The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - Part 86

[The Joker]

One of the many problems with the TASM movies is they tried to mimic other popular comic book movies at the time. In 2011 when TASM was being made, it tried to copy the gritty tone of the Nolan Batman movies. Then after 2012 and the success of The Avengers, it tried to copy it's more light hearted tone and expansive universe.

Instead of just trying to be good movies they made failed attempts to duplicate the furniture and stylings of others.

And yes, for all it's faults, SM-3 is much better than TASM 2. Even the Sony heads like Pascal said that. Though it should have been a public admission since Sony is responsible for it. But at least they were admitting it to themselves. Even James Horner opted out of doing TASM 2 because he thought the script was terrible.

 

[titansupes]

^ I think so, too. ASM was trying to be BB. ASM2 tried to have it both ways and be TDK in it's BIG structure and intensity, and also have be a romp and have the shared universe set-up of TA. And it was a pretty ugly combo.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Agreed. Amy Pascal was very smart. She saw movie was going to be a problem before it even come out. She predicted the criticism it would get.



Disagreed. She sound like she understand better than Marc Webb and Avi Arad. She knew the problems of ASM 2 everyone would have with it before it came out.

Asking Sam Raimi was smartest move because his Spider-Man movies were great, very successful financial and critical, and did not fail like ASM movies. That is fact.



Disagreed. There was no major storylines in flux. They did not leave Peter/MJ marriage in flux because it never happen. They just got back together at end of Spider-Man 3.



No loose ends left to tie. You are wrong Lantern Venom. That is why you never see these things you say named as loose ends in reviews about Raimi movies. You just make them up.



ASM and ASM 2 were not good. They were bad. Especially ASM 2. That is why it fail. Sony emails prove that they understood that because Amy Pascal saw problems with movie before it even come out.

If movie was good then it would not matter about landscape of comic book movies. It is Spider-Man. He is big enough to sell himself. But ASM 2 so terrible that it fail and end franchise.

That is what really happen. Not what you make up there.



Disagreed. It ruin both Stacy deaths. No father/son relationship with Peter and George. They not even like each other. Then Peter break promise to George right after he died lol.

Gwen death worse because she die because her own fault. Her fault Goblin learn Peter is Spider-Man too. Also ruined because Harry killed her instead of Norman. Ruined greatest death in Spider-Man stories. No respect for comics.

They not get any deaths right in ASM movies. Like Uncle Ben's death too, Peter not learn with great power comes great responsibility from his death either. They ruin Spider-Man origin as well.

They ruin everything great about Spider-Man. This is why they so terrible and movies fail. Bad movies and bad Spider-Man movies.



I can certainly say that wrong because Amy Pascal smarter than the rest because she saw all problems that everyone would have with ASM 2 and she wanted changes. It pity that happen too late and we could have not had such terrible movie like ASM 2.

But Amy was smart. She know bad movie when she see it.

The things that Pascal named were silly (crying, clothing, electricity) and she obviously missed things that actually could have been fixed like how Electro's containment suit appeared out of nowhere or how Peter was able to use his webbing and abilities, unmasked, in places that would logically have security cameras yet no ever figured out his identity. She didn't complain about those because of her limited knowledge and ability to grasp this kind of story.

Instead of reaching out to someone who might have actually helped (although it was probably too late), she reached out to someone whose films faced many of the same criticisms of TASM2. That's akin to being in a bad relationship but seeking the advice of a former partner from another bad relationship instead of a trained professional. Why would anyone respect the opinion of someone who obviously doesn't know the subject matter, and almost got herself fired because of the heat she brought on the studio?

Lantern Venom, in all my years on this forum, and the internet in general, I say this hand on heart, you are the only person I have ever seen who thinks those Spider-Man 3 elements were "major storylines" left in flux.

.

It's common knowledge that Sony attempted to move forward with SM4 and SM5. I don't know how anyone could think that SM3 wrapped everything up when it's factual that it wasn't the initial planned ending for the story. One of the biggest storylines of all 3 films was the Peter-MJ relationship, yet we were left with questions about how MJ's self-absorption and cheating, Peter's attraction to GINO, and the influence of the symbiote affected their future prospects as husband and wife. One hug simply doesn't undo all of the tumultuous story that came before it.

We also saw Peter act out at work, and not just to VINO, but even his boss. Are we really supposed to believe that an employee could not only demand a staff job after getting in a fight on the work site, but also put his feet on his boss's desk without some problems on the job? Sorry, that is completely illogical.

 

[The Joker]

Sony planning more sequels after Spider-Man 3 doesn't mean Raimi left huge unresolved plot issues hanging after Spider-Man 3. There was nothing left hanging that needed a big resolution. Nothing. Spider-Man 4 could and would most likely have opened up all new character arcs since all the main ones were wrapped up in 3.

The Peter/MJ relationship was reconciled at the end of 3. Your so called loose ends are your own fabrications. MJ's self absorption was counter balanced by Peter's a-hole behavior in the symbiote. They both hurt each other, and in the end they reconciled. Peter had no attraction to Gwen. His symbiote influenced self just used her to get back at MJ for dumping him. That was even verbally stated in the movie in case it wasn't already blatantly obvious.

As for the Bugle stuff, Peter exposing Brock's fraud and acting cocky in work is not going to have any lasting repercussions that need addressing. Why would it? I mean if Peter dating the woman who jilted Jonah's son at the altar wasn't addressed by Jameson, then why would Peter helping to expose a fraud, and acting full of himself briefly have any lasting repercussions that need resolution? It's ridiculous. Not to mention the scene where he puts his feet on Jonah's desk was played for comic relief. And it was hilarious. You're the only one I've ever seen in 8 years who has made such a complaint. It's because it's a non existent issue. Everything you've said is.

 

[SymbioticToxin]

Haven't been here in awhile and I come back to people talking about sequels to SM3? Why haven't we left that ship sail yet?
Also, I agree with everything Joker just said.

 

[Leenie]

One of the many problems with the TASM movies is they tried to mimic other popular comic book movies at the time. In 2011 when TASM was being made, it tried to copy the gritty tone of the Nolan Batman movies. Then after 2012 and the success of The Avengers, it tried to copy it's more light hearted tone and expansive universe.

Instead of just trying to be good movies they made failed attempts to duplicate the furniture and stylings of others.

And yes, for all it's faults, SM-3 is much better than TASM 2. Even the Sony heads like Pascal said that. Though it should have been a public admission since Sony is responsible for it. But at least they were admitting it to themselves. Even James Horner opted out of doing TASM 2 because he thought the script was terrible.

I agree 100%

The biggest problem with the TASM movies are that they lack identity. That's why I believe the movies come across as completely perfunctory. They remind me of Green Lantern: My first reaction to that movie was that it was trying really hard to be Iron Man. I don't think it's a coincidence that both TASM movies were different in style and tone. Sony was obviously not pleased with the receptions of either movie.

I acknowledge that Spider-Man 3 is not a perfect movie. It's a very flawed movie. I still think it is a tremendously better movie than TASM2, though. I feel that in Spider-Man 3, as overly stuffed as it was, at least had something to say (with its messages of revenge and forgiveness). The villains introduced had a beginning, middle, and end to their story arcs (as quick as they were), and loose ends were tied to end the trilogy.

 

[Frodo]

I agree with the argument that SM3 resolved things enough. Yes, the original plan was to make SM4 and SM5, but it was to be with basically new characters and with MJ being pushed to the side in favor of Felicia Hardy/Vultress and Vulture. Putting that aside though, and looking at the themes of the first three films, everything was tied up. If you watch the three films back to back you'll find that they do fit as one long story with a horrid third act. Nevertheless, it does pass as a trilogy even if that wasn't the original intention. No, it wasn't the perfect resolution to the story archs ,but its hard to argue that there was much left to say in the context of those three films.

ASM 2 truly had alot of unresolved storylines and threads that didn't get closer, though I don't think they really had anymore stories worth telling, and apparently , Sony and Marvel feel the same way.

 

[Erzengel]

Obviously, they really wanted to go the whole Sinister Six angle. But, they realized with their present course of action, that these movies weren't making the money and the quality has taken a critical hit with even the Studio heads understanding that the movies weren't up to par.

 

[Nemeres]

The biggest problem with the TASM movies are that they lack identity.

Despite all the problems they had, that was definitely not one. The films were a messy hodgepodge of intentions and agendas, but Webb's hand is very noticeable all throughout. It's HIS style, his approach to romance, humor, character interactions, etc. The films were actively trying to be different and create a style for themselves -- while also being aware that Peter Parker is different from Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne or Wolverine. Their main focus, right off the bat - and one of the biggest sources of praise, no less - was to reinvent the character under the mask. Which they did. The films lacked focus and narrative intelligence, but when they so effectively succeeded in feeling different from what came before, accusing them of lacking identity of all things ranks very high on the unfairness scale.

Guys... hearing that SM3 was better than TASM2 is like hearing that Superman IV was better than Superman Returns. No hyperbole there. Beyond the "I'm team Raimi, I'm team Webb" mindset, it makes zero sense to me. On the one hand you have a mediocre, unfocused, messy film that nonetheless devotes extra care for its characters and human element; on the other you have a borderline parody of itself that seems to abandon all dignity at one point. Most of the goodwill for SM3 comes from the previous Raimi films. On its own - imagine this being the first Spider-Man film ever - it's pitiful. Movies are stories, but they are also characters, also performances, also moments... the meat on the bone. SM3 may be a better-told story (which is being ****ing generous). But TASM 2 is the better film.

 

[Keehar]

I acknowledge that Spider-Man 3 is not a perfect movie. It's a very flawed movie. I still think it is a tremendously better movie than TASM2, though. I feel that in Spider-Man 3, as overly stuffed as it was, at least had something to say (with its messages of revenge and forgiveness). The villains introduced had a beginning, middle, and end to their story arcs (as quick as they were), and loose ends were tied to end the trilogy.

Too right.

But TASM 2 is the better film.

Nope not in a million years. Watching TASM 2 is like watching what would happen if Schumacher did to Spider-Man what he did to Batman. Even has the stinky critic rating and is a franchise killer, too haha.

 

[Erzengel]

That is hyperbole because Superman Returns got decent reviews but got panned by the geek community. Superman IV flat out was panned.

 

[Leenie]

Despite all the problems they had, that was definitely not one. The films were a messy hodgepodge of intentions and agendas, but Webb's hand is very noticeable all throughout. It's HIS style, his approach to romance, humor, character interactions, etc. The films were actively trying to be different and create a style for themselves -- while also being aware that Peter Parker is different from Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne or Wolverine. Their main focus, right off the bat - and one of the biggest sources of praise, no less - was to reinvent the character under the mask. Which they did. The films lacked focus and narrative intelligence, but when they so effectively succeeded in feeling different from what came before, accusing them of lacking identity of all things ranks very high on the unfairness scale.

Guys... hearing that SM3 was better than TASM2 is like hearing that Superman IV was better than Superman Returns. No hyperbole there. Beyond the "I'm team Raimi, I'm team Webb" mindset, it makes zero sense to me. On the one hand you have a mediocre, unfocused, messy film that nonetheless devotes extra care for its characters and human element; on the other you have a borderline parody of itself that seems to abandon all dignity at one point. Most of the goodwill for SM3 comes from the previous Raimi films. On its own - imagine this being the first Spider-Man film ever - it's pitiful. Movies are stories, but they are also characters, also performances, also moments... the meat on the bone. SM3 may be a better-told story (which is being ****ing generous). But TASM 2 is the better film.

I respectfully disagree. I'm sure that Marc Webb had expectations of delivering his vision, but I couldn't see or hear it over the sound of Sony's executives shouting out ideas of what's "popular and hip with the youth." Even the Peter and Gwen romance, as much as Marc Webb may have tried, betrayed Marc Webb's vision (especially after seeing 500 Days of Summer, which is a good film). 500 Days of Summer is a film that dissected the superficial aspects of a relationship ... And then there's Peter and Gwen in the TASM movies. I thought they were obnoxious as a couple, and I blame the writing on that.

Compare TASM to TASM2. They are very, very different in tone. The first one tried to be Batman Begins, and the second one tried to be an MCU movie. Like I said, I highly doubt that is a coincidence. And because the two films are so different in tone, I feel that Marc Webb was beaten into submission by a studio that had no idea what they were doing.

And yeah, I still firmly believe that Spider-Man 3 is the superior movie. Watching TASM2 felt like being bullied at a playground for 2 hours about how dumb Spider-Man is (especially with the fanatical Electro stuff ... I still don't know if I am supposed to feel sorry for that character or not). Plus, the cheese with Beatnik!Peter in Spider-Man 3 was at least intentional and understandable (with a nerd like Peter misunderstanding what he thinks is "cool"). And, at least when Peter was acting like a jerk in Spider-Man 3, characters called him out on it and/or they didn't approve.

And finally, at least Spider-Man 3 didn't have Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborne in it. Dane DeHaan's performance in TASM2 makes me want to avoid anything he's in for the foreseeable future. I am also glad that I will never, ever see Paul Giamatti in a Spider-Man movie ever again. I don't like Paul Giamatti anyway (he's just an actor that bothers and annoys me, to put it simply), and he was every bit as terrible as I had dreaded. 2 minutes of him is already too much.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I actually really like Paul Giamatti, but he sure sucked in this movie.

 

[DX]

"I don't know HOW and I don't know WHY but...he can do EVERYTHING else a spider can!"

People were paid to write that line.

Shameful.

 

[Leenie]

"I don't know HOW and I don't know WHY but...he can do EVERYTHING else a spider can!"

People were paid to write that line.

Shameful.

Let's not forget these golden lines either:

"I break up with you."

"I'm already dying. Your blood can't make me die more."

 

[Frodo]

SM3 at least has a story and the characters are at least all related to a single narrative all be it a bad narrative and story. ASM 2 doesn't have a coherent narrative or story. Its all over the place with different agendas and attempting to please several different audiences. I personally don't think ASM 2 is as bad as SM3, but even I wouldn't go as far as to say ASM 2 had a stronger or better story.

I never thought I'd see a villain worse than Sandman , but Rhino and Electro certainly rose to the occasion. Even Franco who sleepwalked through much of the film was a better villain than Dehaan's Goblin. Its not about Raimi vs Webb for me. They're both bad Spiderman films imo. The only thing ASM 2 had going for it against SM3 is the romance. And the Garfield and Stone chemistry is the best take away from that film, and what will probably be most remembered about the ASM films. ASM 2 truly killed that franchise financially and critically and wrote themselves into a corner so bad they had to reboot the franchise a second time.

SM3 was a hit , like it or not, and they only reason they didn't make SM4 is because Raimi left.

 

[Daltonio]

I agree with Lantern Venom on almost everything, but I can't say that I agree on the ending. Even though the story could obviously continue from where it left off in SM-3, there really weren't a whole lot of plotlines that needed further resolution. It felt like we got a full story, start to finish. That's the reason it was easier to accept it being rebooted the first time because it didn't feel like we were leaving right smack dab in the middle of a story like in ASM2. Hell, we didn't even get to see Peter catch Uncle Ben's killer yet (unless you count the horrible resolution from the ASM2 video game).

But ehh. I'm getting tired of even checking the Spidey forums anymore, the only thing you see is people constantly ****ting all over the TASM movies every possible chance. I could be doing much better things with my time... like rewatching the movies over and over and over again. t:

Dane DeHaan's performance in TASM2 makes me want to avoid anything he's in for the foreseeable future.

Funny, I basically went out and started watching his entire filmography because of how great he was as Harry.

 

[Leenie]

SM3 at least has a story and the characters are at least all related to a single narrative all be it a bad narrative and story. ASM 2 doesn't have a coherent narrative or story. Its all over the place with different agendas and attempting to please several different audiences. I personally don't think ASM 2 is as bad as SM3, but even I wouldn't go as far as to say ASM 2 had a stronger or better story.

I never thought I'd see a villain worse than Sandman , but Rhino and Electro certainly rose to the occasion. Even Franco who sleepwalked through much of the film was a better villain than Dehaan's Goblin. Its not about Raimi vs Webb for me. They're both bad Spiderman films imo. The only thing ASM 2 had going for it against SM3 is the romance. And the Garfield and Stone chemistry is the best take away from that film, and what will probably be most remembered about the ASM films. ASM 2 truly killed that franchise financially and critically and wrote themselves into a corner so bad they had to reboot the franchise a second time.

SM3 was a hit , like it or not, and they only reason they didn't make SM4 is because Raimi left.

Bingo. People can debate all they want about the quality of Spider-Man 3 (and hey, the criticisms towards it are more than valid), but it was NOT a franchise killer. It was a very successful movie financially (especially overseas). What killed the first series of Spider-Man movies was Sony and their need to make another film before their rights to the character expired, so it was much easier to just do a remake of the origin story.

 

[Leenie]

Funny, I basically went out and started watching his entire filmography because of how great he was as Harry.

Well, I'm glad you liked the performance.

I didn't. Oops.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

The things that Pascal named were silly (crying, clothing, electricity) and she obviously missed things that actually could have been fixed like how Electro's containment suit appeared out of nowhere or how Peter was able to use his webbing and abilities, unmasked, in places that would logically have security cameras yet no ever figured out his identity. She didn't complain about those because of her limited knowledge and ability to grasp this kind of story.

Instead of reaching out to someone who might have actually helped (although it was probably too late), she reached out to someone whose films faced many of the same criticisms of TASM2. That's akin to being in a bad relationship but seeking the advice of a former partner from another bad relationship instead of a trained professional. Why would anyone respect the opinion of someone who obviously doesn't know the subject matter, and almost got herself fired because of the heat she brought on the studio?

Disagreed. She saw the problems with ASM 2 movie before it was released that everyone else would see after it was released. That is fact Lantern Venom. You cannot deny it. Where Electro's containment suit came from and Peter using webbing in places that should have security camera was not big reason why movie was terrible lol.

Only criticism that was same as Raimi's was crying, and that was for Spider-Man 3 where Raimi have creative control. That was Sony's fault just like in ASM 2. So reaching out to Raimi was smart because all great things that came from his movies are thanks to him. He is great Spider-Man movie maker. He knows how to do it right. Make perfect sense why Sony ask him back. He's the best.

Your other part of post is funny. Everyone will go see Spider-Man 4 to find out what happens when you put your feet on Jonah Jameson desk lol.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I actually really like Paul Giamatti, but he sure sucked in this movie.

Agreed. Worse performance of any villain actor in comic book movie.

"I don't know HOW and I don't know WHY but...he can do EVERYTHING else a spider can!"

People were paid to write that line.

Shameful.

Agreed. Sound like dialogue was written for corny kids cartoon.

Well, I'm glad you liked the performance.

I didn't. Oops.

Dane DeHaan was worst Goblin ever. Very bad acting performance from him. He made me cringe so many times.

 

[Leenie]

Dane DeHaan was worst Goblin ever. Very bad acting performance from him. He made me cringe so many times.

I think that one of the biggest blunders of TASM2 was that they had a golden ticket with Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Cooper is a fantastic actor, and I think that him as Norman is brilliant casting.

TASM2 wasted him on one scene with ridiculous makeup. Completely wasted him. I was ticked off when he died.

 

[Nemeres]

I respectfully disagree. I'm sure that Marc Webb had expectations of delivering his vision, but I couldn't see or hear it over the sound of Sony's executives shouting out ideas of what's "popular and hip with the youth." Even the Peter and Gwen romance, as much as Marc Webb may have tried, betrayed Marc Webb's vision (especially after seeing 500 Days of Summer, which is a good film). 500 Days of Summer is a film that dissected the superficial aspects of a relationship ... And then there's Peter and Gwen in the TASM movies. I thought they were obnoxious as a couple, and I blame the writing on that.

Compare TASM to TASM2. They are very, very different in tone. The first one tried to be Batman Begins, and the second one tried to be an MCU movie. Like I said, I highly doubt that is a coincidence. And because the two films are so different in tone, I feel that Marc Webb was beaten into submission by a studio that had no idea what they were doing.

And yeah, I still firmly believe that Spider-Man 3 is the superior movie. Watching TASM2 felt like being bullied at a playground for 2 hours about how dumb Spider-Man is (especially with the fanatical Electro stuff ... I still don't know if I am supposed to feel sorry for that character or not). Plus, the cheese with Beatnik!Peter in Spider-Man 3 was at least intentional and understandable (with a nerd like Peter misunderstanding what he thinks is "cool"). And, at least when Peter was acting like a jerk in Spider-Man 3, characters called him out on it and/or they didn't approve.

And finally, at least Spider-Man 3 didn't have Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborne in it. Dane DeHaan's performance in TASM2 makes me want to avoid anything he's in for the foreseeable future. I am also glad that I will never, ever see Paul Giamatti in a Spider-Man movie ever again. I don't like Paul Giamatti anyway (he's just an actor that bothers and annoys me, to put it simply), and he was every bit as terrible as I had dreaded. 2 minutes of him is already too much.

The blame with the TASM series seems to be all over the place. And funnily enough, Webb gets too much flak from one side and too little from another. Garfield complains about the execs in an interview and suddenly Sony were the evil studio that destroyed everything. Webb has repeatedly talked in interviews about some of the core ideas from the series: the orphan aspect, the parents, etc. Meaning that some of the bad ideas were his to begin with, or he was on board with that as director. One can blame Sony for X, Y and Z, but there's stuff that was there from the script stage. Electro as a geeky dork. The hidden train lab. Etc. Probably by the initiative of the creative team rather than the executives, as indicated in the DVD commentary. Like it or hate it, that doesn't mean that the films didn't have a style of their own. They did, they tried to be much more timely, youthful and hip. And one can say they copied from Batman or Avengers, but in TASM1 at least there's a lot more from the Ultimate comics than from any of those movies.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

The blame with the TASM series seems to be all over the place. And funnily enough, Webb gets too much flak from one side and too little from another. Garfield complains about the execs in an interview and suddenly Sony were the evil studio that destroyed everything. Webb has repeatedly talked in interviews about some of the core ideas from the series: the orphan aspect, the parents, etc. Meaning that some of the bad ideas were his to begin with, or he was on board with that as director. One can blame Sony for X, Y and Z, but there's stuff that was there from the script stage. Electro as a geeky dork. The hidden train lab. Etc. Probably by the initiative of the creative team rather than the executives, as indicated in the DVD commentary. Like it or hate it, that doesn't mean that the films didn't have a style of their own. They did, they tried to be much more timely, youthful and hip. And one can say they copied from Batman or Avengers, but in TASM1 at least there's a lot more from the Ultimate comics than from any of those movies.

To the emboldened...I don't think people needed to hear a complaint from Garfield to be aware of the fact that Sony didn't have a clue as to what the hell they were doing. Lack of focus in the story, choppy editing, tonal changes, missing plot, making changes during principal photography, etc. etc. I'm not so sure they are evil but they do suck. Mostly Arad and his henchman Tolmach.

For the rest, everyone is to blame. Webb was never the right man for this job because he lacked a basic understanding of the characters from the get-go--something we learned later on. But he was also hired because of his status. Webb was a 'yes' man director, easily bent over by the 'creative' input team of Arad and Tolmach.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think that one of the biggest blunders of TASM2 was that they had a golden ticket with Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Cooper is a fantastic actor, and I think that him as Norman is brilliant casting.

TASM2 wasted him on one scene with ridiculous makeup. Completely wasted him. I was ticked off when he died.

You know how many people on this board feel about The Mandarin in IM3? That's how I feel about how ASM2 handled The Green Goblin.