there wasn't enough time to have all those characters make an impact. I think had Raimi had the ability to plan ahead for these movies, SM3 could have been much better. Smaller introductions of the villains in SM2 or even SM1 for that matter and then you wouldn't have the problem of multiple villains in the same way SM3 ended up. And being able to plan ahead for the remaining movies in that trilogy would have opened up the possibility of telling a different story or stories with more room to create.

That's how ASM2 is ahead of the curve so to speak and if they are planning this out properly we'll see this develop nicely. Because of the whole multiple villain angle and how people tend to associate with them as a result of SM3, we get these negative remarks and complaints. It's just an easy thing to see on a superficial level.

I agree with this completely. All of this.

---------------------------------------------------

You know what I don't understand? They introduced John Jameson, the astronaut, in SM2. Yet they didn't even bother to use him for the symbiote story in SM3?

Though I heard that there was a deleted scene with him in it, but not sure if that was a rumor or not.

 

[TheLastBlade]

MJ was also the hugest ***** in SM2. Why people think she's iconic I'll never know.

 

[Spideyfan117]

@UltimateWebhead: I 100% agree.

Now, to be fair, I don't think the approach Raimi's films took was bad. It was fine. They decided to not hold anything back and attempt to treat each film as it is because it may be the last chance they get. The Webb films aren't doing that, they're able to allow certain arcs to continue and further develop by approaching it as one ongoing story and planning ahead.

I do feel like this is inspired by the MCU approach because they really changed the game with how movies are handled. They showed everyone that individual installments can succeed on their own as well as work as a continuous story. Granted, Webb's Spider-man series seems to keep installments in the series even more tied together (almost in a Lord of the Rings style, though not quite so close).

I'm just glad studios are learning that there are a number of approaches that can be taken with their movies (especially in regards to sequels in a big franchise).

 

[Picard Sisko]

MJ was also the hugest ***** in SM2. Why people think she's iconic I'll never know.

She was iconic long before Spider-Man 2.

@UltimateWebhead: I 100% agree.

Now, to be fair, I don't think the approach Raimi's films took was bad. It was fine. They decided to not hold anything back and attempt to treat each film as it is because it may be the last chance they get. The Webb films aren't doing that, they're able to allow certain arcs to continue and further develop by approaching it as one ongoing story and planning ahead.

I do feel like this is inspired by the MCU approach because they really changed the game with how movies are handled. They showed everyone that individual installments can succeed on their own as well as work as a continuous story. Granted, Webb's Spider-man series seems to keep installments in the series even more tied together (almost in a Lord of the Rings style, though not quite so close).

I'm just glad studios are learning that there are a number of approaches that can be taken with their movies (especially in regards to sequels in a big franchise).

Agree with this as well.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

You know what I don't understand? They introduced John Jameson, the astronaut, in SM2. Yet they didn't even bother to use him for the symbiote story in SM3?

Though I heard that there was a deleted scene with him in it, but not sure if that was a rumor or not.

Thanks for the applause.

And that's a great example that you posted with John Jameson. Here's an angle that they could have easily pursued for SM3 however they were sorta stuck with the movie-making model of write it for now and not for later. Make no mistake, I'm not bashing on Raimi whatsoever. Overall I do love his trilogy. But they could have produced so much more given the ability to create a larger connected picture from the very beginning.

@UltimateWebhead: I 100% agree.

Now, to be fair, I don't think the approach Raimi's films took was bad. It was fine. They decided to not hold anything back and attempt to treat each film as it is because it may be the last chance they get. The Webb films aren't doing that, they're able to allow certain arcs to continue and further develop by approaching it as one ongoing story and planning ahead.

I do feel like this is inspired by the MCU approach because they really changed the game with how movies are handled. They showed everyone that individual installments can succeed on their own as well as work as a continuous story. Granted, Webb's Spider-man series seems to keep installments in the series even more tied together (almost in a Lord of the Rings style, though not quite so close).

I'm just glad studios are learning that there are a number of approaches that can be taken with their movies (especially in regards to sequels in a big franchise).

To the emboldened part, I agree. Raimi did a great job for the most part.

Again, the multiple villains is so much easier to handle when you take this newer approach of planning ahead. Continuing character arcs over the course of an entire set of movies rather than making everything stop and start with each new movie. I applaud Webb and co for taking this style into consideration. IMO it allows for a deeper creation and can add so many elements without the issue of overcrowding.

 

[TheLastBlade]

I remember that people praised MJ from Sam Raimi's film... Thank god that aged worser than sour cream.

I haven't re-watched the Raimi films yet, but one thing for sure, I will always hate MJ.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

One big advantage that this new series has over the previous trilogy is how they are able to plan for future movies. They're setting up a larger universe and they can plot out the entire thing now as opposed to how Raimi and co had to deal with things. For Raimi there was never a plan-ahead type construction to the movies at least not for SM1. I don't think Sony had enough faith in the product to allow that to happen. It was more like, let's see how well this first one does and we'll take it step by step. I can understand that line of thought seeing as how superhero movies weren't really as popular as they are now. Both the Superman and Batman franchises had flamed out. It was the start of something new.

IMO that was something that hindered the ability of the previous trilogy to grow and expand and so by the time they got to SM3, it was prob tough to draw up something inspired. Again, imo, it looked like they tried for 'bigger is better' with the movie and tried to throw too much into the pot. The multiple villains weren't really the issue for the downfall of the movie yet I think people tend to associate the crowding of the movie as the main fault because it's such an easy thing to see. Without much analyzing you can look at SM3 and say, well it just had too much going on at once and there wasn't enough time to have all those characters make an impact. I think had Raimi had the ability to plan ahead for these movies, SM3 could have been much better. Smaller introductions of the villains in SM2 or even SM1 for that matter and then you wouldn't have the problem of multiple villains in the same way SM3 ended up. And being able to plan ahead for the remaining movies in that trilogy would have opened up the possibility of telling a different story or stories with more room to create.

That's how ASM2 is ahead of the curve so to speak and if they are planning this out properly we'll see this develop nicely. Because of the whole multiple villain angle and how people tend to associate with them as a result of SM3, we get these negative remarks and complaints. It's just an easy thing to see on a superficial level.

You are 100% right man

 

[Nicko-Ray]

I remember that people praised MJ from Sam Raimi's film... Thank god that aged worser than sour cream.

I haven't re-watched the Raimi films yet, but one thing for sure, I will always hate MJ.

I will always love Spider-Man 1. Always.

 

[Nemeres]

One big advantage that this new series has over the previous trilogy is how they are able to plan for future movies. They're setting up a larger universe and they can plot out the entire thing now as opposed to how Raimi and co had to deal with things. For Raimi there was never a plan-ahead type construction to the movies at least not for SM1. I don't think Sony had enough faith in the product to allow that to happen. It was more like, let's see how well this first one does and we'll take it step by step. I can understand that line of thought seeing as how superhero movies weren't really as popular as they are now. Both the Superman and Batman franchises had flamed out. It was the start of something new.

IMO that was something that hindered the ability of the previous trilogy to grow and expand and so by the time they got to SM3, it was prob tough to draw up something inspired. Again, imo, it looked like they tried for 'bigger is better' with the movie and tried to throw too much into the pot. The multiple villains weren't really the issue for the downfall of the movie yet I think people tend to associate the crowding of the movie as the main fault because it's such an easy thing to see. Without much analyzing you can look at SM3 and say, well it just had too much going on at once and there wasn't enough time to have all those characters make an impact. I think had Raimi had the ability to plan ahead for these movies, SM3 could have been much better. Smaller introductions of the villains in SM2 or even SM1 for that matter and then you wouldn't have the problem of multiple villains in the same way SM3 ended up. And being able to plan ahead for the remaining movies in that trilogy would have opened up the possibility of telling a different story or stories with more room to create.

That's how ASM2 is ahead of the curve so to speak and if they are planning this out properly we'll see this develop nicely. Because of the whole multiple villain angle and how people tend to associate with them as a result of SM3, we get these negative remarks and complaints. It's just an easy thing to see on a superficial level.

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.