RottenTomato critic ratings for CBMs do you think are way too low?

[kedrell]

That's not the point. He abducted a suspect, took him to a back alley, tied him up, and terrorized him with a gun. This is not standard noble D.A. behavior. Could you see Jim Gordon or any other decent public servant doing that? No. It was a prelude to the kind of dark side Dent had when something he cared about was threatened, let alone taken from him altogether.

It's still a far cry from any hint of insanity. I could easily see most people knowing the situation he was in completely sympathizing with his tough cop routine. Especially if they know it's all a bluff. And yes, I could see Jim Gordon doing that if pushed far enough. I could see just about anybody doing that.

 

[The Joker]

It's still a far cry from any hint of insanity.

Really abduction and terror tactics with a gun are signs of normalcy and sanity for a D.A.?

I could easily see most people knowing the situation he was in completely sympathizing with his tough cop routine.

I could easily see most people sympathizing with him seeking revenge on the ones responsible for horribly disfiguring him and killing the woman he loves, too, but that doesn't mean it's right or sane.

You can often sympathize with someone even if you disagree with their actions.

And yes, I could see Jim Gordon doing that if pushed far enough. I could see just about anybody doing that.

Then you have a bizarre view of Gordon and people in general.

 

[Human Torch]

It's more about all of Jor-El's warnings against doing it coming to nothing. None, zip, nada. No price is paid by Supes for doing that. What a useless subplot then.

There was never a warning that it would result in dire consequences.It was a moral stance that Jor-El wanted to set for Kal.That he should lead humanity,but not shape it's destiny.(Kind of a Kryptonian "Prime Directive" if you will.)

You get that in the more recently added scene between Kal & his dad in the FOS: ("Humanity abuses it's resources...") and in Superman II (particularly Donner's version) when he warns Kal not to set one human above the rest.

The idea was that Supe was so desperate to save Lois,he was willing to disobey Jor-El.But it was something that (if it were to work-he didn't even know it would at that point.) he wouldn't do again for anything,and wouldn't have done it for anybody else but Lois to begin with.

 

[weezerspider]

^ I think you're glossing over and trivializing the extent to which Avengers delved into the characters. It was a highlight of the film without question, and I think you're also missing the fact that the action itself was a method Whedon used to explore that depth. Every conflict in the movie up to and including the climax was relevant to each characters sensibilities, and the climax itself reflected their cohesion and growth as a team. The easy way out would've been to show the Avengers battling Loki and his cronies endlessly & aimlessly for 2 hours, but such was not the case. Taking the action at face value is missing the message, to a degree.

Otherwise, your conclusion isn't unequivocally true in the least. Watchmen was a damn good character study, but as a film, I don't think it holds a candle to the likes of action-driven films like Die Hard or Terminator 2. You can't shoehorn movies into boxes like that, because for every one example that you think illustrates that point, there are dozens of others that would refute it.

With all that being said, I do agree that Spider-Man 2 was a better film than Avengers.

Notice I said a well executed character study. Snyder's execution wasn't close to Cameron's on Terminator 2 or Spielberg's on 'Raider's' or Lucas on the first Star Wars film. I would say Whedon and Raimi executed their stories the same. Both were extremely well executed. I'm not bashing The Avengers. I think Whedon nearly perfected what he was trying to accomplish. Same with Raimi. However, Raimi attempted something deeper and something easier to get in depth with because he has one protagonist.

And how are all the action sequences deep character moments?

1. Loki vs SHIELD- We learn Loki is badass and pissed off at the world and plans to destroy it. We learn SHIELD is outgunned and Fury is desperate for something or someone to stop Loki. That's what you learn about your character's in that action scene. That's mostly just plot development with little hints at the characters. Certainly not deep character development.

2. Cap vs Loki(and Iron Man at the end)- Again, Loki wants to rule the world. Cap stands up against him. Cap's got balls and heroism running through his blood fighting a god he doesn't have much of a chance with. Nothing out of the ordinary of a typical superhero story there. Nothing very deep. We learn IM is full of himself with his dramatic appearance. All of this are little moments that anyone who saw the previous films would know. Its simply re-introducing the characters. Its not bad, but certainly nothing to write home about as far as character development and depth goes.

3. Thor vs Iron Man(and Cap at the end)- Thor and IM don't fear each other, nor do they respect each other, yet they have at least a little bit of respect for Cap. Again, nothing bad, but nothing extraordinary either.

4. Thor vs Hulk- These guys are strong. Banner can't control Hulk. Thor must somewhat respect Banner because he tries to reason with him. Again, not bad, but nothing particularly deep.

5. Black Widow vs Hawkeye- This has the second most depth in an action sequence in the film. Two former allies, close friends, possible love interests, fighting 'to the death'. However,its not nearly as dramatic as it could be because Hawkeye is simply being controlled. No drama on his end. The drama comes from Black Widow because she knows what she's doing. This is brought up a few times in the film. It could have been expanded on, but this is a big film with a lot of moving pieces. Its understandable why it wasn't.

6. Cap and Iron Man against Loki's guards/ fixing the hellicarrier- Cap and Iron Man are heroes. They put their differences aside and team up to save the day. Iron Man is smarter than Cap in technology. Yeah, again, nothing bad, but not some great character moment amongst the action.

7. Final battle- Cap's the leader. Everyone sets aside their differences to work together to save the world. Banner randomly can control The Hulk even though earlier that day he couldn't. Iron Man can lay himself on the wire and sacrifice himself. Iron Man does have a big character moment in this action sequence for sure. However, no one else really does. Sure they work together to save the world, but it was pretty random. Black Widow and Hawkeye work for SHIELD and work for Fury. We can assume they were going to be team players from the start. Cap and Iron Man showed during the hellicarrier that they can work together. Thor and Hulk come together with everyone else at the end. Hulk partly due to Tony's speech.


So overall, yeah there are a few little character moments in the action, sure, but aside from Iron Man's sacrifice, Whedon didn't have any huge character moments or deep character statements in the action scenes. He did not 'explore and get to the depth' of these characters at very great lengths in the action sequences. The scene he dives the most into the characters is when they are bickering with each other and even that is mainly a plot point to show Loki's control and influence over the team leading to an action sequence.

Spiderman 2 dives into the psychological aspects of its hero and really lets us learn who the character of Peter Parker is. Obviously its easier to do that with one hero. 'The Avengers' IMO, is about as good of an 'origin' Avengers film that we could get, IMO. The nature of 'team building' stories means you can't have as much as depth for each character because you've got to get the team together first. Avengers 2 can and should dive deeper in its character's and Joss Whedon knows that, hence his comment about how making Avengers smaller and more personal being the only way to 'top' the first film.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't really see a problem with the scores. The problem is the way in which people think about RT scores. People tend to compare the %'s to the scores they recieved in school, a C or average being around 80 or so. But that's not the way RT works. Because the percentages only measure the number of critics judging a movie on a binary GOOD/BAD scale, a truly mixed rating would be 50% A score around 60% then would be about an "average" rating. By that measure I'd say that the scores shown are about right. MOS seems to be getting a weird amount of hate though. A score in the mid 60's I could understand.

 

[spider-neil]

I definitely agree you get character moments during the action in Avengers. It's one of the things I really like about the movie.

 

[The Joker]

Notice I said a well executed character study. Snyder's execution wasn't close to Cameron's on Terminator 2 or Spielberg's on 'Raider's' or Lucas on the first Star Wars film. I would say Whedon and Raimi executed their stories the same. Both were extremely well executed. I'm not bashing The Avengers. I think Whedon nearly perfected what he was trying to accomplish. Same with Raimi. However, Raimi attempted something deeper and something easier to get in depth with because he has one protagonist.

And how are all the action sequences deep character moments?

1. Loki vs SHIELD- We learn Loki is badass and pissed off at the world and plans to destroy it. We learn SHIELD is outgunned and Fury is desperate for something or someone to stop Loki. That's what you learn about your character's in that action scene. That's mostly just plot development with little hints at the characters. Certainly not deep character development.

2. Cap vs Loki(and Iron Man at the end)- Again, Loki wants to rule the world. Cap stands up against him. Cap's got balls and heroism running through his blood fighting a god he doesn't have much of a chance with. Nothing out of the ordinary of a typical superhero story there. Nothing very deep. We learn IM is full of himself with his dramatic appearance. All of this are little moments that anyone who saw the previous films would know. Its simply re-introducing the characters. Its not bad, but certainly nothing to write home about as far as character development and depth goes.

3. Thor vs Iron Man(and Cap at the end)- Thor and IM don't fear each other, nor do they respect each other, yet they have at least a little bit of respect for Cap. Again, nothing bad, but nothing extraordinary either.

4. Thor vs Hulk- These guys are strong. Banner can't control Hulk. Thor must somewhat respect Banner because he tries to reason with him. Again, not bad, but nothing particularly deep.

5. Black Widow vs Hawkeye- This has the second most depth in an action sequence in the film. Two former allies, close friends, possible love interests, fighting 'to the death'. However,its not nearly as dramatic as it could be because Hawkeye is simply being controlled. No drama on his end. The drama comes from Black Widow because she knows what she's doing. This is brought up a few times in the film. It could have been expanded on, but this is a big film with a lot of moving pieces. Its understandable why it wasn't.

6. Cap and Iron Man against Loki's guards/ fixing the hellicarrier- Cap and Iron Man are heroes. They put their differences aside and team up to save the day. Iron Man is smarter than Cap in technology. Yeah, again, nothing bad, but not some great character moment amongst the action.

7. Final battle- Cap's the leader. Everyone sets aside their differences to work together to save the world. Banner randomly can control The Hulk even though earlier that day he couldn't. Iron Man can lay himself on the wire and sacrifice himself. Iron Man does have a big character moment in this action sequence for sure. However, no one else really does. Sure they work together to save the world, but it was pretty random. Black Widow and Hawkeye work for SHIELD and work for Fury. We can assume they were going to be team players from the start. Cap and Iron Man showed during the hellicarrier that they can work together. Thor and Hulk come together with everyone else at the end. Hulk partly due to Tony's speech.


So overall, yeah there are a few little character moments in the action, sure, but aside from Iron Man's sacrifice, Whedon didn't have any huge character moments or deep character statements in the action scenes. He did not 'explore and get to the depth' of these characters at very great lengths in the action sequences. The scene he dives the most into the characters is when they are bickering with each other and even that is mainly a plot point to show Loki's control and influence over the team leading to an action sequence.

Spiderman 2 dives into the psychological aspects of its hero and really lets us learn who the character of Peter Parker is. Obviously its easier to do that with one hero. 'The Avengers' IMO, is about as good of an 'origin' Avengers film that we could get, IMO. The nature of 'team building' stories means you can't have as much as depth for each character because you've got to get the team together first. Avengers 2 can and should dive deeper in its character's and Joss Whedon knows that, hence his comment about how making Avengers smaller and more personal being the only way to 'top' the first film.

Wonderful post.

Bravo

 

[spider-neil]

I don't really see a problem with the scores. The problem is the way in which people think about RT scores. People tend to compare the %'s to the scores they recieved in school, a C or average being around 80 or so. But that's not the way RT works. Because the percentages only measure the number of critics judging a movie on a binary GOOD/BAD scale, a truly mixed rating would be 50% A score around 60% then would be about an "average" rating. By that measure I'd say that the scores shown are about right. MOS seems to be getting a weird amount of hate though. A score in the mid 60's I could understand.

It's telling that with MoS the critic score is low but the audience rating is high. It's weird to see such a large disconnect, usually the audience and critic score is roughly the same.

 

[redhawk23]

With ASM, I think reviewers felt that had seen this movie before, hence the score. Retelling of Origins isn't a problem for comic fans as a hero's origin is retold and rebooted over and over again, we're used to it, the general audience are not.
That said, how many times has Shakespeare been retold or the Greek myths?

Plays are not the same thing as films. There have been many presentations of Shakespeare plays, to be sure, but in that case the text is pretty much always the same. What is really focused upon in that context is the acting. Even then, for a major production, there better be something pretty damn special about a new revival of a Shakespeare play or else it is going to be slammed. Shakespeare in the Park isn't the same as the National Theater.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So what was so deep about SM2's character development?

Peter has to overcome first world problems to save his own family from a crazed maniac.

How is this a deep psychological character study?

 

[spider-neil]

So what was so deep about SM2's character development?

Peter has to overcome first world problems to save his own family from a crazed maniac.

How is this a deep psychological character study?

Peter has to put his desires on hold not because he wants to but because that what the world needs. How many people died while Peter was free of the burden of Spider-Man. We actually hear that one person died in the fire while Peter was saving the girl.

Maybe it wasn't 'deep' but to me at least it was fascinating.

 

[Hammer!]

For the most part I actually think RT has been pretty spot on with CBMs. Without reading the RT scores before hand, I thought MOS was a mid-60's film, so 56 might be a little low. Thor should be up to the 80's. That movie is pretty underrated in my book. Spider-Man 1 and 2 should be a little lower, and TDKR should be substantially lower.

 

[weezerspider]

So what was so deep about SM2's character development?

Peter has to overcome first world problems to save his own family from a crazed maniac.

How is this a deep psychological character study?

Well first, the film opens showing Peter's financial issues. It shows that the fact he is a hero is the reason he HAS financial issues. Not only is Peter sacrifice his physical well-being in battle for people, but he sacrifices his time which leads to poor grades, the inability to keep a consistent job and the lack of a social life. This shows us the true realities of being a hero. He literally sacrifices everything in his life, more than just the obvious physical sacrifice in battle. Its a very real life depiction of heroes. How many firefighters and police men miss their girlfriend's recital or the kids graduation because they are off being a hero. Its a stereotype in film, but a lot of cops get divorces simply because they don't have the time to put in their marriage because all of their life is consumed with being a hero. There is no off duty for them or for Spiderman. Its not fair. Its simply not fair. Peter has a great heart and every move he makes is for the greater good, the good for others and how does this cruel world repay him? By having the girl he loves thinks he's a jerk, by having his brilliance go to waste in school because he can't make class and he can't even pay his bills. With Great Power, comes great responsibility. And with Great Responsibility comes great sacrifice.

Peter's best friend believes Spiderman killed his father. He is disgusted by Spiderman and wants to kill him. And he lets this known to Peter. We see in the birthday party scene a glimpse of the terrible situation he is in in his relationship with Harry, his dearest friend. What can you do? You didn't kill his father. His father was trying to kill hundreds of people. But you can't tell him that either, no, that would devastate him. But its certainly not easy sitting quiet and hearing your best friend say these terrible things and build this strong hatred for you, even if he doesn't realize it is you. This is what Peter deals with with Harry.


So Spiderman puts unbelievable tension on Harry and Peter's relationship, pretty much ruins Peter and MJ's relationship and finally Peter asks, "why the hell am I doing this? Because I have great power. If only I didn't have great power...". Well the mind is a funny thing and psychologically through anxiety and whatever, Peter's powers quit working. He's free. At last! And its wonderful. He shines in school, patches up his relationship with MJ and seems unbelievably happy...because he IS happy. Thats the sad and disturbing part. The hero ISN'T happy. The hero ISN'T supposed to get everything right because thats against the nature of sacrifice, which is the essence of heroism. The most disturbing scene in the film is when Peter hears a siren and shrugs it off. He's happy. Raimi's got joyous music playing in the background and the audience doesn't go 'How dare he!'. Why? Because that IS us. The majority of us aren't heroes. We'd rather be happy than sacrifice. But Peter, deep down, is a hero, with or without powers. He sees the boy next door looking up to Spiderman. He's reminded by Aunt May why people need heroes and he hurts. He knows he's wrong. He even asks himself if he's not supposed to be happy. He shows his true heroic colors when he, without powers, goes and sacrifices his well being to save a little girl in a fire. He succeeds and feels good about himself until he finds out someone died in the fire.

So now Peter is stuck between a hard place and rock. What should he do? What will he do? It becomes apparent he is slowly realizing he is a hero and he will take that mantle upon himself regardless of the sacrifices and be the man he was born to be. BUT then MJ tells him she might love him in the caffee. Everything he ever wanted is right there for the taking. He would have never become Spiderman in the first place without MJ. Without MJ, he wouldn't have wanted a car so bad that he would of tried the wrestling challenge. Without that, Uncle Ben may still be living and Spiderman may not exist. Its right there for Peter. Peter's most heroic deed in the whole film is turning her away. He begins to tell her no, when Ock comes and Peter gets his powers back. Why? Not for the convenience of the plot. No, he got his powers back because the moment he turned down MJ was the moment he took up his place as a hero, as Spiderman. It was the moment he became a hero again. Therefore, he got his powers back. He became a stronger hero than ever before.

Thats why Spiderman 2 is deeper than The Avengers. Its a true character study. Its a true look at the real life sacrifices of being a hero. Nolanites will hate me for this, but I honestly believe, without Spiderman 2, there is no TDK. Raimi's Spiderman 2 was a pioneer for Nolan's series and began asking real questions about our heroes. Nolan took that and ran with it. Spiderman 2 is about the character of Peter Parker, Spiderman. The fact that it has great action sequences, like the train sequence, is just icing on the cake.

 

[kedrell]

Really abduction and terror tactics with a gun are signs of normalcy and sanity for a D.A.?

I don't think you watch many crime dramas(which the movie very much wants to be). The tough guy act Dent pulled is tame by any standards of the genre. Scaring a possible informant who also himself is a criminal involved in the crime you are investigating is a fairly common tactic. You must think Jack Bauer is history's greatest monster. This movie really wants to be Heat. Did you think Pacino's character in Heat was verging on insanity when he actually assaulted a witness who's turning informant on De Niro's guys ended up getting a friend of Al's killed?

I could buy this stuff as reasonable motivation for the turn if TDK was like a Burton movie....basically a live action cartoon. But it's not. And so it goes against it's internal logic.

I could easily see most people sympathizing with him seeking revenge on the ones responsible for horribly disfiguring him and killing the woman he loves, too, but that doesn't mean it's right or sane.

You can often sympathize with someone even if you disagree with their actions.

Even sympathizing with turning against his friends who had been trying to help and yet failed? This is just like Nero in Star Trek crap and his vendetta against Spock. It made no sense there or here.

Then you have a bizarre view of Gordon and people in general.

What is so difficult to understand about the willingness to scare someone when a loved one's life is on the line? I think 90% of the population when faced with such a choice would do likewise, if not more.

And let's be clear here, the only thing Dent is guilty of is scaring a guy. Yeah, that's right on the edge of sanity.

 

[Hammer!]

You bring up some good points that I personally glossed over, Kedrell. Harvey Dent's downward spiral to insanity did seem forced and contrived. If his character had been as righteous as Harry Callahan or Martin Riggs it would have been much more believable.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well first, the film opens showing Peter's financial issues. It shows that the fact he is a hero is the reason he HAS financial issues. Not only is Peter sacrifice his physical well-being in battle for people, but he sacrifices his time which leads to poor grades, the inability to keep a consistent job and the lack of a social life. This shows us the true realities of being a hero. He literally sacrifices everything in his life, more than just the obvious physical sacrifice in battle. Its a very real life depiction of heroes. How many firefighters and police men miss their girlfriend's recital or the kids graduation because they are off being a hero. Its a stereotype in film, but a lot of cops get divorces simply because they don't have the time to put in their marriage because all of their life is consumed with being a hero. There is no off duty for them or for Spiderman. Its not fair. Its simply not fair. Peter has a great heart and every move he makes is for the greater good, the good for others and how does this cruel world repay him? By having the girl he loves thinks he's a jerk, by having his brilliance go to waste in school because he can't make class and he can't even pay his bills. With Great Power, comes great responsibility. And with Great Responsibility comes great sacrifice.

Peter's best friend believes Spiderman killed his father. He is disgusted by Spiderman and wants to kill him. And he lets this known to Peter. We see in the birthday party scene a glimpse of the terrible situation he is in in his relationship with Harry, his dearest friend. What can you do? You didn't kill his father. His father was trying to kill hundreds of people. But you can't tell him that either, no, that would devastate him. But its certainly not easy sitting quiet and hearing your best friend say these terrible things and build this strong hatred for you, even if he doesn't realize it is you. This is what Peter deals with with Harry.


So Spiderman puts unbelievable tension on Harry and Peter's relationship, pretty much ruins Peter and MJ's relationship and finally Peter asks, "why the hell am I doing this? Because I have great power. If only I didn't have great power...". Well the mind is a funny thing and psychologically through anxiety and whatever, Peter's powers quit working. He's free. At last! And its wonderful. He shines in school, patches up his relationship with MJ and seems unbelievably happy...because he IS happy. Thats the sad and disturbing part. The hero ISN'T happy. The hero ISN'T supposed to get everything right because thats against the nature of sacrifice, which is the essence of heroism. The most disturbing scene in the film is when Peter hears a siren and shrugs it off. He's happy. Raimi's got joyous music playing in the background and the audience doesn't go 'How dare he!'. Why? Because that IS us. The majority of us aren't heroes. We'd rather be happy than sacrifice. But Peter, deep down, is a hero, with or without powers. He sees the boy next door looking up to Spiderman. He's reminded by Aunt May why people need heroes and he hurts. He knows he's wrong. He even asks himself if he's not supposed to be happy. He shows his true heroic colors when he, without powers, goes and sacrifices his well being to save a little girl in a fire. He succeeds and feels good about himself until he finds out someone died in the fire.

So now Peter is stuck between a hard place and rock. What should he do? What will he do? It becomes apparent he is slowly realizing he is a hero and he will take that mantle upon himself regardless of the sacrifices and be the man he was born to be. BUT then MJ tells him she might love him in the caffee. Everything he ever wanted is right there for the taking. He would have never become Spiderman in the first place without MJ. Without MJ, he wouldn't have wanted a car so bad that he would of tried the wrestling challenge. Without that, Uncle Ben may still be living and Spiderman may not exist. Its right there for Peter. Peter's most heroic deed in the whole film is turning her away. He begins to tell her no, when Ock comes and Peter gets his powers back. Why? Not for the convenience of the plot. No, he got his powers back because the moment he turned down MJ was the moment he took up his place as a hero, as Spiderman. It was the moment he became a hero again. Therefore, he got his powers back. He became a stronger hero than ever before.

Thats why Spiderman 2 is deeper than The Avengers. Its a true character study. Its a true look at the real life sacrifices of being a hero. Nolanites will hate me for this, but I honestly believe, without Spiderman 2, there is no TDK. Raimi's Spiderman 2 was a pioneer for Nolan's series and began asking real questions about our heroes. Nolan took that and ran with it. Spiderman 2 is about the character of Peter Parker, Spiderman. The fact that it has great action sequences, like the train sequence, is just icing on the cake.

While I appreciate your effort to explain I disagree these conflicts qualify SM2 as a character study, deep or otherwise.

It's basic soap opera territory.

Any movie with SM2's raindrops falling montage as a way to explore the title chacter's problems is not meant to be taken seriously as a character study.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think you watch many crime dramas(which the movie very much wants to be).

I've seen plenty of crime dramas, thanks.

The tough guy act Dent pulled is tame by any standards of the genre. Scaring a possible informant who also himself is a criminal involved in the crime you are investigating is a fairly common tactic.

It might be a common tactic for thugs or vigilantes or Cops who constantly break the rules. Not for respectable D.A.'s who play by the book.

You must think Jack Bauer is history's greatest monster. This movie really wants to be Heat. Did you think Pacino's character in Heat was verging on insanity when he actually assaulted a witness who's turning informant on De Niro's guys ended up getting a friend of Al's killed?

I could buy this stuff as reasonable motivation for the turn if TDK was like a Burton movie....basically a live action cartoon. But it's not. And so it goes against it's internal logic.

Different characters, different styles, different motivations. I didn't call Dent a monster. He's a sympathetic villain acting out of vengeance for the wrongs that were done to him.

But the fact he does wrong is what makes him a villain.

Even sympathizing with turning against his friends who had been trying to help and yet failed?

Yes, because Dent did warn Gordon about the corruption in his unit but Gordon didn't act upon it. Hence why Dent was like "Why would you listen to me now?" when he was quizzing him about which of his men could he trust.

This is just like Nero in Star Trek crap and his vendetta against Spock. It made no sense there or here.

Never saw it so I can't comment. But given your comments I doubt it's the same.

What is so difficult to understand about the willingness to scare someone when a loved one's life is on the line? I think 90% of the population when faced with such a choice would do likewise, if not more.

That is understandable. It's also understandable to want revenge on the people who were responsible for killing a loved one and mutilating your face.

That doesn't make it right or mean 90% of the population would go on a murder spree any more than they would abduct someone and terrorize them with a gun.

And let's be clear here, the only thing Dent is guilty of is scaring a guy. Yeah, that's right on the edge of sanity.

He's also guilty of abducting him and terrorizing him with a gun.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You bring up some good points that I personally glossed over, Kedrell. Harvey Dent's downward spiral to insanity did seem forced and contrived. If his character had been as righteous as Harry Callahan or Martin Riggs it would have been much more believable.

I think a secret file on Dent putting a bully in the hospital and signs of a hidden- surpressed personality would've done wonders for his character arc.

Anything would've been better than Mad Face which couldn't be a more forced result from traumatic loss.

 

[Hammer!]

While I appreciate your effort to explain I disagree these conflicts qualify SM2 as a character study, deep or otherwise.

It's basic soap opera territory.

Any movie with SM2's raindrops falling montage as a way to explore the title chacter's problems is not meant to be taken seriously as a character study.

Spider-man 2 suffered from a second act that was nothing but wheel spinning, and a weak villain plot that was designed so he actually had something to do. The mechanical tentacles having a mind of their own was just a device given since changing the character into a villain after the accident would have seemed out of character.

The script in 2 was weak, even though the performances are quite good, particularly Molina's Doc Ock. Spider-man 1 had a much better script, and the Goblin overall made for a better villain. I don't get the consensus that SM2 is the best of the trilogy. I thought the original was a better film in almost every area, minus the ludicrously outdated special effects.

 

[weezerspider]

While I appreciate your effort to explain I disagree these conflicts qualify SM2 as a character study, deep or otherwise.

It's basic soap opera territory.

Any movie with SM2's raindrops falling montage as a way to explore the title chacter's problems is not meant to be taken seriously as a character study.

Listen to the lyrics of the song. It's about a guy who's happy despite things going wrong, despite it raining. This is how Spider-Man is in the comics. His personal life as I explained sucks, but he says chipper and jokes around and is happy and content being the hero and living his life. However, in Spider-Man 2, Peter is immature and is actually in te exact opposite. It's rather disturbing. He is happy while the rain is the guy being mugged he walks by or the fire sirens his ignores. It's ok the world is going to hell because he's happy. That's the exact opposite of what a hero is. He's being selfish and naive. Later he grows into the hero and superhero from the comics.

And The Avengers is just as soap operatic. It's a group of people who don't get along for the sake of drama for the story who all conviantly come together at the end.

And the least you could do is give some kind of argument instead of 'no everything you thought out is wrong'. Hey critics agree it's the deepest non-Nolan superhero film. Id like a legit rebuttal with legit reasoning. Don't leave me hanging bro.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Peter has to overcome first world problems to save his own family from a crazed maniac.

Yeah, first world problems like being one step from being homeless. You act like Peter's upset because being Spider-Man caused him to lose at Call of Duty.

 

[weezerspider]

Yeah, first world problems like being one step from being homeless. You act like Peter's upset because being Spider-Man caused him to lose at Call of Duty.

Did you know your best friend trying to kill you is a first world problem?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah, first world problems like being one step from being homeless. You act like Peter's upset because being Spider-Man caused him to lose at Call of Duty.

Are you talking about being late with rent?

Lot's of Americans have that problem. It doesn't really qualify as some deep psychological issue.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Did you know your best friend trying to kill you is a first world problem?

Every Spider-man movie has someone close to Peter Parker trying to kill him.

It has to be normal and expected for Parker at this point.

But yeah, late rent, wishy washy girlfriend, etc are first world problems. Every Avenger was dealing with deeper issues.

 

[kedrell]

It might be a common tactic for thugs or vigilantes or Cops who constantly break the rules. Not for respectable D.A.'s who play by the book.

Who says Dent is above playing hardball. Ask Lao. Dent keeps threatening to have him killed by sending him to county jail. So does Rachel, btw. Is she mentally unbalanced as well?

Different characters, different styles, different motivations. I didn't call Dent a monster. He's a sympathetic villain acting out of vengeance for the wrongs that were done to him.

But the fact he does wrong is what makes him a villain.

Not really. They are both playing it straight. Not like Burton's series where it was a dark live action cartoon. And I never said you called Dent a monster. I said that if this is how you see what Dent was doing then Jack Bauer must really be one step away from being a full blown monster/super villain. Because what Dent does has nothing on him. Ultimately Dent is harming no one. Just scaring a guy for info.

Yes, because Dent did warn Gordon about the corruption in his unit but Gordon didn't act upon it. Hence why Dent was like "Why would you listen to me now?" when he was quizzing him about which of his men could he trust.

And Gordon warned him right back about the same issue in Dent's own office. Et tu, Dente'?

Never saw it so I can't comment. But given your comments I doubt it's the same.

Nero was a romulan who's planet was threatened by a supernova. Spock tried to help but arrived too late and Nero's planet was destroyed along with his wife who was on it. Now Nero wants revenge on Spock for failing to help in time even though he tried.

That is understandable. It's also understandable to want revenge on the people who were responsible for killing a loved one and mutilating your face.

That doesn't make it right or mean 90% of the population would go on a murder spree any more than they would abduct someone and terrorize them with a gun.

How are going on a murder spree and taking someone who was already in your custody and scaring them(which he already had shown the willingness to do with Lao) even remotely equivalent? I can't see many people at all doing the former but I can see a helluva lot of people being willing to do the latter if it's to save a loved one's life.

He's also guilty of abducting him and terrorizing him with a gun.

You go out of your way to use the words abduction and terrorize. Why not say Rachel was terrorizing Lao? Is she on the verge of insanity?

Batman abducts Lao. Is he on the verge of snapping?

It's scare tactics upon a criminal that law enforcement already had in custody. It's not like he went to a suspects house in the middle of the night and dragged him out of bed and stuck a gun in his mouth with full intent to kill him. It was a tactic and Dent was in control the whole time. Sure, it wasn't strictly speaking legal but rules get bent in desperate situations. It's hardly a sign of a mind that's primed to crack.