The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - - - Part 69

[fangz]

people are gonna go and see this like crazy. it looks genuinely amazing... this isn't the type of movie that anyone's gonna be looking at a critic's review to determine if they wanna see it or not.
kinda reminds me of MOS, people were so upset about those reviews, but that's what the movie was, and it made a ton of money out the gate, and it just didn't draw a lot of people after that. it wasn't that good of a movie. what's gonna determine how this Spider-Man movie does is how good it actually is, and critics maybe are some foreshadowing of that, but they don't really speak for the truth. if the movie isn't good, genuinely, it's not gonna generate word or mouth or repeat views. if it is, it will, never mind the critics.

it really is that simple. critics are responding to what they see, they aren't trying to mess things up or tank movies. and they have no power over how much people like a movie once they actually see it. it's really up to Marc Webb and what he's been up to this last year or so. that's what's gonna determine how good the movie is.

 

[HanShotFirst]

fangz, are you high right now bro?

 

[fangz]

fangz, are you high right now bro?

haha, no. why would i be high?
i am drunk, sure. but high, no.
unfortunately enough, it seems sometimes.
:0)

 

[fangz]

u know, i just even checked now and it's 88% on rotten tomatoes. which i just wanna say means nothing to me.

but... how could u guys be so doom headed about this? isn't that really high of a rating? sure it's gonna go down, but jeez... you'd think reading this thread that it was getting trashed or something.

 

[Eggyman]

u know, i just even checked now and it's 88% on rotten tomatoes. which i just wanna say means nothing to me.

but... how could u guys be so doom headed about this? isn't that really high of a rating? sure it's gonna go down, but jeez... you'd think reading this thread that it was getting trashed or something.

Only a select few are embracing the negative, and with all due respect we knew who they were before the reviews were released.

 

[Bullseye1]

Only a select few are embracing the negative, and with all due respect we knew who they were before the reviews were released.

I'm curious as to why that is tolerated? Why allow people to troll?

 

[Eggyman]

I'm curious as to why that is tolerated? Why allow people to troll?

Because they know where the line is and make sure they don't cross it. I wouldn't call it trolling, just negativity, which is their right, like it is my right to see their posts and not take them seriously.

 

[Bullseye1]

Because they know where the line is and make sure they don't cross it. I wouldn't call it trolling, just negativity, which is their right, like it is my right to see their posts and not take them seriously.

Oh I agree. But one would think if your posting in this thread you would be genuinely excited about seeing the movie. Why would anyone revel in negative tweets and some reviews. To me that is just attention seeking and attempting to get a reaction out of the people who are genuinely interested in the character and movie. It has all the hallmarks of trolling especially if its over multiple posts.

 

[Eggyman]

Oh I agree. But one would think if your posting in this thread you would be genuinely excited about seeing the movie. Why would anyone revel in negative tweets and some reviews. To me that is just attention seeking and attempting to get a reaction out of the people who are genuinely interested in the character and movie. It has all the hallmarks of trolling especially if its over multiple posts.

It does strike me as baiting and wanting a reaction. It happens here and other boards. Nothing new. I don't understand dedicating time to that, but it's open discussion. I can't imagine anyone with a level head taking it seriously. We know what it is and I find it's best remedied by ignoring it. I rarely get into it with them unless they keep repeating themselves, which becomes tiresome after a while.

 

[Bullseye1]

It does strike me as baiting and wanting a reaction. It happens here and other boards. Nothing new. I don't understand dedicating time to that, but it's open discussion. I can't imagine anyone with a level head taking it seriously. We know what it is and I find it's best remedied by ignoring it. I rarely get into it with them unless they keep repeating themselves, which becomes tiresome after a while.

Agreed. I guess ignore is a useful function but occasionally people need to be put straight if the post misinformation. I guess leave it to someone else.

 

[TeeKay]

Man that was an intense couple of pages back lol What are you guys looking forward to the most?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I don't mean to sound negative but I have a bad feeling this film is going to get a lower score than the original.

There are obviously problems with it because even the positive reviews are still pointing out the negatives.

I have to be honest it is really disappointing to hear

I think I will enjoy the film and that's all that matters. It just would have been nicer to see a more positive response that's all.

I found that with many of the CATWS reviews, listed as fresh but the wording of the reviews leaning toward the negative

 

[Eggyman]

Agreed. I guess ignore is a useful function but occasionally people need to be put straight if the post misinformation. I guess leave it to someone else.

I don't like the ignore function. It takes all types on here. Everyone has an agenda to some extent, whether positive or negative.

I find it hard to understand because I'm an optimist. There's a few things--some big, some small--that I didn't like with the first, but I like what I've seen and heard so far with this one. I mean, SM2 is largely regarded as the best, but I have my problems with that. It's not a deal breaker for me. I take what I can from films. For instance, TDK trilogy. The films are quality, but I don't think the character of Batman is handled as well as he could be. Yes, I believe the title character is one of the weakest links, but there's so much more I can get from them. It isn't an all-or-nothing deal with me. Like anything in life, if you like something enough you can be more forgiving of its shortcomings.

 

[Bullseye1]

Man that was an intense couple of pages back lol What are you guys looking forward to the most?

To be as happy with the movie as you were.

 

[Eggyman]

Man that was an intense couple of pages back lol What are you guys looking forward to the most?

Spider-Man. Not joking. I feel if he's as good and dynamic as what I've seen, other negative things won't matter as much.

 

[Spider-Ock]

Man that was an intense couple of pages back lol What are you guys looking forward to the most?

I forgot to commend you on your review. It was very well written. I am actually looking forward to the character development and the clock tower battle the most. Btw how do you think the movie will be received critically?

 

[Morbius]

Man that was an intense couple of pages back lol What are you guys looking forward to the most?

I really can't narrow it down - but generally speaking, for me, TASM had fleeting moments that made me want more, but would occasionally fail to be consistent or deliver exactly what I wanted, if that makes sense.

I suppose, I want TASM2 to revisit the elements that made TASM an engaging movie, and right its obvious wrongs as well (editing, scope, limited setting)

 

[Bullseye1]

The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/09/amazing-spiderman-2-review

At least its from a decent publication and positive unlike the Mirror which should be used to line your rabbits hut.

 

[The Joker]

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/spider-man/30037/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review

I don't know if that one has been posted yet. Another 3/5.

I'm back I cooled my head off and im goin to apologize to people
I'm sorry
I SEE SPIDEY
webhead 731
and anyone else I missed
I was quick to jump to assumptions and quick to jump on people
I was wrong
I understand people have a difference of opinion and I get that I just allowed myself and got too caught up in the whole mess so i'm sorry

Good on you. Nice to see some level headed maturity and respect here.

Looks like they really were trying to juggle too much and possibly even grew over confident in the process. Being a comic book movie and embracing spectacle is fine, but that shouldn't just be it, especially with someone like Spider-Man. They might have gotten a little too ambitious. There's no reason as to why this shouldn't be a noticible improvement over the previous one.

I couldn't agree more. That does seem to be another thing most of the reviews have agreed on, along with Stone's and Garfield's chemistry, is that this is better than the first one (not that I think that was a particularly hard goal to achieve, but still any improvement is better than none).

 

[Eggyman]

At least its from a decent publication and positive unlike the Mirror which should be used to line your rabbits hut.

I'm gonna report you to peta.

 

[Bullseye1]

I'm gonna report you to peta.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I found the beginning of the Variety article to be quite unfair.

Necessity is the mother of invention, which is why Marc Webb’s 2012 superhero do-over “The Amazing Spider-Man,” for all its polished proficiency and kicky star casting, felt so perfunctory: Rebooting the blockbuster Marvel franchise just five years after Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3,” it couldn’t claim to be a film anyone needed. The swiftly delivered “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” finds no solution to that redundancy, but it acrobatically spins enough sound and fury to distract from the issue, while the tinderbox chemistry between leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone delights once more. Continuing Peter Parker’s investigation of his shady family history while serving up a brace of villains — one more familiar than the other — for him to contend with, this bloated but enjoyable outing will pull in enough crowds to justify Sony’s reluctance to relinquish this heavily built-up creative property.

It basically calls the movie unnecessary. But all blockbusters are unnecessary really, this no more so than others. The reviewer remains hung-up on it being a reboot and the last sentence shows disguised side-taking.

 

[Bullseye1]

I found the beginning of the Variety article to be quite unfair.



It basically calls the movie unnecessary. But all blockbusters are unnecessary really, this no more so than others. The reviewer remains hung-up on it being a reboot and the last sentence shows disguised side-taking.

I agree the reviewer went in thinking the movie was unnecessary. Hard to write a review when you already have preconceived notions on it whether they are positive or negative.

 

[Eggyman]

I found the beginning of the Variety article to be quite unfair.



It basically calls the movie unnecessary. But all blockbusters are unnecessary really, this no more so than others. The reviewer remains hung-up on it being a reboot and the last sentence shows disguised side-taking.

It's a poor point to make. I said it last night: We don't need any of these films.

 

[Spider-Ock]

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/04/09/amazing-spider-man-2-review

Same criticism of the tone, the overcrowding and foxx's performance.