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

Status
Not open for further replies.
for me, the litmus test of this new series/spiderverse is tasm2. if i'm let down by it like i was with tasm1, i'm not following tasm3 news and will probably just see it out of obligation lol.

let's see what you can do webb now that you don't have to retell an origin story. let's see what sony can do now that they have the benefit of hindsight re. what people did and did not like about tasm1.

also, please make it look/feel like a 230 million dollar film this time around.
 
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)

:applaud Well said! This is why everyone's tastes vary so much, because most of the 'deep and richness' we feel with the movie,or any art form, is subjective because it is mostly down to our real life experiences, and sometimes even our dreams. So it isn't really 'deep and richness' as it is emotionally resonating with the viewer for a deep reason. Thus emotional resonance. :woot:
 
for me, the litmus test of this new series/spiderverse is tasm2. if i'm let down by it like i was with tasm1, i'm not following tasm3 news and will probably just see it out of obligation lol.

let's see what you can do webb now that you don't have to retell an origin story. let's see what sony can do now that they have the benefit of hindsight re. what people did and did not like about tasm1.

also, please make it look/feel like a 230 million dollar film this time around.

Eh, I really liked the sort of indy look TASM gave off, made the movie feel very small when it actually wasn't.
 
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:


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.

You missed a very integral point in my post: I'm not trying to prove that Raimi is to blame for the Vulturess. I'm only stating that there isn't proof to either way, it could've been Raimi's idea or it could've been Sony's idea, there's no proof so we can't know. You have only proven that Anne was gonna play Felicia Hardy. That's it. No confirmation that she was gonna be Black Cat or that making her "the Vulturess" was Sony's idea (and I already explained earlier how her last name can be Hardy even when her father would be Toomes)

Even this so called "proof" you're posting aside, you're saying that it's totally obvious that the studio is to blame. I don't think it's obvious either way. If Sam is the huge Spidey fan you say he is, then it's possible that he thought he knows the stuff well enough that he can take artistic licence fans can appreciate with a certain character. We don't even know if he liked Black Cat that much, he disliked Venom, a character with a big fan-base, because he didn't understand the appeal, so it's quite possible (even if he liked most of the classic villans) that he didn't understand Black Cat's appeal either and maybe thought the character was a copy of Catwoman

We know that Raimi really liked Vulture and wanted to include him. He said that he didn't think Venom was exactly a deep enough charater and that's why he didn't originally want him in the movie, so it's kinda ironic that Vulture was the character he was so eager to include. That seems kinda vain to me, and that vanity could be also why he maybe was the one that wanted Felicia to be Vulturess all along, Sony wanting to keep Felicia as Black Cat for betterment of the marketing. Of course Vulture could be adapted into a meaningful character in a movie with the right ideas, but in that case it would be really ignorant to say that Venom doesn't also hold the potential

here's the interview where Raimi talks about Venom. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037557,00.html
Note that my info concerning Venom is in Raimi's actual quotes

conclusion: I don't have actual proof that Raimi created the Vulturess idea, but you also don't have actual proof that Sony/Arad/the producers came up with it, and with logical reasoning one can deduce that it could've happened either way. I hope you wont proceed with another "you have ZERO proof" because that'd be fighting against an argument that is not the one I'm stating
 
Last edited:
Eh, I really liked the sort of indy look TASM gave off, made the movie feel very small when it actually wasn't.

yeah, but that doesn't touch on why it nevertheless took 230 million dollars to make.

i'm fine with how it looked, i just don't see how it cost that much.

tasm2 should reflect the budget it has, whether that budget be relatively small (i.e. considerably less than 230 million) or large (230 million)

i highly doubt they are not going to spend as much money on the sequel so that's why i want the budget to be put to use. otherwise it's just a waste.
 
A lot of people appreciated TASM's colours

But imo the colour combination they went with made the CGI scenes look like a Video game,and when the practical scenes came in,there was a stark difference between them

I heard they hired new guys for that stuff,I hope they make the colours more natural rather than fantastical
 
yeah, but that doesn't touch on why it nevertheless took 230 million dollars to make.

i'm fine with how it looked, i just don't see how it cost that much.

tasm2 should reflect the budget it has, whether that budget be relatively small (i.e. considerably less than 230 million) or large (230 million)

i highly doubt they are not going to spend as much money on the sequel so that's why i want the budget to be put to use. otherwise it's just a waste.

I totally see what you're saying about..."misreflection" of the movie's budget in the first one. Basically, you want this TASM2's budget to reflect in the movie appropriately and clearly throughout. Sure, I'm with ya.
I'm also with the guy who mentioned that TASM had an "indie" look. I wouldn't use that term to describe but I hope TASM2 also has that dark-ish/indentifiable look despite a "brighter" movie.
 
They're filming today and tomorrow 27th St and Madison Ave
 
Last edited:
nice. i kind of hope we get to see electro again.
Hopefully.

I didn't have any problem with the night-time scenes in TASM. They looked pretty slick. We had the high school fight during the day and jumping off the building to test his web shooters. We're going to get a daytime scene with Rhino and something near the bridge here at the very least too.
 
A lot of people appreciated TASM's colours

But imo the colour combination they went with made the CGI scenes look like a Video game,and when the practical scenes came in,there was a stark difference between them

I heard they hired new guys for that stuff,I hope they make the colours more natural rather than fantastical

yeah, the ironic thing about is that they talked so much about how they wanted to put Spider-Man in a real non-stylized world but it still felt really stylized
 
I don't get how it looked too stylized, I've always pictured nighttime New York to be rich in colours.
 
Hopefully.

I didn't have any problem with the night-time scenes in TASM. They looked pretty slick. We had the high school fight during the day and jumping off the building to test his web shooters. We're going to get a daytime scene with Rhino and something near the bridge here at the very least too.

Oh I'm sure we'll have a BUNCH of daylight in TASM2.
 
I don't get how it looked too stylized, I've always pictured nighttime New York to be rich in colours.

so are they filming at night, great i loved how the first suit looked at night i want to see how this one looks but EVERY spider-man film has it´s climax at night
 
yeah, but that doesn't touch on why it nevertheless took 230 million dollars to make.

i'm fine with how it looked, i just don't see how it cost that much.

tasm2 should reflect the budget it has, whether that budget be relatively small (i.e. considerably less than 230 million) or large (230 million)

i highly doubt they are not going to spend as much money on the sequel so that's why i want the budget to be put to use. otherwise it's just a waste.

Imagine how much it cost just to put the Lizard on the big screen. An entirely CGI villain probably was a huge chunk of the budget, which could also explain why the scenes with him were rather short (the bridge and the sewers).

yeah, the ironic thing about is that they talked so much about how they wanted to put Spider-Man in a real non-stylized world but it still felt really stylized

How so? I didn't get that from the movie at all. It can't look EXACTLY like real New York or else it would be too boring, but it certainly feels more realistic than lets say the Raimi films.

I don't get how it looked too stylized, I've always pictured nighttime New York to be rich in colours.

It is very rich in colors, but of course they are a bit more exaggerated in the movie.

Oh I'm sure we'll have a BUNCH of daylight in TASM2.

Definitely, based on set photos.
 
Can we stop all this Spider-man 4 thing? please :)?

It's not like there's anything else to talk about lol TASM2 news is pratically dead right now. Hopefully there'll be a lot of details at Comic Con and I hope and pray someone can sneak a phone or something, in case a teaser trailer isn't released to the general public afterwards like it did last time.
 
It's not like there's anything else to talk about lol TASM2 news is pratically dead right now. Hopefully there'll be a lot of details at Comic Con and I hope and pray someone can sneak a phone or something, in case a teaser trailer isn't released to the general public afterwards like it did last time.

I remember waking up to that "leaked" footage. It was just like someone who worked at a movie theater or something and there was no one in it, and they took a cell phone video.
 
for me, the litmus test of this new series/spiderverse is tasm2. if i'm let down by it like i was with tasm1, i'm not following tasm3 news and will probably just see it out of obligation lol.

I freaking agree to this.

Except for watching TAS-M 3 out of obligation if TAS-M 2 ends up being bad, lol.
 
Anything new to gawk at here? I got stuck on the MoS hype :)
 
for me, the litmus test of this new series/spiderverse is tasm2. if i'm let down by it like i was with tasm1, i'm not following tasm3 news and will probably just see it out of obligation lol.

let's see what you can do webb now that you don't have to retell an origin story. let's see what sony can do now that they have the benefit of hindsight re. what people did and did not like about tasm1.

also, please make it look/feel like a 230 million dollar film this time around.

I freaking agree to this.

Except for watching TAS-M 3 out of obligation if TAS-M 2 ends up being bad, lol.

btw I can appreciate that you guys are giving Sony/Webb a second chance (third if you count SM3) after not liking ASM.

Being that I did thoroughly enjoy it, it would take a substantial amount to screw up the franchise for me. But we'll see when the time comes.
 
It's easy to give a film series a second chance when you realize the product was "meddled" with. A sequel can be the film that shows everything that is meant to be in the film and with that, that's why I'm giving the sequel a chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"