The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - - Part 84

[W/ Great Power]

At this point, I'll be very disappointed if Mysterio isn't in S6.

Definitely digging Grauso's theory for him

 

[OriginalMiles]

Question: Is Harry Osborn evil?

 

[Oscorp]

No, he's driven by fear.

 

[W/ Great Power]

No, he's driven by fear.

Before Menkin took over Oscorp, yes.

Vengeance is his motivation now.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Spider-Knight shared a link about what Andrew thinks over the movie reception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-scandal-and-criticism-of-spider-man-2.html

Spoiler

Speaking of Spider-Man, I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, but I wasn’t very high on the recent sequel. It seemed crammed with characters, and like a setup film for The Sinister Six spin-off. I’m curious what your feelings are about it.

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, “No, that doesn’t work,” then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

But I’ll tell you this: Talking about the experience as opposed to how it was perceived, I got to work in deep scenes that you don’t usually see in comic book movies, and I got to explore this orphan boy—a lot of which was taken out, and which we’d explored more. It’s interesting to do a postmortem. I’m proud of a lot of it and had a good time, and was a bit taken aback by the response.

How so?

It’s a discernment thing. What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, “Oh God, we ****ed up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s ****.” We have to ask ourselves, “What do we believe to be true?” Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being *****, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.

I posted this on ASM3 boards but I think that this is the better place.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

sounds like garfield hit the nail on the head. very well spoken, and a very mature guy.

 

[Oscorp]

sounds like garfield hit the nail on the head. very well spoken, and a very mature guy.

This! I wonder if he's read these boards? Kinda sounds like it.

 

[The Joker]

Garfield must have been selectively reading the criticisms. It's been spelled out in 50 foot high letters time and again all over the internet why TASM 2 was so bad. From the horrible camp factor, to the cluttered story, to the rushed plot points, to the awful villains, to the dreadfully dreary parents plot.

I'm glad he was taken aback by all the criticism (though I do pity him having his talents wasted in these low level movies). Hopefully Sony was, too.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Garfield must have been selectively reading the criticisms. It's been spelled out in 50 foot high letters time and again all over the internet why TASM 2 was so bad. From the horrible camp factor, to the cluttered story, to the rushed plot points, to the awful villains, to the dreadfully dreary parents plot.

I'm glad he was taken aback by all the criticism (though I do pity him having his talents wasted in these low level movies). Hopefully Sony was, too.

They noticed. That's why TASM3 has been delayed.

 

[SymbioticToxin]

Question: Is Harry Osborn evil?

At fist, maybe not. Like Oscorp said, he was motivated by fear. But I think he crossed the line from 'fearing for my life' to 'kind of evil'. He has very little sympathy at this point.

Garfield must have been selectively reading the criticisms. It's been spelled out in 50 foot high letters time and again all over the internet why TASM 2 was so bad. From the horrible camp factor, to the cluttered story, to the rushed plot points, to the awful villains, to the dreadfully dreary parents plot.

I'm glad he was taken aback by all the criticism (though I do pity him having his talents wasted in these low level movies). Hopefully Sony was, too.

This is another reason I love Garfield as Spider-man. He listens to the criticism, pays attention to it, and even pretty much says he wants to help make it better. All while admitting he had fun doing it.

 

[Oscorp]

Also, evil is a very strong word. Take into consideration Harry's younger years and how Norman treated him, and it's hard to really call Harry evil.

 

[SymbioticToxin]

I hope the delve more into Norman and Harrys' relationship. Harry does some pretty terrible things as Goblin in the comics, but it was mostly to redeem himself in his dead dads eyes and prove he's as much of a man like his deranged daddy.

 

[Eggyman]

Garfield must have been selectively reading the criticisms. It's been spelled out in 50 foot high letters time and again all over the internet why TASM 2 was so bad. From the horrible camp factor, to the cluttered story, to the rushed plot points, to the awful villains, to the dreadfully dreary parents plot.

I'm glad he was taken aback by all the criticism (though I do pity him having his talents wasted in these low level movies). Hopefully Sony was, too.

He will know. Just like we know. But being publicly specific about what lead to the sh** would point the finger at a colleague. For instance, he might not want to say that Electro's the goofiest mofo in cb villain history, only rivaled by Arnold. It's not just Fox's fault. Why didn't Webb shout 'Cut! Jamie wtf are you doing?'

At least he acknowledged it's a turd that won't flush. I feel bad for him. He really wants it, but it's not working.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Garfield must have been selectively reading the criticisms. It's been spelled out in 50 foot high letters time and again all over the internet why TASM 2 was so bad. From the horrible camp factor, to the cluttered story, to the rushed plot points, to the awful villains, to the dreadfully dreary parents plot.

I'm glad he was taken aback by all the criticism (though I do pity him having his talents wasted in these low level movies). Hopefully Sony was, too.

Honestly, I don't understand the sentiment that this film was THAT bad. It wasn't. Now, it wasn't good, I will say that. The conflicting tones, the overcrowded nature, ect all of these keep it from being a good film. But it's nowhere near one of the worst superhero films made, or even anywhere near the bottom bunch. It was solidly a "meh" film.

But I can't see how people are harping on the camp factor...to me it was no worse than anything we saw in the Raimi films. It had moments that were almost as bad as the Raimi camp moments...and I'm exluding SM3 here, I'm talking about some of the horrible cheesiness in SM1 and ESPECIALLY SM2. But the camp didn't strike me as anything more than what we've already seen.

Again, I can understand people's intense reaction to this, because it is one of the most disappointing superhero films I've watched, but I think people are projecting that disappointment onto the actual quality.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He will know. Just like we know. But being publicly specific about what lead to the sh** would point the finger at a colleague. For instance, he might not want to say that Electro's the goofiest mofo in cb villain history, only rivaled by Arnold. It's not just Fox's fault. Why didn't Webb shout 'Cut! Jamie wtf are you doing?'

At least he acknowledged it's a turd that won't flush. I feel bad for him. He really wants it, but it's not working.

Okay, c'mon really? You're comparing Fox to Arnold, or TLJ's Two-Face, the random Nuclear bad-guy in Superman 4, Bullseye, Memphisto in the GR movies, Jim Carrey as the Riddler, or how about Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon?

Again, I thought Jamie was a bit OTT, but how was what he did any more OTT than "Dock Ock turned bad by evil manipulating tentacles?"

 

[OriginalMiles]

Okay, c'mon really? You're comparing Fox to Arnold, or TLJ's Two-Face, the random Nuclear bad-guy in Superman 4, Bullseye, Memphisto in the GR movies, Jim Carrey as the Riddler, or how about Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon?

Again, I thought Jamie was a bit OTT, but how was what he did any more OTT than "Dock Ock turned bad by evil manipulating tentacles?"

#ShotsFired

I liked Electro... but Ock was better, imo.

 

[Infinity9999x]

#ShotsFired

I liked Electro... but Ock was better, imo.

See, what Molina was doing I loved. He was perfect. The writing and concept of the character...I absolutely hated. Doc Ock was never a "good guy at heart" who was manipulated by outside forces. That fundamentally changed the character in a way that really bothered me. Ock is, and always has been, the true Anti-Peter Parker. He was an intelligent, loner kid who was bullied growing up, had an accident that granted him amazing powers...but instead of using it for good, he used it to gain power over others.

That character was much more interesting to me than the Curt Connors/Doc Ock mash up we got in SM2. So while what Molina was doing was great, the whole concept of "oooooooh, evilllll tentacles," was increadibly corny to me.

With Fox, it was the reverse. The concept was fine...he was just a bit over the top. But nowhere near the level of Arnold.

 

[SlamAdams]

Again, I thought Jamie was a bit OTT, but how was what he did any more OTT than "Dock Ock turned bad by evil manipulating tentacles?"

Not just that, but apparently when not controlled by tentacles he's a poetry loving hopeless romantic

 

[OriginalMiles]

I really never got the OTT complaint... i mean, he wasn't that bad.

When it comes to RHINO... how can he not be OTT? HE'S A ****ING RHINO(mech)!

 

[Eggyman]

Okay, c'mon really? You're comparing Fox to Arnold, or TLJ's Two-Face, the random Nuclear bad-guy in Superman 4, Bullseye, Memphisto in the GR movies, Jim Carrey as the Riddler, or how about Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon?

Again, I thought Jamie was a bit OTT, but how was what he did any more OTT than "Dock Ock turned bad by evil manipulating tentacles?"

Really. I laugh when he's on screen. You roll your eyes, sunshine. It's not your problem

 

[Andrew Lucas]

sounds like garfield hit the nail on the head. very well spoken, and a very mature guy.

 

[The Joker]

They noticed. That's why TASM3 has been delayed.

Very true. That gratifies me.

He will know. Just like we know. But being publicly specific about what lead to the sh** would point the finger at a colleague. For instance, he might not want to say that Electro's the goofiest mofo in cb villain history, only rivaled by Arnold. It's not just Fox's fault. Why didn't Webb shout 'Cut! Jamie wtf are you doing?'

At least he acknowledged it's a turd that won't flush. I feel bad for him. He really wants it, but it's not working.

Yeah that makes sense. He's not going to shoot himself in the foot professionally by saying his employers screwed up and made a bad movie.

Honestly, I don't understand the sentiment that this film was THAT bad. It wasn't. Now, it wasn't good, I will say that. The conflicting tones, the overcrowded nature, ect all of these keep it from being a good film. But it's nowhere near one of the worst superhero films made, or even anywhere near the bottom bunch. It was solidly a "meh" film.

But I can't see how people are harping on the camp factor...to me it was no worse than anything we saw in the Raimi films. It had moments that were almost as bad as the Raimi camp moments...and I'm exluding SM3 here, I'm talking about some of the horrible cheesiness in SM1 and ESPECIALLY SM2. But the camp didn't strike me as anything more than what we've already seen.

Again, I can understand people's intense reaction to this, because it is one of the most disappointing superhero films I've watched, but I think people are projecting that disappointment onto the actual quality.

That's your opinion. If you can't wrap your head around people saying it was that bad, that's fine. You're not expected to agree. It's not necessary. I sure don't agree with or fathom the notion this awful movie was good. I do think it was that bad. Very bad. The movie is an unwatchable mess. And yes the camp moments and cheesiness were that bad. Comparable to Schumacher's movies, as was the plot.

They both have al story for the hero (Bruce Wayne dealing with the traumatic nightmares of his parents death, and connecting with Dick Grayson over the similar emotional pain/Peter plagued with hallucinations of Capt Stacy, dealing with some emotional trauma about his parents' deaths).

Nerdy, creepy, obsessed guy (Carey/Riddler) is obsessed with the hero to an unhealthy degree. Villain falls into a vat of convenient villain-giving powers (Schwarzenegger Mr. Freeze) and he terrorizes the city. The hero stops him and captures him (only Electro was laughably captured in his first fight with Spidey. Even Arnie's Freeze lasted longer than that before he was caught lol) and then the B-villain (Thurman Poison Ivy) springs him from his campy prison cell with cartoonish jailors/psychiatrist to fight the hero. The villain then holds the whole city hostage when he takes over a convenient plot location.

This is a perfect visual example of how campy this movie was;

Joel Schumacher would be proud.

Okay, c'mon really? You're comparing Fox to Arnold, or TLJ's Two-Face, the random Nuclear bad-guy in Superman 4, Bullseye, Memphisto in the GR movies, Jim Carrey as the Riddler, or how about Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon?

Again, I thought Jamie was a bit OTT, but how was what he did any more OTT than "Dock Ock turned bad by evil manipulating tentacles?"

You're missing the point completely. It's not the OTT concept that's the problem it's the execution. Saying Ock was manipulated by tentacles is like saying a millionaire running around dressed as a giant bat. Both are cheesy and OTT in concept, it's the execution of them that makes or breaks them.

Doc Ock was executed brilliantly, and I don't just mean acting, but in spite of some of the changes he was very true to the comic book character in many ways; http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/. Electro wasn't executed well at all. Hence why the former was so well received and the latter wasn't. He was a walking cheesy cartoon character. Hands down one of the worst comic book villains ever. I say that with 100% certainty. It's one of the chief complaints Sony needs to listen to. The biggest weakness in the new Spider-Man franchise is the villains. None of them have been memorable or good. It's only a small minority handful of TASM fans that hold any of them in any kind of high esteem.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I see Andrew has been getting some of my messages I've sent him.

The film was ****.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

It's only a small minority handful of TASM fans that hold any of them in any kind of high esteem.

Hum...okay Joker.

 

[Akimych]

I must say a few things. I'm Russian and when i first saw a movie i was like "Dude, that's movie is perfect!!!"

After 3rd time i could say it's good but it has some....

After such things as "Everything bad with.." and Joker's comments i can say:

If we are talking about superhero COMIC movie for COMIC book fans particularly - yes, it wasn't good. Why? Coz of lack of villains development. If it's like two hours for Electro, two for Goblin and without Rhino - it's nearly ok. If it's two hours with Electro, live Gwen and small tease of Rhino at the end - it's nearly ok. But..SM3... not much like it but the same problem with villains not to be memorable. Yes, we know that new goblin by De Haan is pretty nice. We know that we can deal with Electro costume and Rhino robotic suit. But if we are looking for a good COMIC book movie, not the movie itself - we deserve better one.
I didn't presume that movie is something close to Nolan's "reality" but Electro's character is really TOO odd. Only music saves his role. Of course every motivation line for being villain was stupid as "Fox on interviews with his birthday". Not only for him but for Harry too.
And IF we expect a blockbuster for EVERYONE on this planet with average need in entertainment something like "high even if stupid" (like in ancient Rome) - we got it.

We got a good common interesting movie even for kids with everything in it - love, fight, light, death, honour and blah-blah-blah.

The best part of movie is music. And Gwen's death.