Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Amazing Spider-Man Movies' started by Thread Manager, Jun 19, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]459423[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]458989[/split]
To be fair do we know if this film will flop or not so there won't be sequels or is this a film all films together thing?
Rephrase that please.
Actually, no, its not a HORRIBLE example. You clearly did not see the purpose of bringing up Bane's origin scene.
She had a purpose, and its been stated quite a number of times. They wanted to introduce her for future films. It was like planting the seeds.
Several films hint at other characters and introduce them without making them enemies yet. Why is it all of a sudden such a bad thing that TASM2 does? Or why don't people even believe that's what they're doing?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious.
why wouldnt toomes and hardy be in the film? it would be stupid to have there villians in the movie not just because of the whole too many villians thing which is overrateed but because screen time lack of fight scenes taking away from the main villian not enough time for peter and gwen back stories would have to be established not only with toomes and felicia but with electro and rhino plus show transformations???? the run time would be 2weeks and im sure marc webb is saving villians for future movies
Is it a certainty that the film she is in will do well and get sequels?
^You need to work on your grammar, its hard to read your posts amazingly atiba.
just cause a villians normal persona is in the movie doesnt mean he will be in the movie as a villian A.K.A toomes and felicia its called hinting at things or teasing future villians
I don't think we could possibly tell now whether it will be successful or not, we're not clairvoyants
Exactly! But I guess only Webb isn't allowed to do that.
sorry about that. its just that i get so heated on these discussions that i type really fast. ill try better ^ picard sisko
People are so willing to believe the spin machine.
Thing is, no screenplay:
- Has a character that absolutely means nothing that is there for a number of scenes.
- How exactly can they know the scenes don't "stream-line" while filming? These are things you find out in the editing process. And if they're really not working that well as this seems to be, you would know from the script.
- Studios don't shelve out filming equipment and pay an actress to work on scenes that they find present no meaning to the film at all. This isn't a bunch of wacky people running around and making it up as they go along, or at least it's not supposed to be. Something happened that wasn't supposed to that they needed to fix.
You can see how readily -- and blindly -- people think about Gwen's death. The crew knew whether Gwen was going to die from the very start, not during the middle of filming. Really?
A character's death as poignant as this doesn't just come out of the blue on the whim to the point in which you can delete it just like this. There is foreshadowing, however subtle it may be, and the themes that the film presents that makes a character's death feel like part of a cohesive whole and not something just randomly plopped down onto a page. And if it is just randomly plopped down - that's bad writing.
So, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Gwen dies or not. They knew that from the very second they started filming and it is deeply embedded into its character arcs, themes, and foreshadowing. You would need to work double over-time to erase something like that from being there. And no way is this crew that loopy.
But, no one is "happy" about what happened over there. Something got broke and they had to find some way to fix it. Even if it is stream-lining, that's saying something isn't going right with the dynamics of Peter and Gwen so that MJ can just appear and rob that away from them. It's also even more head scratching due to where they are in making it.
Ah everyone seemed certain it was gonna become a franchise, I never heard of the film personally
lol no worries, atiba
It sounds to me like Webb and Co. are expecting Shailene's career to take off with Divergent, hence why THR said she likely won't be back when Webb and Co. do introduce MJ. I can guarantee, though, that the role will be hers if she's available.
You were stating how fans would freak if they found out that Bane's origins were being taken out. That was one scene that was inconsequential to the character. People would be upset but not freaked out.
But to have an entire character suddenly taken away from a film while still in the filming process? That's a whole other situation entirely. Do you realize just how uncommon this is? Or like others -- do you too believe they just plopped Gwen's death into a film without regard to build-up, theme, arc, among other important details that would suddenly go for a whirlwind ride if they out of the blue decided to make her live (lives, dies, who knows -- didn't change).
I think because it's based on books. I saw someone here mention it could be the next Hunger Games. Meh.
Oh I see, I get it now
omg people so over exaggerate things by saying she was a whole character that was taken out. she had little scenes if anything she was like an extra not even a supporting actress. who didnt even have a backround story
Shailene had 3 scenes in the movie and had already completed them. Webb has no reason not to be transparent when it comes to this situation, which tells me that he's making this decision for exactly the reasons he says he is and that, although THR says Shailene won't likely be back, the role will be hers if she's still available in a couple of years.
Well actually unless you can lip read you don't know what her story was, you dunno what she said to Peter or anything
I think her role was an introduction so they could fit her in TASM3 without having to do an introduction again, ESP if gwen dies or was support to die this film she would be a shoulder to cry on for Peter better then a stranger you just met