The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes score? - Part 3

[DarthSkywalker]

Nooo, Spider-Man brings more money to the table.

Bond is their second biggest (not talking about quantity of movies, of course). Think that Sony hasn't recieved the money of 20 Bond movies because they didn't have the rights.

They have to share with MGM over Bond. But Skyfall was far more profitable then TASM and the next Bond will probably be far more profitable then TASM 2.

 

[spider-neil]

Why this isn't out as a DVD series set still has me baffled.
Whose holding this up and where?!!

It is on DVD. Google it. It's from a company in England but I'm pretty sure it's region free.

 

[TalismanRing]

They have to share with MGM over Bond. But Skyfall was far more profitable then TASM and the next Bond will probably be far more profitable then TASM 2.

They also have to share with the Broccolis as Producers who take a huge chunk of the pie in the form of an upfront fee and a percentage of the profits.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

The Amazing Spider-Man should have began were he is already Spider-Man but its still early days for him in the costume lets say it's been 4 months since The spider bite and they should have maybe shown the orgin but only in a quick flashback

 

[DarthSkywalker]

They also have to share with the Broccolis as Producers who take a huge chunk of the pie in the form of an upfront fee and a percentage of the profits.

The upfront fee is apart of the budget if I remember correctly. But hey, if you are going to be making 1.1 billion dollar Bond films, I think they'll live.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nooo, Spider-Man brings more money to the table.

Bond is their second biggest (not talking about quantity of movies, of course). Think that Sony hasn't recieved the money of 20 Bond movies because they didn't have the rights.

Sony has the distribution rights to Bond, they don't have the rights to the character, MGM still has those rights. When MGM filed bankruptcy they could no longer afford to pay distribution fees for their own films, they now outsource that.

It's no different than what Paramount was doing for Marvel Studios before Disney bought them.

 

[Xeno]

Pretty much QFT!

So, what's the weekend projection on this thing? Still at $95mil?

ASM2 will make bank on OW even with bad reviews. The second weekend drop will probably be drastic, though. It could plumet well over 60% if the audience WOM is as bad as the critics' reviews. (Hopefully ASM2's RT score will give people some perspective when the next CBM with >80% positive reviews comes around. )

While I'm not happy that Webb's Spider-Man is getting trashed so badly because I love the character, this is precisely what I expected after seeing the first film. ASM was a mess, with a reinterpretation of Peter Parker as a hipster *****ebag which made the "hero" an unlikable jerk with an unnecessarily jumbled backstory. They should have skipped Spider-Man's origin altogether and started off with him as a college student who had been a hero for several years. Or better yet, they shouldn't have rebooted the franchise at all. Letting it lie fallow for a few years while developing a great script and finding the perfect director would have made more sense than tanking the character with subpar films.

 

[Shikamaru]

The problem wasn't the reboot, the problem was the reboot wasn't enough of a departure from the old movies. Also, they should have avoided the origin like the plague. Because not only was the origin ground ALREADY covered it took up screen time meaning elements from the first movie got pushed into the sequel.

No origin would have made the reboot seem fresh and chances are there wouldn't be apathy towards the sequel. Forget the reviews, a character like Spidey should be critic proof. My brother (a casual movie goer) confirmed this by saying he wasn't bothered in seeing ASM2 because ASM1 was average (his words not mine).

If ASM2 underperformers I think it will be more to do with the first movie than the second.

Honestly, I think you're both wrong.

The problem wasn't rebooting or redoing the origin. It was playing too safe. They were testing the waters too much. They didn't even go in-depth with the origin enough, much like the Raimi film, leaving almost only the surface details on top, much like the Raimi film.

What the first film should have done is focus more on Peter's high school life. Develop characters like Flash and Sally Avril more. The first film got through the origin in the first 20-30 minutes and then quickly rushed him out of high school. The reboot should have been the anti to that.

There is no reason why the origin should automatically mean the film is plagued. Spidey arguably has the greatest origin of all time. Ultimate Spider-Man's first volume received critical acclaim. They should have done more things akin to Ultimate Spider-Man, particularly when it comes to the high school stuff. There were so many alternatives to the origin and ways to improve on Raimi's origin.

You could make the same argument for Batman Begins. Batman's origin is just as well known as Spidey's. Furthermore, Batman's origin would normally take less screen time to establish than Spidey's. "His parents got shot, trained around the world, came back and he's Batman." But they made an entire origin film because they knew how to explore the origin and go in-depth.

Plus, the origin is out of the way now. The reboot has gotten rid of that burden, so there's no reason why that should still play a key factor in this film's reception.

 

[spider-neil]

The Amazing Spider-Man should have began were he is already Spider-Man but its still early days for him in the costume lets say it's been 4 months since The spider bite and they should have maybe shown the orgin but only in a quick flashback

Spectacular Spider-Man opened perfectly. 6 weeks into his career with the origin happening off screen in the summer holidays. We didn't need to see the origin again or if you MUST do the origin, wait a couple of sequels so you have built up your audience who now trust you.

 

[Daywalker89]

I'm not one of those people that criticise these movies for being reboots but now I'm beginning to believe it was too early for a reboot when you have two brilliant Spider-Man movies and one half decent one which is over-hated by people maybe they should have just let Sam Rami make Spider-Man 4 and allow him to finish his story. Then give Spider-Man a break for 5 years and and then start planing for a reboot and by the time it's released it would have been 8 years since Spider-Man 4

Sony would never take that approach. As people have said this is there main cash cow. I think that 8 year gap would have been to much IMO . Now regarding these reboots in general, as soon as these films get greenlit the gangs are outside with knives waiting for the movie to arrive.Hollywood has been rebooting countless movies to make a quick buck.Its really getting to people now. Quantity over quality is a word i would use. Personally im on the fence about it, ive seen some descent reboots of the last few years and some have rubbed me up the wrong way.

The thing is i see it differently when its a CBM. There are so many adaptions,stories,writers and artists of CBM characters that i compare it to picking up a comic from the shop.

Comic A - Raimi's, Comic B - Webbs same goes for the batman regarding Burton,Shumacher and Nolan. There are so many iliterations of these characters that i am more open to them getting sequels/rebooted unlike Terminator,Star Wars etc These had finished articles that came full circle but the studios get too greedy and milk the cow to death.

 

[spider-neil]

Honestly, I think you're both wrong.

The problem wasn't rebooting or redoing the origin. It was playing too safe. They were testing the waters too much. They didn't even go in-depth with the origin enough, much like the Raimi film, leaving almost only the surface details on top, much like the Raimi film.

What the first film should have done is focus more on Peter's high school life. Develop characters like Flash and Sally Avril more. The first film got through the origin in the first 20-30 minutes and then quickly rushed him out of high school. The reboot should have been the anti to that.

There is no reason why the origin should automatically mean the film is plagued. Spidey arguably has the greatest origin of all time. Ultimate Spider-Man's first volume received critical acclaim. They should have done more things akin to Ultimate Spider-Man, particularly when it comes to the high school stuff. There were so many alternatives to the origin and ways to improve on Raimi's origin.

You could make the same argument for Batman Begins. Batman's origin is just as well known as Spidey's. Furthermore, Batman's origin would normally take less screen time to establish than Spidey's. "His parents got shot, trained around the world, came back and he's Batman." But they made an entire origin film because they knew how to explore the origin and go in-depth.

Plus, the origin is out of the way now. The reboot has gotten rid of that burden, so there's no reason why that should still play a key factor in this film's reception.

You're forgetting the Villain who also needs screen time. The longer the origin the less time for the Villain unless the vilain is tied in with the hero to the point you can tell both origins at the same time.

 

[Shikamaru]

Spectacular Spider-Man opened perfectly. 6 weeks into his career with the origin happening off screen in the summer holidays. We didn't need to see the origin again or if you MUST do the origin, wait a couple of sequels so you have built up your audience who now trust you.

Spectacular Spider-Man was a TV show. TV works different than live-action movies. TV has the opportunity to develop and grow the character over the course of multiple stories. Movies don't.

Very few superhero shows start exactly at the origin. It's almost suicidal for the show. It's a formula that's been shown to not work that much.

You're forgetting the Villain who also needs screen time. The longer the origin the less time for the Villain unless the vilain is tied in with the hero to the point you can tell both origins at the same time.

Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 1 did just that. There's no reason why they couldn't have tied a villain to the origin while still expanding on the origin. Both Batman Begins and Iron Man did just that.

Heck, I'd still argue the Lizard wasn't the best pick for the first film. It's clearly obvious they went with him due to the hype and fan demands he's been getting for Spider-Man 4. A better villain would been someone still dangerous but with not much backstory. I'm still of the opinion Electro could have worked.

 

[Suzanne78]

ASM2 will make bank on OW even with bad reviews. The second weekend drop will probably be drastic, though. It could plumet well over 60% if the audience WOM is as bad as the critics' reviews. (Hopefully ASM2's RT score will give people some perspective when the next CBM with >80% positive reviews comes around. )

While I'm not happy that Webb's Spider-Man is getting trashed so badly because I love the character, this is precisely what I expected after seeing the first film. ASM was a mess, with a reinterpretation of Peter Parker as a hipster *****ebag which made the "hero" an unlikable jerk with an unnecessarily jumbled backstory. They should have skipped Spider-Man's origin altogether and started off with him as a college student who had been a hero for several years. Or better yet, they shouldn't have rebooted the franchise at all. Letting it lie fallow for a few years while developing a great script and finding the perfect director would have made more sense than tanking the character with subpar films.

I agree mostly with the above, though I think Sat/Sun erosion due to possible mediocre WOM on social media could affect even OW legs a bit. I think the second weekend drop will be rough, though.

And I absolutely agree with you on the second paragraph. I love Spider-Man. My son is just over two years old and he knows and imitates Spidey all the time (even while holding his Cap shield and making me punch it!) So I want a decent franchise, or at least a continuation from Raimi's work…

It's so blatantly obvious that Sony's rushing development on all these movies, the first one so they wouldn't lose the rights, and this one and the subsequent spinoffs to cash in on Avengersmania, when the development of these things should take time and be carefully thought out and slowly released to the public.

Now we have a TASM2 that's giving a lot of critics agita because it really seems to function as little more than a mediocre blockbuster and cog in the Sony franchise machine rather than as a decent standalone movie.

 

[marcvader]

My favorite incarnation of Spidey is Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends

Me tooo. I watched this religiously back when Saturday mornings were all about Saturday morning cartoons. t:

 

[Suzanne78]

Me tooo. I watched this religiously back when Saturday mornings were all about Saturday morning cartoons. t:

I need to go back and watch this, apparently. Which one was it?

Also is it available on streaming? I'm always up for way more cartoon Spidey (same with Bats, JL, and X-Men!)

 

[MahvelBaby!]

I heard on AMC movie talk that the marketing budget for this thing is in the 150-200m range which is overkill imo.....they need to atleast make 600-700m world wide to break even! Now I expect it to make at least 700m but they were banking on 1billion most likely and I just think the landscape has changed the X-Men films make less and less every year, eventually MS properties will run their course as well, though they have fresh characters to replace the old like Dr Strange, Ant-Man, Guardians.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

$190m is the most quoted number.

 

[marcvader]

I need to go back and watch this, apparently. Which one was it?

Also is it available on streaming? I'm always up for way more cartoon Spidey (same with Bats, JL, and X-Men!)

It was on Netflix streaming but don't know if it's still on.

 

[Naite22]

Anyone else thinking Webb may not come back? I mean Burton got 2 chances and did great but got fired. Donner got fired during Superman 2. Singer got 2 X-Men. Joel got only 2 Batman. Jon got 2 Iron Mans.

Only directors to direct a trilogy is Raimi & Nolan.

I just needed to add the following: BIGGEST ****ing dumb mistake, ever!!

 

[MahvelBaby!]

This Avi Arad doesn't get enough flack IMO

 

[CaptainCraig]

• A retelling of the origin was the largest mistake they made.
• They piled on that by laying in this mystery of his parents.
• They then didn't have him even catch the burgler/killer of Uncle Ben.
• Uncle Ben never utters arguably one of the most quoted phrases in comicdom.
• After telling Raimi he couldn't use Lizard with an actor and character built up over 2 films that would've made an emotional connection pay off, the let Webb and it shows cause it didn't work. Didn't resonate.

They should've just "James Bond'ed" it but they didn't and now they are paying the price. Mediocore TASM, cause really a 70% score is a 'C' grade, average. So no one has real reason to give this a pass like SM3 got based on built up goodwill.

 

[Shikamaru]

You couldn't "James Bond" the franchise. The original franchise skipped over too many stuff. As Webb and the writers themselves said, they grew up Peter Parker too fast. They skipped over Gwen, the high school years, killed off most of the villains, jumped from the origin to "Spider-Man No More" to the "dark side" symbiote suit.

Even without redoing the origin, they would have still needed to reboot.

 

[Leenie]

This Avi Arad doesn't get enough flack IMO

I completely agree.

I find him to be the film equivalent to Joe Quesada for Marvel.

 

[Tymminator]

Sony can't sit on Spider-man for 8 years because it will have well reverted by then. They have to make a movie or lose the rights. I know in the past Marvel had granted extensions, but that was before their own studio became the success it is.


The next few years will be interesting.

 

[InJustice]

Anyone else thinking Webb may not come back? I mean Burton got 2 chances and did great but got fired. Donner got fired during Superman 2. Singer got 2 X-Men. Joel got only 2 Batman. Jon got 2 Iron Mans.

Only directors to direct a trilogy is Raimi & Nolan.

A lot of different contexts to be honest.

- Donner was done because of beef with the Salkinds (Salkinds preferring camp vs. Donner wanting to take Superman seriously).
- Burton was a case of being given too much creative freedom and WB smelling money by making things kid friendly.
- Singer technically has 3 X-Men movies (DOFP) and is about to work on Apocalypse which means numero 4. Not to mention, Singer was unable to do X-Men 3 since he was already signed to do Superman Returns.
- Joel Schuamacher ran the franchise into the ground after a disappointing Box Office run.
- Jon Favreau appears to have been taken out of the director job because of Marvel's attempts to keep costs down. However, we still don't know the full story.