The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - - - - Part 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
And here we go, Spider-Man fans trolling on MOS, just keep quiet, don't make silly comments, this isnt a Marvel-DC war.

im not trolling i havn´t seen the movie, but seems familiar with all this reaction Mix reviews and the forums going ape s*** with them , because people thinking deserving better
 
I seen the man of steel and its a totally different movie in every way to TASM so I don't get why it's being talked about

TASM was more substance, while MOS was action heavy
 
I seen the man of steel and its a totally different movie in every way to TASM so I don't get why it's being talked about

TASM was more substance, while MOS was action heavy


What exactly was more substantial about TASM? Parker "learning" about power & responsibility? Parker being sad about his parents?

I'd love to know where all this rich substance and content was...
 
Oh god lol. Some people are lost/stuck. TASM was pretty much the only superhero film I've seen that had substance. That and the Nolan trilogy.
 
Oh god lol. Some people are lost/stuck. TASM was pretty much the only superhero film I've seen that had substance. That and the Nolan trilogy.

Oh god. lol. Feel free to explain then- Where was the rich substance in TASM? Because I left the theater feeling empty/ripped off. I'd put it on par with the Incredible Hulk (2008) or Daredevil.

There were no more pathos in this film than there were in the original trilogy, particularly, Spider-Man 2 (which is still leagues better than TASM)
 
Guys, let's drop this Man of Steel crap. Seriously. We have a forum for MOS, go there. I don't want the mods to come in here and organize all of you. They have to do it almost on a regular basis. It's embarrassing to be a Spider-Man fan sometimes when this forum is notorious for it's trolling, immaturity, and ability to constantly veer off topic. Man of Steel talk goes in the Man of Steel forum. This is the Spider-Man forum: Let's talk Spider-Man.

Has Marc Webb tweeted a new set pic?
 
Oh god. lol. Feel free to explain then- Where was the rich substance in TASM? Because I left the theater feeling empty/ripped off. I'd put it on par with the Incredible Hulk (2008) or Daredevil.

There were no more pathos in this film than there were in the original trilogy, particularly, Spider-Man 2 (which is still leagues better than TASM)

I feel like it would be a bit hard to explain to you considering it seems like you dislike every recent comic book movie out there.
 
And here we go, Spider-Man fans trolling on MOS, just keep quiet, don't make silly comments, this isnt a Marvel-DC war.

Trolling? Did you even read the majority of our posts? Haha, aside from one guy who has dismissed the film without even seeing it, we were only discussing the similarities in the critic and fan reaction between ASM and MoS.
 
I feel like it would be a bit hard to explain to you considering it seems like you dislike every recent comic book movie out there.


Suit yourself friend. I'm all ears, but if you feel you can't explain why TASM is so deep and rich (more so than any other comic book film apparently) that's okay.

I'm a fan of well made films. Period. I didn't feel TASM was a particularly well made film. You seem to think I've got a grudge against comic book films, for whatever reason. I didn't want TASM to be bad (quite the opposite in fact)- but if a movie like this performs far below the standard that it should (on many levels), I'm not going to excuse it just because it's my favorite character.
 
Suit yourself friend. I'm all ears, but if you feel you can't explain why TASM is so deep and rich (more so than any other comic book film apparently) that's okay.

I'm a fan of well made films. Period. I didn't feel TASM was a particularly well made film. You seem to think I've got a grudge against comic book films, for whatever reason. I didn't want TASM to be bad (quite the opposite in fact)- but if a movie like this performs far below the standard that it should (on many levels), I'm not going to excuse it just because it's my favorite character.

Don't excuse it then, its just your opinion, no one has to get into the typical disagreement where no one can get anywhere
 
Guys, let's drop this Man of Steel crap. Seriously. We have a forum for MOS, go there. I don't want the mods to come in here and organize all of you. They have to do it almost on a regular basis. It's embarrassing to be a Spider-Man fan sometimes when this forum is notorious for it's trolling, immaturity, and ability to constantly veer off topic. Man of Steel talk goes in the Man of Steel forum. This is the Spider-Man forum: Let's talk Spider-Man.

Has Marc Webb tweeted a new set pic?
This is a sad, sad truth.
 
Vid, I wouldn't say TASM is so deep and rich, as I think you want us to explain to you, but it is there to a degree and the movie does have emotional resonance, in my opinion. You say you left the theatre feeling dissapointed and ripped off, but I left that theatre feeling excitement and joy that my favourite hero was back. It's not necassarilly about the substance of the story as it is what resonates with the person watching. To me, that movie was about a young boy growing up to be a man, an outsider trying to finding his 'identity', becoming who he wants to be, outside of his father and uncle. I identified with alot of things, That was the deep and richness for me. but most of all that 'character' in that movie, was more the Spidey that I wanted and grew up knowing then the Spidey in the old trilogy. (and I like the raimi series. Just this was...more)

I know that's probably not at all what you were looking for in a reply but oh well thought I'd share anyway. :)

Oh and I do kind of agree with the last part, there are flaws in the movie, and it isn't the most well made film there is, but the good parts far far outweigh the bad, for me anyway.
 
The only reason MoS was bought up was because the reviews seem to mimick alot of what the reviews said for ASM, an apt comparison really next to Batman Begins. Anyways back to Spidey..:)

So any new news recently that I've missed, as I havn't been around that much.
 
The only reason MoS was bought up was because the reviews seem to mimick alot of what the reviews said for ASM, an apt comparison really next to Batman Begins. Anyways back to Spidey..:)

So any new news recently that I've missed, as I havn't been around that much.
Other than rumors not much else they've been pretty quiet I don't we'll get anything else till comic con
We did something with Jamie on Leno but thats pretty much it
 
Suit yourself friend. I'm all ears, but if you feel you can't explain why TASM is so deep and rich (more so than any other comic book film apparently) that's okay.

I'm a fan of well made films. Period. I didn't feel TASM was a particularly well made film. You seem to think I've got a grudge against comic book films, for whatever reason. I didn't want TASM to be bad (quite the opposite in fact)- but if a movie like this performs far below the standard that it should (on many levels), I'm not going to excuse it just because it's my favorite character.

It has substance. For better or for worse Peter was made out to be a flawed character, with a bit of a temper and speck of over confidence. Andrew's performance had so many subtlities in it, unique movements, Peter's speech problems, his awkwardness. There's substance in how Peter dresses. Notice how throughout the vast majority of the movie (even before having the costume) Peter would always wear a long
sleeve undershirts or jacket, always. That little detail spells out Peter's self-esteem issues, he feels uncomfortable with his body. Things like that, the awkward conversation between Gwen and Peter, their romance aspects, the somewhat tension filled relationship between Peter and Aunt May. Add onto that, the movie has probably the most recongizible musical score of recent comic book movies. It's a flawed movie, but it's not a soulless one.
 
All this talk about TASM makes me want to watch it again yep def in the mood to
 
Vid, I wouldn't say TASM is so deep and rich, as I think you want us to explain to you, but it is there to a degree and the movie does have emotional resonance, in my opinion. You say you left the theatre feeling dissapointed and ripped off, but I left that theatre feeling excitement and joy that my favourite hero was back. It's not necassarilly about the substance of the story as it is what resonates with the person watching. To me, that movie was about a young boy growing up to be a man, an outsider trying to finding his 'identity', becoming who he wants to be, outside of his father and uncle. I identified with alot of things, That was the deep and richness for me. but most of all that 'character' in that movie, was more the Spidey that I wanted and grew up knowing then the Spidey in the old trilogy. (and I like the raimi series. Just this was...more)
I think this is a great way of describing it, when you say emotional resonance. Words like 'substance' and 'depth' might translate in way different ways to different people and also I think imply some feeling of fake importance to things. Importance behind what an individual sees in a movie.

Personally, most movies that are widely said to have depth, I don't really see anything in them beyond what I might or might not see in movies that are usually said to have no depth. Emotional resonance I like, and I equate that idea with things being true, which of course I don't mean similar to reality in a logical sense or even 'grounded' but internally true to themselves and also true to what I see as the forces that drive a person and how these forces, in turn, working from different people, drive events and conflicts. And that exaggerated and altered is what creates drama.

So with that definition when I look at something like TDK, I feel like the Joker is true. There's something perfect about that performance and the way that version of the character was written and what he was supposed to mean in relation to Batman. But in most other ways, I see TDK as being pretty false and empty of real human character behind any of it's 'characters'.

The kind of depth most people seem to see in things like it, to me, just comes off as vague shapes of abstract concepts expressed with lots of keywords in expository dialogue. And it's just doesn't mean much to me when something's theme is said to be Fear. What does that mean? What about Fear? I don't even think there's anything to say that's very interesting just about Fear in the abstract or Chaos or Redemption. That's just cheap sloganeering in a modern package, and it doesn't make something deep. Say the theme of a movie was how Redemption is only found thru Sacrifice. That means nothing. That's what I've come to call 'themey'. And it seems like for comic book movies, it's some kind of trend now that things have to be about some dumb thing.

What actually means a lot is hearing, reading, seeing a story that plays that out in a true way. And that can give me a lot of insight and a new of looking at things that I'd say was genuinely deep, for me to realize. Random examples of movies like this to me are La Strada, Mulholland Drive, Dracula, Dawn of the Dead, Let the Right One In, Battle Royale, Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast. They aren't really about anything and they don't toss up topical issues just for the sake of that they are an issue that people like to talk about. Like a movie about genetic cloning in the future or wiretapping and privacy in TDK. People seem to think that depth or substance also comes from whatever things they read about in the newspaper. Whatever is modernly trending seems to be what most people attribute substance to. A thing's worth is more tied to it's success in capturing some aspect of human experience tho, which isn't gonna change anytime soon. That's why Greek myths are still so crammed with substance, it's all stuff that's lasted purely becuz of that, not cuz of themes and key words, but instead the actual forces at work in the world.

And what you're saying about emotional resonance is a better way of saying it and looking at it, becuz the real sense of meaning we take from these comic book movies is largely what we bring to them. Superheroes are especially good at providing blank canvases to project on. And this is why we always hear people who love DC saying that they think Marvel movies are less meaningful to them and vice versa. Cuz you aren't invested in what you don't know. I love Spider-Man, so any of his movies are gonna affect me in ways that someone who hasn't grown up obsessing and loving this character isn't going to understand. I don't care about DC (except for Superman) so if I see a Batman film I can loved it as a part of the genre but Bruce Wayne's whole schtick of problems comes off as kinda gross to me. It's not that I hate Batman or DC, it's just that I don't have any love for the characters.

What I'm meaning is that emotional resonance is something that more admits that this is totally subjective. And also it takes the focus of things being about something or trying to make some obvious and tired point or having a moral or having to present a major transformation on a journey to full circle with a character and it actually focuses it on what people watch movies for.
Cuz movies aren't books, they're speaking visually and that's where it's power is. Movies like TDK, I think, do have genuine substance, purely by how they look and feel and how that interacts with the characters in the movie. But for a person looking for a more defined kind of depth, how something looks is considered secondary and possibly even superficial. But it's a movie, you know?
People are always saying that David Lynch just makes things up and that his movies have no point behind them becuz they're used to this idea that the film maker controls what something means. And it's the same thing with songs. But that's not the nature of film or of music. It's actually a really wrongheaded approach to either one. What a person imagines doesn't have any less truth just becuz they can't explain it. If you could explain such things, why would u even need to make a movie or write a song about it? These mediums are for unexplainable things. Writing blocks of text like this or term papers are for explainable things.
so yeah, emotional resonance, i like it.

the last thing about this is that when we ask each other 'what was that movie about?' or 'how did you find that movie deep?', I think that's often used to somehow classify or rank or define a movie. And the question at it's best, I think, actually a question about the person who saw the movie. What it all meant to them, and what did they read out of it. So it's not really about the movie at all, it's about the person you're asking it to. And I think that's kind of the problem with how we all, to some extent, are raised to think about art.
(which doesn't imply that there's no such thing as good or bad in art. Cuz there definitely is)
 
Yeah I'm popping that TASM Blu-Ray in right now haha. But anyway I was thinking that after the second movie it'd be cool if they did a time skip for the third since Andrew is almost 30 now it would make total sense and maybe in the third he could be working at the Bugle full time so we could see that side of his supporting cast which seems to be absent in TASM and TASM2
 
^ Yeah I was thinking that too. It would make a lot of sense and actually be kinda fun due to the fact that a lot of things will already be established with the time jump. (Bugle, MJ relationship?, etc)

Yeah no set pic for a couple days now. It's kind of a dull phase for us TASM2 fans right now.
 
I think it matters to some people because if they think that the producers are responsible for everything that was wrong with the Raimi series, it doesn't make it any better that the cast, director and script writers are new, they are still afraid for the sequels because the same producers are on board

I think it was pretty obvious that the studio meddled with Webb's first movie. Rumors were swirling that the studio hated it and it was obviously chopped to hell where entire subplots were dropped mid story. That then lead to the standoff last year when it looked like Webb was not returning where a Sony exec even came out and said that Webb had a movie to do with Fox.

What caused that? Sony? Raimi again somehow? Some people here are pretty blatant with their hypocrisy that it's laughable.
 
What exactly was more substantial about TASM? Parker "learning" about power & responsibility? Parker being sad about his parents?

I'd love to know where all this rich substance and content was...

The scenes with Gwen and Aunt May are the most important things to take from the movie. They tried to make Peter very relatable.
 
But that's my whole point. I'm not trying to prove that Raimi came up with the Vulturess. I was pointing out that the links chaseter provided don't work to his advantage at all, or to anyone's advantage with the opposite view for that matter

My view is that Raimi might have been the one that was against the Vulturess, but that it also could've been the other way around just the same. There's no proof thus we can't know so it's useless to point fingers

I will say this one last time and then let the few that continue to throw darts at the Raimi board continue to do so as it somehow makes them feel better or some sort of gratification idk...

There is no proof that Raimi came up with the Vulturess. ZERO. That's that. People have no evidence of any of that. Not a single person is quoted to saying that Raimi wanted Vultueress. No one.

On the obvious side, Raimi says that Hathaway would have played Felicia Hardy. Felicia Hardy is Black Cat. Raimi knows SM3 was not good and wanted to make SM4 a quality movie. He said so himself. Raimi is also a devout comic fanboy. He hasn't made up a new villain in three movies but now he is? Sony executives on the other hand meddled with SM3 heavily. But now somehow...it's switched?

Those are simple facts that my links back up. Not a single person can logically think opposite unless they can't think logically or feel the need to live in delusion. If you need more proof, look at the timeline of what happened. Let me make this simple, click them in order as they are chronological:

McAdams to play Black Cat? Nov. 2009
http://collider.com/is-rachel-mcadams-playing-black-cat-in-spider-man-4/

Hathaway to play Black Cat? Nov. 2009
http://collider.com/another-spider-man-4-casting-rumor-anne-hathaway-approached-to-play-black-cat/

Malkovich as Vulture, Hathaway as Vulturess? Dec. 2009
http://collider.com/john-malkovich-...black-cat-but-as-new-character-the-vulturess/

Script problems... Jan. 2010
http://collider.com/spider-man-4-st...lease-date-now-uncertain-could-film-be-in-3d/
And this little gem:
However, one potential casting casualty could be Anne Hathaway. Sony had been interested in Hathaway but a studio insider stated, “I’m not so sure we’re going in that direction.” Adding to this was the potential for Hathaway to cost too much in a role that did not need “such a big star.”

Vulturess confirmed? Jan. 2010
http://collider.com/john-malkovich-waiting-for-spider-man-4-script-vulture-confirmed/

So...Black Cat...then Vultures...then script problems...then delays in shooting which then lead to the death of the movie as Raimi walks out. If Raimi originally wanted Vulturess, then we would have heard about that first. If Raimi didn't want Black Cat, then that would have caused script problems which lead to the delays in shooting. For some reason, it's the other way around.

The End.
 
Can we stop all this Spider-man 4 thing? please :)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,271
Messages
22,077,747
Members
45,879
Latest member
Tliadescspon
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"